Knowing what the rules are (ridiculous as they may be) there shouldnt be any excess inventory, at least not after a certain period of time.  

And why shouldn't there be any excess inventory?  Well, because punitive taxes force the business to raise prices to cover the excess costs (or to keep the prices the same and absorb the lost revenue brought by the "sin" tax).  Consumer price sensitivity kicks in, artificially reducing demand (or at the same price, demand stays the same, but the cost of doing business cuts into the razor-thin profit margins).  Businesses are forced to produce less to meet the artificially smaller demand.  Government has interfered in the marketplace, forcing business to slow down production to meet new, artificially lower consumer demand.  The clear intention of government is to dictate what can be produced and sold by making the barriers to entry artificially high.  This is what is known as soft tyranny.  Sure, you can try to produce and sell whatever you want...but we're going to arbitrarily tax and regulate what you produce and sell as heavily as it takes to make it not worth your while to produce and sell it.  Socialism.

As opposed to your trying to equate the two. Neither one is intellectually honest. As I said earlier,having policies containing socialist elements does not mean our economic model is based on socialism.

Actually, my argument is intellectually honest.  The principle currently in play is the good, old-fashioned slippery slope.  When supplemental gasoline taxes are enforced with the proceeds subsidizing low-demand public transportation operations (like buses), lower-demand public transportation projects (like light rail in California) and government-mandated "alternative" energy sources...instead of high-demand highway construction and improvement...you have the government stealing from the taxpayer to fund pet infrastructure projects and increase the influence of centralized government on individual liberty.  If this intrusion is tolerated, there will be more to come.  When you have a party that believes it has a mandate to unleash "universal 'health care'" on the people, you bet that socialism will be the dominant economic system in this country.  Without my consent, the Federal Government is going to require that I pay into this "health care" system, and it is going to employ all the requisite parasite tactics ("sin" taxes, service rationing, etc.) to regulate what I can eat, drink, smoke, drive and buy for the benefit of the collective.  Even without the seemingly inevitable "mandatory exercise", this puts us deep into the socialism tank.

As far as the bailouts are concerned the government isn't mandating giving tax payer money to the UAW or Big 3 or the finance sector in order to gain control,  those entities are BEGGING for the money. 

Big difference.

Actually, that's exactly what the government is doing.  If it was up to the American people (which it isn't), the government would simply allow the Big 3 to slip into Chapter 11 reorganization so that they can reemerge in a stronger position going forward.  This would allow the Big 3 to restructure the unsustainable labor contracts that have been dragging these companies down for years.  But the Democrats (and some spineless Republicans) have constituents to placate, so they will not allow this perfectly reasonable solution to take place.  The bailout is designed for two purposes: 1) to maintain the status quo regarding compensation for the UAW goons and 2) to force the car companies to meet the unreasonable expectations of the eco-Marxists with regard to what cars can and cannot be produced.  The entities you speak of (the unions and the CEOs) are begging for the bailout out of self-interest and self-preservation...the PR stunts pulled by the CEOs (the grounding of the private jets, the carpooling, the promotion of dog hybrid cars, etc.) are merely promises by the Big 3 that they will bow to the will of Congressional Democrats when it comes to how they operate the businesses once they redistribute our money to cover their losses.  The Federal Government's gaining operational control of these companies is a condition of the bailout...a bailout that the underwriters (i.e. the taxpayers) are against.  From each, according to his ability (the taxpayer), to each, according to his need (Ford, GM, Chrysler and the UAW).

"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." -Ronald Reagan

fitzfong.blogspot.com