Move along nothing to see here, Next stop beware of the scarey....

Have you noticed it too?

It seems some force out there stirs up the country about how Obama is going to destroy America. Death Panels, Indoctrinate School Children, Obama's Katrina, Burlington Coat Factor Mosque. The news media and fox news followers get their emotions raised to a fevered pitch.

Then the truth comes to light and we move onto the next big scare whether it is a fake Acorn scare, or 2 black guys scaring away votes form a predominately black inner city voting location, or well we'll have to see what is next, but I am sure it is going to be scarey.

This brings me to one of the earliest scares and rallying cries "Government Motors". You know when mean ole Obama forced all the good people of GM to go into bankruptcy, just so he could socialize the auto industry and payback his union thug buddies.

The Economist provides a rare reconsideration of this as GM announces that they are preparing for an IPO.

Many people thought this bail-out (and a smaller one involving Chrysler, an even sicker firm) unwise. Governments have historically been lousy stewards of industry. Lovers of free markets (including The Economist) feared that Mr Obama might use GM as a political tool: perhaps favouring the unions who donate to Democrats or forcing the firm to build smaller, greener cars than consumers want to buy. The label “Government Motors” quickly stuck, evoking images of clunky committee-built cars that burned banknotes instead of petrol—all run by what Sarah Palin might call the socialist-in-chief.

I recall arguing at the time that President Obama's actions were a result of a very unique set of circumstances that he inherited.  (I will note that he didn't just happen into this job, he actively pursued it)  These actions have now had 18 months to play out.  No one is satisfied with where the economy is currently sitting one can make a very convincing argument that our economic situation could and would have been much much worse.  Like wise one could make an argument (not very convincing in my mind) that a do nothing approach would have been preferred.  What I think no can reasonably make is that Obama's goal is to reign as Socialist in Chief .  The Economist comes to a very similiar conclusion.

Socialists don’t privatise

That does not mean, however, that bail-outs are always or often justified. Straightforward bankruptcy is usually the most efficient way to allow floundering firms to restructure or fail. The state should step in only when a firm’s collapse poses a systemic risk. Propping up the financial system in 2008 clearly qualified. Saving GM was a harder call, but, with the benefit of hindsight, the right one. The lesson for governments is that for a bail-out to work, it must be brutal and temporary. The lesson for American voters is that their president, for all his flaws, has no desire to own the commanding heights of industry. A gambler, yes. An interventionist, yes. A socialist, no.