Motley Moose – Archive

Since 2008 – Progress Through Politics

I Don’t Get It.

I wasn’t phased when the federal government stepped in to help Bear Sterns.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are quasi-governmental institutions. It makes total sense that the government would step in to help out.

Today, I learned that AIG is too big to fail. Fair enough. I don’t have a problem taking steps to avoid a global financial crisis.

What I don’t understand is this. Why is it that our Republican president who believes in the free market and rugged individualism doesn’t hesitate to rescue a big corporation after poor management sends it into bankruptcy while he remains completely opposed to government action to provide health care for some of the 46 million Americans that cannot afford health insurance?

Can somebody please tell me why corporate welfare–$84 billion for AIG–for rich businessmen who made bad economic decisions is acceptable while spending $30 billion so that poor children can have health insurance is unacceptable?

Photobucket

Not Worthy of Receiving Welfare

Photobucket

Worthy of Receiving Welfare

Am I the only one who is confused?


Categories: Uncategorized.

/ 20 Comments

20 comments

  2. Peter Jukes

    Great diary Drew. The moral bankruptcy is astonishing. Yes, the rich get bailed out while the middle classes get their homes foreclosed. This freebie market is completely fucking rigged. I believe in fair and open markets, but republicans policy – it’s SOCIALISM FOR THE RICH

  3. trustno1

    Why do they keep saying that deregulation works?  It just reminds me of the toys that walk into walls, over and over again…maybe this time it will go through.  No?  Okay, maybe next time.  No?  Okay, maybe next time…

  4. sanguine giant

    The people at AIG donate money and vote for republicans,

    The uninsured don’t donate money and as a group tend to vote for democrats.

  5. alyssa chaos

    ended with the invention of freddie and fannie, the premise of a government sponsored enterprise negates the whole idea behind a free market. it was cemented when they went down and we bailed their asses out.  

    the thing is once you bail out one corporate giant all the rest of them expect some kind of gov. assistance. where does it stop? [it doesn’t]

    Bush and the republicans have hit a new low.

    This should be made into an ad—

    Can somebody please tell me why corporate welfare–$84 billion for AIG–for rich businessmen who made bad economic decisions is acceptable while spending $30 billion so that poor children can have health insurance is unacceptable?

  6. SusieQ

    And don’t forget that people are still losing their homes . . .

    I remember when I was growing up in the 80s and the words “trickle-down economics” were everywhere. People knew what the repub economic agenda was–there was no hedging, no prevaricating. Reagan and PapaBush wanted to cut taxes for the rich to free up capital and grow the economy. Period.

    With McCain’s lack of an actual agenda (“Don’t Regulate. No, I mean regulate. “Tax the rich. No, I mean don’t tax the rich.” “Don’t bail out AIG. No, I mean bail them out.”), I’m not surprised that Obama can’t get a simple, effective economic message out. McCain and the conservatives have, once again, destroyed all meaning. Obama is right to try to get the “trickle-down” language back into play but, until the media is willing to actually report some fact, his words will fall on deaf ears.

    Makes me so angry, I think I’m going to have to go make some phone calls and knock on some doors for Obama.

  7. John Allen

    until the market fails, then they want the taxpayer to bail them out. This whole mess is the result of Republican policies.. It can be laid at the feet of the Republican idol of trickle-down economics and deregulation. We must get this message out there. Obama was hammering on it in Elko, NV today. Let’s hope the message sinks in with low-info voters.

Comments are closed.