If one were to argue how it is that President Bush’s “bailout” of the auto industry and B.O.’s bailout of everything else on the planet (save for Israel) is different he would probably make the mistake of a lifetime.
So, here goes.
Republicans resoundingly call the GM bailout every bit as bad as B.O.’s socialism.
I say there are are distinctions that do not bear that out.
In my moral upbringing, I was taught by disciples of my Master to “follow the spirit of the law, and not the letter”; of course, too much of a good thing and you wind up with rampant liberalism, and the libertine has no regard for the law at all.
But where there are “special cases” some leeway is suggested; (for example, protecting a harlot from stoning by men who by night frequent their brothels, or by giving 3 million workers in an industry that affects all of the economy a “leg up”. contrast this with writing a blank check to an industry that makes very little money and does nothing but complain in print about solid economic policy and proclaim the virtue of socialist tripe).
This is where I think the distinction can be made.
To the liberal, there can never be enough bailing out. They would bail all the way down to the scoundrels who own apartment complexes that they could not afford but that ACORN encouraged them to buy anyhow.
They want to bail everyone out, collapse the economy and make this a truly socialist system where we have no choice but to eat government cheese. Does not matter if you are a slum lord or a yellow journalist, they don’t care. Their money flows like new wine.
On the other hand, GM has until March to illustrate how our “investment” in them (excuse me, President Bush’s investment in them) has demonstrated a rate of return.
There is payback in the plan.
Does anyone talk of payback where the newspaper industry is concerned?
I know they are talking about bailing out the NY Times and plenty of others, but interestingly, I have not heard a peep about Fox News. Guess they are doing alright. Maybe the rest of the industry should use them as a model (or how about Rush Limbaugh – would he not also be considered a part of the media? Do hear him asking for a handout?).
Well, there is my distinction.
What President Bush has offered is, first, not all of what the auto execs asked for, and second, tied to many conditions which have to be met. It is quintessentially the same as the Chrysler “bailout” way back when.
For some Republicans to equate it to socialism is, I believe, extreme.
No one has known for certain what will happen in this extreme economy, but this much I can tell you – if you put more stress on a dam that is already leaking, you risk rupturing the whole dam.
Three million workers seems like a pretty big number to me, and I bet, like allowing the water levels to remain high on a dam that needs repair – adding that many workers to the unemployment lines might just be the pressure required to burst the economy.
Now I bet that would leave a big depression in its wake.
Conversely, where are any conditions on the B.O. bailouts? All they talk about is getting the water out of the boat; they say nothing about how to keep it from coming back in, or how to keep it afloat, and even further where they will sail it to and how they will make money using the freighter.
They could haul air for all his administration is concerned (and where the news industry is concerned, I think that is exactly what they are doing and little else – hot air).
So there you go.
A foolish man makes a comparison-contrast of the subtle yet distcint differences between “W” and “B.O.” .