Perhaps that’s true, but I don’t get the sense that this is the root of the brother’s complaint, or his problem. If the worst we could say about the brother was that he was worried in a spirit of love that the father’s actions would not help the prodigal fix his life, I don’t think we would speak badly about the other son in the first place.

Blake: Is the parable of the prodigal son about charity (meaning pure love) either? After we give our money to the government, it is the Government’s money, not ours. The Father owned the money, not me.

I guess I am checking my self. I do want to use my very small roll in the collective to do good, but I do not want to Covet the governments money or the “good” that the poor are getting. Doing so is backwards.

Kim: I wouldn’t know a SSI from an SI(sports illustrated). This is part of my problem. What forms of Welfare work, and what forms just perpetuate societal ills? If we give a 5 year old just enough money and food to grow up and be a crappy adult, have we really helped that child?
(I do understand the idea of first aid coming first, but the question is where is the line between life saving and perpetuating life)

Once again, the parable of the prodigal son has nothing to do with coercive government bailout programs or charity. Charity is — one and all — not a coercive government program and it becomes impossible to give charity if the means to do so are already taken by the government through coercion of law. Note — government programs and charity have nothing to do with each other. When I give out of charity I decide who and how much. When the government takes to redistribute, it decides who and how much and whether. That isn’t charity folks. Failing to make this distinction is the basis for saying I don’t have to give more because I gave it all to the government who chooses to be charitable for me.

I don’t think the parable is a perfect fit, but I think it is close enough that I see your point clearly. When I apply the parable to this situation as you have done, I’m not sure the message is that we should be happy about the bailouts, but I do think it tells us that if we really love the people who are in financial trouble, we will forgive them for making stupid choices and we will want to help them. That’s why I think this line is the most telling of your post:

I just don’t believe that what we are giving is helping.

Bingo.

That is why:

1. Savings and capital gains taxes should be calculated after adjusting the principal for inflation. Taxing nominal gains where there hasn’t been any real increase in value is a sure fire way to discourage savings.

2. The mortgage interest deduction should be eliminated and income tax rates reduced to compensate, so the average tax burden doesn’t go up. The current deduction encourages excessive borrowing and investment in housing.

3. Tax deferred savings plans (IRA/401K) should be encouraged and the statutory limits increased.

4. The double taxation of dividends and capital gains should be eliminated.

5. The tax deduction for health care expenses should be transferred from employers to individuals to allow individuals to have greater control over their own health insurance.

6. The social security system should be changed into a government guarantee / safety net for a mandatory, private, conservative investment plan. Currently Congress just lends itself the money raised from social security, spends it, and promises to raise taxes in the future to cover the difference. That is consumption now, pain later.

I liked this quote from 2006: “The basic problem with the US economy is we have too much consumption and borrowing and not enough production and saving.”

Turns out this Schiff guy was very right on several counts.

Anyhow, I think most of the commenters here (except ed42 who managed to butcher the analogy beyond recognition) make pretty good points about the prodigal hitting rock bottom before coming home.

The thing is I give my money to the Government with the understanding that they are going to do what is best for all of us collectively. The Prodigal son gave of himself to his Father with the understanding it would benefit him in the long run. The Government and the Father do what they will with their money, which is theirs, and I, the other son, have no right to tell them what to do and not to do, I have my ability to vote, but that’s it. (And yes, I know my vote is meaningless, all you skeptics!) And I say, hey, that’s my fatted calf! I was gonna feed my children’s children with that!

And to top it off, I see my brother saying he needs help, but what’s the first thing he does when he gets help, he parties like it’s 1999!

I think the prodigal son does apply.

Oh and BiV, It’s not that bad, I have new dreams, and I’m only 31. I’m not quite old enough to say I’ve wasted my life yet.

I think you chose a path that allows you to finance your dreams, rather than shifting the funding to others – if you really want to pursue those dreams. However, I think the reality you’ve received (your MIL’s cooking to begin with – and she makes some danged good red beans & rice) is probably better than your dream.