There were a couple of things that came up in comments that I thought bear repeating in a separate post.

One is this: check out the view of an economist I've been reading for a long time and whom I trust, Arnold Kling. Bottom line:

The risks of enacting the plan are far worse than the risks of doing nothing.

I realize that there are times when the urge to "do something!" becomes irresistible. An economic crisis weeks before an election is surely one of those times. But that does not mean that doing something is the thing to do. Sometimes, not doing something is the thing to do. It ought to at least be considered as an option. The problem is, when hysteria rules, one of the most common popular cries is what?

The government just sat there, doing nothing!

This was reflected in a column I saw by Rochelle Riley in yesterday's Detroit Free Press, titled "Candidates fiddle while Rome burns." Among other things, she says this:

While Rome burns, I don't want to hear the gladiators fight about who, why and wherefore of the Iraq war. That ticking sound we hear isn't counting down the days since the surge changed life in Baghdad. It is the sound of America's economy nearing Armageddon.

Even if we accept the historically problematic analogy to Nero, what is being forgotten is that the economic "fire" under discussion is in large part a fire the government started, whether intentionally or not. Unlike the Great Fire of Rome, which was falsely rumored to have been started by Nero, whose persecution of Christians was described by Tacitus as an attempt to stop the rumors by shifting blame. At any event, there were no fiddles in ancient Rome, so Nero could not have "fiddled" during the Great Fire any more than Governor Roosevelt could have gone on TV in 1929 to discuss the Great Crash. (And no, that is not a moral equivalency argument!)

But hey, if the Great Fire analogy won't work, I guess there's always Armageddon.

Anything to get the government to "do something!" What if the government has already done something? What if it has already done too much, and that any more will be like throwing gasoline on a fire uner the mistaken belief that it is water?

What's the hurry?

Anyway, amidst the endless talk about endless bailouts, and the immediate need for the government to do something, I have a nagging question -- especially for those who think "the government" is a blank check.

Who will bail out the bailout?

Or, if we look at the government the way a college kid looks at daddy's money, "What happens when Daddy's check bounces?"

Why aren't these questions being asked? It's as if everyone is making a kneejerk assumption that the money is there to bail everything out and make everything OK. Yes, of course it is there. Why? Because, well, it just has to be there! Because, like, this is the United States and everything, and the government is just so huge and has so much money it's awesome man! The government has enough money to bail out everything, and if they run short, why they can always print more, right? And if that doesn't work they can always take it from the rich people, all those fat cats who've stolen it from the government and the poor people, right? So it's like, there will always be plenty of money to bail everything out, because all money comes from the government and like if it weren't for the government printing it you wouldn't even get the money they let you take home with your paycheck!

This is why the bailout beats doing nothing, even if it's the wrong thing.

Unfortunately, telling people what they want to hear is just as important now as it was in Nero's time.

And where it comes to "economic issues," the Democrats are far better at telling people whatever they want to hear than are Republicans.

MORE: Speaking of the "Do something now!" mentality, Ilya Somin has the Bailout Quote of the Day, from Mike Pence: "I must tell you, there are those in the public debate who have said that we must act now. The last time I heard that, I was on a used-car lot," said Rep. Mike Pence, R-Indiana. "The truth is, every time somebody tells you that you've got to do the deal right now, it usually means they're going to get the better part of the deal." (Via Glenn Reynolds.)

Used car lot? Would that be what Jeff Goldstein means when he says "Obamalot"?