Short version using 9 bullet points
* The right (or anyone) is hypocritical for not opposing the Fed's recent bailout of Wall Street when the right was so hateful of the bailout in 2008.
* The right will claim it's different this time because we have to stop the CV.
* I say the right should have stuck with their belief that the CV was just overblown by the lib media so a bailout would never be needed. They've done a flip flop from 2008 by supporting today's bailout.
* The right will say it's different this time because of sudden changes in the level of danger of the CV.
* I'll say it's more like the right wants to prop up the rich on Wall Street.
* The right will say the bailout will help the poor and middle class.
* I'll say the right opposed that very same argument back in 2008 when the Fed used it.
* And finally in 2008 the right said to let the big companies fail. But you don't hear them saying that about today's Wall Street big companies.
* Oh and my Ace In The Hole: Distribute the $trillion+ infusion on a local level more directly to the middle class and poor. No need for Reagan style & 2008 style trickle down.
Could've been shorter I guess but here's the extended version.
So the trillion+ dollar infusion in the markets for the last two days by the Fed is being called the 2nd Bailout. But this time it seems many or most conservatives support it since it may help them in the November election. But they may use another term besides bailout in public.
Is that a bit hypocritical considering many and possibly most of them were so against it in 2008? They'll say it's different this time because it's a health thing. Maybe they are right, idk. Not that I agree with them. This probably got mentioned in the thread, haven't read all of it.
By Pam Martens and Russ Martens: March 12, 2020 ~ Making the most unprecedented announcement in the history of Wall Street, the Federal Reserve Bank of
wallstreetonparade.com
Edit:
Ok here's what I'll say if conservatives or anyone for that matter says it's not hypocritical as I mentioned above. I'll simply say that Trump and his supporters should have stuck with their convictions that CV in the US is not that big of a deal as the liberal media was claiming.
That would mean imho there would be no need for a trillion+ dollar infusion. And by not sticking to their guns (convictions) they are being hypocritical and thus they are doing a flip flop. And I'll keep responding with that every time someone claims it's not hypocritical because it's "'different" due to the CV. I rarely call anyone hypocritical but this time I can as outlined above. And by using those terms it wouldn't even be a personal attack. Anyway the forum may have mostly progressives so it may not amount to much in the way of posts.
So I figure the main argument by the right or anyone against me on this issue will be the realization of the health dangers changed. And so the bailout (or infusion) is ok and not a flip flop when comparing it to the bailout in 2008. To counter that I can get under their skin on either side by pointing out they are supporting the rich on Wall Street.
And if they say the infusion will help lower income and middle class people I'll simply say that's the same argument used by supporters of the 2008 Bailout. But the conservatives in general did not buy that argument or disliked it back in 2008. So it's hypocritical to support it now. And they will go back to their it's to fight against the CV argument. And I'll say they're propping up the fat cats and so it will go on and on.
Ok and a last tidbit I can't resist to mention is the right saying back in 2008 to "let the big corporations fail, they deserve it." That's how much they disliked the 1st Bailout. But they're not saying to let Wall Street with its big corps to fail in 2020.
Ah almost forgot the right thing to do is distribute the $trillion+ infusion on a local level more directly to the middle class and poor. Otherwise you have a Reagan style & 2008 style trickle down function for the rich.