Moot?

The BGLFRP question is: "should government -- the US government in particular -- take on the responsibility of helping out those who won't or can't support themselves"?

Personally, I think the US is wealthy enough that there's room for a "yes" or at least a "sometimes". But there's a very real sense in which this question is moot, because the preliminary question "Can the US govt. help them out?" has not been asked yet.

Thought experiment: Should WorldCom buy -- or be allowed to buy -- AT&T? We could argue about that quite a bit, invoking business strategies, antitrust concerns, etc. But why would we? WorldCom is bankrupt. Kaput. Hasta.

By the rules that govern corporate finance, the United States is essentially bankrupt. The U.S. government has ~$27 trillion in unfunded liabilities that it is obligated to pay (credit: David Emery). "With the entire U.S. GDP in 2006 amounting to only half of the current obligation, the scope of this obligation suggests that it may be impossible to reconcile" (also David).

The only candidate who is even talking about US solvency is Ron Paul. I think we should make him president, get back afloat as a country, and then hold the legitimate debate over the BGLFRP question above.