It’s different when the government bilks you.

Glenn Reynolds today. That's going to be a coda for tonight.

So Obama wants more Stimulus for Greece. Roger Kimball has a modest proposal

OK, fine. Why doesn’t he set an example and invest some yet-to-be-determined billions of dollars from the union pension funds in (for example) Greek bonds? Why doesn’t Paul Krugman, who is always wanting the our government to confiscate more of your money to spend on stuff, allocate, say, 50 percent of his retirement fund to Greek bonds? The New York Times should follow suit, as should other individuals and entities who have been loudly demanding we spend more to “stimulate” our way out of debt. Just a thought . . .

It’s different when the government bilks you.

And it turns out that if Congress used the same rules for calculating debt that it forces the rest of is... well there'd be a few extra trillion dollars worth of debt for this year. Details Details.

Why doesn’t Congress follow the same accounting rules for its unfunded future liabilities that it requires of businesses and lower levels of government? The long answer is that these liabilities are arguably not incurred until the federal government pays them. Congress can change the statutes governing Medicare and Social Security at any time to reduce or eliminate these future liabilities. Therefore, the official budget numbers only account for the liabilities that come due in the same budget cycle. In fact, USA Today gets that exact explanation from an analyst at the progressive Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which tells us where a great deal of the problem originates.

The short answer? Because they want to get re-elected, that’s why. And the same politicians who screech about corporate malpractice and fraud are the same politicians who insist that there really isn’t an entitlement crisis, and that we’ll be totally OK until 2034, or 2068, or the year 2525, if man is still alive and woman can survive, etc etc etc.

It’s different when the government bilks you.

And when it comes to equity... well Obama's got no experince with private equity, but he has a bunch in the last 3 years with public, hey it's different when he spends your money.

After all, if Romney’s record in private equity is fair game, then so is Obama’s record in public equity — and that record is not pretty.

Since taking office, Obama has invested billions of taxpayer dollars in private businesses, including as part of his stimulus spending bill. Many of those investments have turned out to be unmitigated disasters — leaving in their wake bankruptcies, layoffs, criminal investigations and taxpayers on the hook for billions.

See a list of failed "energy" companies that seemed only able to burn money.

Amazingly, Obama has declared that all the projects received funding “based solely on their merits.” But as Hoover Institution scholar Peter Schweizer reported in his book, “Throw Them All Out,” fully 71 percent of the Obama Energy Department’s grants and loans went to “individuals who were bundlers, members of Obama’s National Finance Committee, or large donors to the Democratic Party.” Collectively, these Obama cronies raised $457,834 for his campaign, and they were in turn approved for grants or loans of nearly $11.35 billion. Obama said this week it’s not the president’s job “to make a lot of money for investors.” Well, he sure seems to have made a lot of (taxpayer) money for investors in his political machine.

Clearly, for the right people, investing in Obama, in goverment, is the way to go. You can get a great return for just a little juice!

It’s different when the government bilks you.