Addition To: Life Has Consequences

Here in Ohio, some Republicans are running ads about auto dealerships that were closed in the last couple of years, blaming the closings on Obama and Democrats, and "government takeover of private business." (YIKES! Grab your guns! If they're wearing a hoodie, shoot first, ask questions later! Stand your ground! I couldn't resist that, but these folks make everything seem like the end is near.) Anyway, the ads, similar to Paul Ryan's story of the auto plant closing in his district, are much malarkey. Here's why: many, but not all, Republicans, were opposed to helping the auto industry; at least AFTER Obama was elected. The first money provided to the automakers came under George W. Bush, but the bulk of support came later under Obama. So the idea that these Republicans would have saved these dealerships is just plain dishonest, especially the one in the Cleveland area, who was elected as a sort of Tea Party favorite in 2010, and who "supposedly" opposes bailout of private business of any kind. If General Motors and Chrysler had both gone down, more than just some dealerships would have closed. I sympathize with the dealers who lost their businesses, I truly do, but again, life has consequences. Further, and this is from memory, a dangerous thing, but as I recall in watching some analysts and commentators on CNBC back then, they all pretty much endorsed the general idea of cutbacks in both car models ("brands," if you like) and in dealerships for both GM and Chrysler. For those unfamiliar, CNBC is NBC's cable business channel, with many pro-business commentators. These are NOT left wingers on that channel.

So the questions to the Republican candidates running these ads are, "Did you support auto company bailouts when George W. Bush was President? Did you support auto company bailouts when Obama was President? If you did, then what's the ad about? If not, how would "letting Detroit go bankrupt" have saved these specific auto dealerships?"  Further, the same can be asked about the bank bailouts, as the Republican candidate for the Senate in Ohio is running an ad where he says something to the effect, "both Republican and Democrats who voted for the bank bailouts were wrong." Okay, this guy is the current Treasurer of the State of Ohio. So he's telling me it would have been just dandy if the banking system had collapsed? If you think the economy is slow, you don't know what slow is, if that had happened. You don't have to like the bailouts, and they were a bitter pill, but otherwise the whole financial system, and the economy with it, would have gone down. It may be popular NOW to say how much you're against the bailouts, but you'd have been singing a different tune, if it hadn't been done, and it would have been sung from an unemployment like, if the country were still together and we were lucky enough to have unemployment lines, instead of anarchy. Bush started the bailouts, and indeed, most of the bank bailouts came on his watch, but HE WAS RIGHT! Obama continued the policy, and HE WAS RIGHT! As I said in the original article, "life has consequences," and let me assure you, you would NOT have liked the consequences of letting either the banks or the auto industry collapse. And that goes for those much further out on the political left. They say they want "a new system," but there are serious consequences to such a change, and unless you're ready, willing, and able to accept the loss of your job and potentially any and all comforts you may have, you don't want the system to just fail. Fix it? Yes, it's definitely out of whack. Destroy it? No, unless you're willing to take all of the consequences, something most Americans are not about to do.

WORD HISTORY:
Bail-The ultimate origins of this word are uncertain, but it goes back to Latin "baiulus," a noun with the notion of "carrier, something or someone who transports, or bears a burden." This then produced a verb form "baiulare," meaning "to carry something or bear a burden." Old French, a Latin-based language, inherited a form of the word as "bailler," which meant "to deliver," from the notion of having transported something. English borrowed the word in the 1300s. By that time, the idea of "delivering," had given the word the meaning "take custody or take charge" (when the Post Office delivers a package to you, you "take charge of it"). This idea became involved in law, where a person delivered security (bond) for the delivery ("taking charge") of someone from custody. The term then also took on the meaning of the actual money put up to secure such a release ("bail," or bail money). The meaning "to remove water with a bucket," comes from the same Latin base, with the idea of "implement to carry water;"  thus, "a bucket." This then gave Old French "baille," meaning "bucket." English borrowed the word as "bail" in the early 1600s. This also produced a verb meaning "to bail out water;" that is, "to use a bucket to dip water out."