We already have a Drug Czar (not as cool as you'd think) and an Intelligence Czar (see previous), but a Car Czar, now that's just czrazy. Here's another czrazy thing. As we wrote earlier, socialism/communism/Russiaism is literally the greatest threat facing America right now, which the NY Times understands:
...what Mr. Obama went on to describe was a long-term bailout that would be conditioned on federal oversight. It could mean that the government would mandate, or at least heavily influence, what kind of cars companies make, what mileage and environmental standards they must meet and what large investments they are permitted to make — to recreate an industry that Mr. Obama said “actually works, that actually functions.”
It all sounds perilously close to a word that no one in Mr. Obama’s camp wants to be caught uttering: nationalization.[emphasis added for emphasis]
Nationalization! Oh noes! This evil Car Czar will czrush czapitalism! The definition book proves it:
czar /zɑr, tsɑr/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [zahr, tsahr] Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. an emperor or king.
2. (often initial capital letter) the former emperor of Russia.
Does no one see the virus living inside our government that will eat our intestines (Czongress) and leave us for dead?!
So, here's an actual question: is this a good idea? Here's the answer: no body knows. After last week's disastrous employment report, Andrew Leonard from Salon wrote this:
The numbers may compel me to revise my position on an automaker bailout, yet again. Right now, keeping our major industries afloat, at least through the next few months, may be critical, no matter how much money it takes.
When David Angelo sees that quote he will go apoplectic, so watch for that in comments (we love you buddy!). Then those bastards at The Nation have this to say:
Or, for instance, if we are to bail out the auto industry, which we should--millions of jobs, businesses, communities, and what's left of once powerful and proud unions are at stake--then why not talk about its nationalization too? Why not create a representative body of workers, consumers, environmentalists, suppliers and other interested parties to supervise the industry's reorganization and retooling to produce, just as the president-elect says he wants, new green means of transportation--and not just cars?
You shut up, The Nation. That's all we got.
These are czomplicated times, folks. Stick with us, and we'll fake learn about things together.
1 comment:
Ugh. These statements drive me bonkers: 'keeping our major industries afloat, at least through the next few months, may be critical, no matter how much money it takes.'
So, the argument is: by destroying our currency we are avoiding the much scarier prospect of letting a failed business go bankrupt.
Yeah, because propping up a company that can't support itself will help the economy. BAH
These issues are not complicated. Use the smallest bit of common sense. THE WHOLE PROBLEM - THE SINGLE ISSUE TO CONTEND WITH - is spending through credit. You don't make that problem go away by creating more debt. It's the hot soundbyte right now to say "well, if we dont do something it will get worse." Yes and no. If you just amplify the original mistakes, it intensifies the pain. Spending on credit it our problem. case closed.
There's too much distance between this bailout and the average citizen. YOU are paying General Motors. I certainly do not want to give them any of my money - their cars suck and that's not how this 'capitalism' thing works. What a disgrace.
Post a Comment