This transcript is helpful:
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2009/01/21/nr.sanchez.slater.limbaugh.cnn
It is clear that Limbaugh is either mistaken about Obama or he is using a straw man argument (a logical fallacy http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html)
Limbaugh states: "Look, what [Obama]'s talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the US government as possible, from the banking business, to the mortgage industry, the automobile business, to health care."
That is emphatically not true. If Obama favored those policies, I would be against him too. In particular, no one wants to see the U.S. government in the banking business or the automobile business. But Bush was forced to prop of these businesses with loans and stock purchases. For the time being Obama must follow. We all hope they return the loans and the government gets out of their business as quickly as possible. However, during the time the government is the majority shareholder, or the top lender, it must have a controlling interest! Otherwise they will just steal the money. I fear they are doing that already, because some of the deals Bush cut gave the Feds non-voting stock, which is insane. It is like wearing a big sign on your back saying "steal from me!"
Previous government "bail outs" worked out surprisingly well. The government got all its money back plus interest. The AIG bailout is doing well. The government has taken 80% of the stock, and it is charging high interest for the loans as well, so whether the company recovers or dies, the government will likely get back most of the money. The company is, in effect, liquidating in an orderly fashion, paying back the government billions of dollars every month. I expect there will be nothing left of it, but the liquidation is orderly, meaning the divisions and properties they sell of are not going at fire-sale prices. This is far different from "giving away money to bankers and insurance companies" as has been claimed by some opponents.
- Jed
