Does anyone else have that feeling of deja vu? Wasn’t it only a couple of months ago that we were talking bailouts and recovery plans? Actually, it wasn’t even two months ago when we were all debating the wisdom of a $700 billion Wall Street “stabilization plan.”

Next in line for a government handout are the U.S.’s big three auto makers: Ford, Chrysler and GM.

They make a fairly good case. The proposed $25 billion “rescue” would safeguard an industry that accounts for around 4 percent of the U.S.’s GDP (Gross Domestic Product). A collapse of this industry could mean the loss of nearly 3 million American jobs and create a domino effect, putting industry suppliers out of business as well.

I’ve heard that it would actually cost the U.S. government around $60 billion in lost tax revenue, Social Security and payouts in unemployment and federal assistance in the first year alone. Maybe $150 billion in lost taxes by the end of three years.

When you look at these numbers, $25 billion seems like a bargain to maintain economic stability and all of those jobs. So, why then is this such a controversial issue?

First of all, we’ve heard this “it’s an investment, not a bailout” tune before. It’s starting to get old. Where will it end? If we keep handing out money to subsidize these businesses, large or small, that are failing to stay afloat in the competitive market, who will be the next to approach Congress with their hand out?

In my mind, I picture a federal bailout version of the Golden Arches. Instead of the number of patrons served, I see the billions of tax dollars expended.

There is also strong sentiment that these industrial giants should not be rewarded for their corporate inefficiencies. The U.S. has a tendency to be highly critical of other countries who do subsidize their industries.