This country has lost its collective f*ing mind - KING Paulson, the bailout, and cars

[ProfessorPlum]

First of all, how is a bailout of the auto industry going to bring us better American made cars? It won’t. Why not let those companies fail, and invest government money in new startup car manufacturers who want to really innovate? Electric cars, cars using light polymers, hybrid cars, hydrogen powered cars, biofuel cars – go nuts! Make something new! Try some different things, make vehicles that actually work with the environment. Let the market decide – isn’t that what everyone is always bloviating about? And won’t those new companies quickly hire up the displaced workers from the big three to do their manufacturing? The fact that it is the Democratic party advocating for this bailout shows there is no monopoly on bad ideas – its just that the GOP has most of them.

If our tax money goes to the auto companies, will we each get a free car? Honestly, what is the benefit to us? And since we’re all into socialism now with the government fiddling in all of our businesses, why can’t we just take the records profits that the OIL companies have reaped in the last few years and use THAT money to bail out the car companies? After all, it’s the oil companies that keep the auto manufacturers from doing anything sane.

Finally, this whole “bailout” fiasco . . . Paulson puts $7000 on a Chinese credit card for every American household and promises to use that money to buy up bad debt to stop the “crisis”. Well, he’s given half of that money away already, and this week he announced that IT DIDN’T WORK and so now he’s going to be doling out the rest of the money in whatever way he sees fit, to whomever he chooses. Congress voted for that money to be spent in a certain way, but now KING Paulson is going to decide who gets it. Naturally, everyone is lining up, hat in hand, to get some of that sweet taxpayer money. The auto industry, CREDIT CARD COMPANIES(!), this morning I heard a story that the mayor of Philadelphia thinks $50 billion of that money should go to struggling cities. Well, you know what? CONGRESS is supposed to control money in this government. NOT SOME F*ING IDIOT exCEO of a failed company whose only qualification is that he is a crony to the Bushies. Honestly, what brilliant decisions has Paulson ever made that would lead us to believe he deserves to be doling out OUR money? He ran Goldman Sachs into the ground with all of his buying up of bad mortgage debt, and they’d be out on their asses if he hadn’t swooped in with a sack full of our money to save them. And THIS is the guy, the one man, who is now empowered to give our tax money away? Isn’t that supposed to be the power of the House of Representatives? And the Democrats who control the House ran, no, demanded, to give that power away to that bald, ignorant f*ck. Why?

[ixion]

1. well said... I agree

:applause:

[MelissaB]

7. Sign my name, too.

I can't believe what is happening. Somebody had better step up to the plate and take control.

Edited to say: It needs to be somebody sane and with a brain to lead us out of this mess.

[Postman]

2. What's being bald got to do with it?

Other than that. spot on.

[ProfessorPlum]

4. You are right - my apologies to the follicularly challenged

it has nothing to do with Paulson's stupidity, just a way to identify the guy in a crowd.

[Bake]

30. When you reach a certain age, your hair starts growing inward

If it hits gray metter, it turns gray. If it hits rock, it runs loose!

I guess we know what Paulson's hair hit.

:rofl:

Bake

(Kidding, of course. My hairline is in retreat too!)

[TankLV]

48. and it has nowhere to go but out the ears and nose and shoulders...!

[acmavm]

3. As Helen Thomas pointed out the other day, Detroit totally retooled

in 4 days to enable the west to win WWII. So why the fuck would we tear everything down and start from scratch when we could take what we have and put it in line with today's needs? Why put all those people out of work when we could just change the way they're working?

[ProfessorPlum]

5. But they aren't f*ing doing that, are they?

Does the government have to ORDER them to do it before they will do it? If they can't do it themselves, as a survival technique, they shouldn't survive. Giving them a bunch of money will just make them continue on in their same old ways.

[acmavm]

8. And what is the problem about the government making requirements

if they give the auto industry money? Why is that a problem for you? Do you think that's unreasonable? Why, if we can turn an American industry around should we do just that? It's the last one we have. Shall we kill it off too?

Hey professor plum, are you employed? Do you have a place to go every day to earn a paycheck? It's always easy for those that have to demand that someone else should be shut out in the cold. Is that they case with you?

[ProfessorPlum]

12. Look, I don't want those auto workers to suffer any more than they already have

But if a company is "too big to fail" then it is too big to exist. I'll happily pay taxes so that those workers can be kept warm and fed until they get a new job a company that is actually economically viable - of which there would be many if our auto industry wasn't essentially a monopoly. And now apparently a government run monopoly, to boot.

[acmavm]

35. So you are saying that General Motors can't be made

economically viable, that we have to throw out the baby with the bathwater?

And welfare is not a solution.

edit: to add here's another serious problem:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3601201

This crisis is taking down more than GM. It's taking down GM's suppliers as well. Do you think that's a good thing too?

[Hannah Bell]

50. They're doing it: in China, Russia & India. Building lots of new plant there.

[Auggie]

10. Vehicles are way more sophisticated these days.

Helen is living in the past.

[ellenfl]

6. i had this discussion last night with a gm retiree.

he said the car companies built suvs because the public wanted them. :eyes: i told him that if the companies had done the right thing in the 70s, they would be doing fine right now. if all they offered were fuel efficient autos, that's what everyone would be driving, the car companies would be competitive . . . and toyota and honda would not be corralling the market as we speak. he reluctantly agreed.

my 2 main car-buying criteria (and the reason i have owned few american-made cars) are fuel efficiency and reliability . . . always has been, always will be. i am advised by my gm friend that the days of 'planned obsolescence' by automobile manufacturers is dead, but i'm from missouri . . . show me.

ellen fl

[mirror wall]

9. What happens to the 3 million autoworkers who stand to lose their jobs?

This particular aspect of the bailout is the morally trickiest to me. Not because I think that management of the Big Three are worthy of anything other than a public tar and feathering or that the plan would actually stimulate change. But, honestly, where do those 3million workers who have high union wages, health plans and pensions go? That's what scare the shit out of me.

Maybe if they altered the bill to toss all of the failed leadership out and install a fresh set of people, that'd make it better.

Or maybe we could just let the Big Three fail and those workers could be put to work on some New Deal-esque infrastructure work or something, but three million people is SHIT TON of people to have lose their jobs...

This whole mess is incredibly complicated.

[ProfessorPlum]

15. Those folks ought to get together and form new companies

to build new products. I know the line workers don't have the capital for that, but the auto industry is a huge, money-making product. Is no one willing to jump in with new designs, invest in better cars, competitive cars, smart cars, and hire those people with their manufacturing experience up? I would, if I had the money to invest.

[mirror wall]

18. This is no climate to be starting new businesses in.

That's a pipe dream that's even more out there than the pipe dream-y solutions I posited. Even if starting a new company were a possibility, it wouldn't help every single worker that got laid off. What happens to the 54 year old machinist who was due to retire in a few years? Now he's lost his pension, his job and his is neither young enough to be an attractive employee or old enough to really retire.

That hypothetical actually happened to my ex's father and mother when their 3M plant closed down in North Dakota. They both ended up working shit hours for shit wages with no health care and no pensions at WAL MART. Because there were no other employment options in their town and the housing market was already so depressed that they could not sell their home without taking a huge hit. They have no savings for retirement and his mom can't get preventative checkups to see if her breast cancer has returned.

That's the kind of shit I'm worried about. These are not bankers we're talking about, these are working class people. That's why I think this aspect is different from the others. We're staring down the soup kitchen lines here, people. This is serious. We are talking about THREE MILLION UNEMPLOYED AMERICANS. That is almost too awful to fully comprehend.

[ProfessorPlum]

22. There is plenty of money to take care of people with

Paulson is personally sitting on $300 billion of it. What I don't get is why we are contemplating having the government bail out these companies, which have made every possible bad decision as far as being competitive goes.

[mirror wall]

29. That's an excellent point.

And I wish that something like that would happen. But with people like Emanuel and Podesta helping O call the shots, I'm pretty doubtful that something so unprecedented and unpalatable to the corporate powers that be will actually occur. Has there ever been a precedent to that kind of scheme? I don't think so. The only options I see are still long shots-- infrastructure building or ousting all Detroit management while retaining the workforce.

That being said, I don't think any of that is going to happen. I think we're looking at 3 million unemployed union members fighting with each other for work at Wal Mart. And that fucking sucks.

[taught_me_patience]

53. Where do you get this 3MM unemployed americans crap?

Totally not true. Please cite your sources. I'm guessing that it depends on the total liquidation on GM, F, and Chrysler. BANKRUPTCY DOES NOT MEAN LIQUIDATION! Please learn about bankruptcy laws before screaming like a chicken little. In the last 50 years, I can't think of any liquidation of a major manufacturing company.

[mirror wall]

67. Totally IS true.

I got it from here: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/economy-watch/2008/11/report_3m_jobs_lost_with_autom.html and many other mainstream sources.

Now you please source your claim that the failure of these companies wouldn't result in huge job loss.

[taught_me_patience]

74. Look at the source

The Center for Automotive Research said this morning that if Detroit's (former) Big Three -- GM, Ford and Chrysler -- fail, it will mean the loss of 3 million jobs across the entire auto sector in the first year of collapse.


It's from the "Center for Automotive Research", which is funded by the auto companies! Completely biased source of information. Next, look at the scenario... 50% reduction in production, one company completely liquidated, and a merger of the other two. THIS IS COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE. Please familiarize yourself with bankruptcy laws. GM and F cars will be around for our lifetimes.

[Hannah Bell]

62. But you're a normal person, & you don't have the cash. The people with the cash

are moving it elsewhere, like they moved it out of the industrial north, & don't give a rip. Not for your good ideas, not for your future.

[pampango]

17. Heck, how much would it take to buy controlling interest in GM? Its stock is at what? $2?

Then the government would own and run GM, as it now does AIG. It would appoint new management who would, hopefully, have more enlightened management ideas than those exhibited over the past few decades.

This seems simpler than loaning them billions of dollars with a hundred strings attached, each of which would be subject to lawyers looking for loopholes and us the lenders micromanaging a large company from afar. Better to buy it and install the managers that we want.

[ProfessorPlum]

20. Yeah, but then the government has to run a business

and governments are crappy at that.

[pampango]

23. I tend to agree that governments are crappy at running businesses

(which doesn't bode well for AIG). Given the ineptness of GM's management, though, I'm not sure that they wouldn't be better - at least for a while after which they could sell GM back to the public.

Since GM's executives are bad at running a business also, perhaps they have a future in politics or the government bureaucracy ;)

[ProfessorPlum]

24. :) No doubt

[LSK]

44. they are??? Do you not get your mail? have you water safe? get your social securtiy check on time???

Why the fuck have you bought into right wing nonsense?????????

[Greyhound]

45. That is a reich-wing lie. The government runs businesses at least as well

and more efficiently that private corporations, two examples are medicare and USPS. Both deliver service that is superior to their private counterparts at a small fraction of the cost (about 1/10th), even after 8 years of concerted effort to kill them.

[JVS]

58. they couldn't do worse than those currently running the auto companies.

[bigtree]

11. I'm with you on the outrage

The Bush administration has the notion that buying up assets of these banks is an investment . . . even though there's nothing ensuring that these companies will even exist in the same form when they're expected to turn a profit and make the worthless assets the government bought from them whole again.

And, as for any relief for the rest of us - the vast 90% or so who live and work in the middle class - nothing but miserly indifference from the administration. Bright idea to give the Bush administration a slush fund to feather their faltering golden parachutes.

[ProfessorPlum]

13. Exactly - not only is there nothing ensuring that,

but we have memos and phone calls from government employees ASSURING the banks that those added "regulations" were toothless and easily ignored. What a crappy idea. Can someone tell me why Obama and all of the Democratic leadership supported this?

[wroberts189]

14. credit card bailout ..outrage squared to the highest power n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

16. It isn't the companies, it is the manufacturing capacity.

GM folds and there isn't anyone out there with the skills and money to start over. GM took 100 years to develop to the point they are.

I don't really care if bankruptcy and restructuring is the fix, but GM (even if under a new name) should continue operations, and continue production of the volt and R&D on new efficient transportation.

[ProfessorPlum]

19. Cool - let them do it without taxpayers' money.

[jjanpundt]

21. What I don't understand is what is the problem with GM declaring

bankruptcy and reorganizing? The parts of the company that are profitable would be sold off to other entities, which would give them some cash to work with. There may be some layoffs, but I don't think all 2 million employees would be laid off immediately. If they toss out the blockheaded execs that got them into this mess, maybe it would open the door for more progressive designers and engineers, etc.

One one of the morning shows a guest - Stabenow I think - referred to it as a "bridge" loan similar to the loan made to Chrysler in 1979 or 1980. There were plenty of strings attached to Chrysler's loan and she said this loan would have similar strings. she also said the UAW members had agreed to accept lower wages - from $28/hour to $14/hour, and that the UAW would be assuming the debt for health care costs. I'm much less outraged if that is what is really being requested.

[mirror wall]

31. They have 46million dollars in outstandiing debts.

From what I understand, that's a Big Problem when it comes to bankruptcy.

You should download the Planet Money podcast on GM from a couple of days ago. It explains it well. http://www.npr.org/rss/podcast/podcast_detail.php?siteId=94411890

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

25. In a deep, long, recession, where credit is unavailable, who is going to buy the cars?

It's pissing in the wind for political, rather, than economic purposes.

[mirror wall]

32. GM has a successfull overseas business.

The turn profits in South America, the Mid East, Africa and China. Did you know that in Germany, driving a Ford is literally a status symbol? That fucking broke my brain when multiple separate German people confirmed it to be true.

In the States we know they're shitty. But abroad the have an exotic appeal. It's like how my first car was a VW that fell apart. I liked it in part because it was foreign. Germans never drive them if they can help it (mostly tooling around in BMWs and Mercedes, of course, with a few American and French cars thrown in here and there).

Maybe if they were able to refocus their business to amp up volume being sold overseas, they'd make a recovery.

That and a complete restructuring of management and vision, of course.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

37. The recession, and credit crunch, is worldwide.

Carmakers, everywhere, are going to suffer. Only those producing cheap, bottom of the line, efficient cars are likely to survive. The day's of "status symbol" cars are over, at least for a long time.

The Japanese, Koreans, etc, are better tooled and capable of producing cheap, efficient, cars and thus surviving the credit crunch and recession.

As I see it, bailing out the big 3 is only deferring the inevitable and putting the taxpayers deeper in debt to no purpose.

[Hannah Bell]

63. The Koreans are a wholly-owned subsidiary of Global Capital Inc.

GM is building billions worth of plant in Russia, China & India while they plead poverty at home. They'll reorganize, shed their obligations to pensioners here, layoff & rehire a smaller workforce at lower wages here, while moving the bulk of production to developing markets.

It's a scam, global automakers are in bed with each, own stakes in each other, & play their workforces against each other.

[Triana]

26. This Paulson guy is a f*cking robber and bu$hit is sitting there letting him rob this country

and I mean GUT the treasury - so is Congress.

WHO is worse, the robber or the ones standing by and doing nothing while he does it? Or worse, HELPING him?

They are all accomplices.

ALSO - part and parcel of this nasty schtick is - now that Obama has won the election - to LEAVE HIM WITH NOTHING to work with and a HUGE, impossible goddamned mess to clean up after them.

YOU CAN BET that Paulson/BFEE PLANNED this 'change of heart' about the bailout ahead of time in the case that Obama won. It's all part of the plan...remember that this bailout shit was planned WELL BEFORE the crash on Sept. 15th. They were just waiting, truck parked outside the US Treasury, to start the looting. MORE "disaster capitalism" (actually ROBBERY) from our illustrious crime ring that has destroyed the US and that is HELLBENT on completing the job before Obama takes over.

[shimmergal]

65. Can't Congress put a freeze

on that remaining 300 billion, since Paulson admitted he doesn't know what the hell he's doing?

[Triana]

73. They ought to! Nothing stopping them from freezing and making some STIFF rules...

...that must be followed by any entity accepting bailout funds. And a TOUGH commmittee to enforce those rules. It can be done. The WILL isn't there.

[kentuck]

27. If 3 million people go on unemployment for six months...?

It would probably cost more than a $50 billion bailout?

[mirror wall]

34. Good point.

I never thought of the job loss that way, but you're probably right.

[kentuck]

36. For each 1% of unemployment....

I believe it costs about $25-30 billion dollars? Something to think about.

[mirror wall]

38. Holy crap, I didn't realize that.

Do you have a source?

[kentuck]

39. $25 billion is an old statistic...

from about 8 years ago. It may be more now?

[taught_me_patience]

54. Because it is not true... n/t

[taught_me_patience]

55. Please cite you source of the 3MM unemployed.

Totally not true. Please cite your sources. I'm guessing that it depends on the total liquidation on GM, F, and Chrysler. BANKRUPTCY DOES NOT MEAN LIQUIDATION! GM will not go away that easily.

[mirror wall]

68. From here:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/economy-watch/2008/11/report_3m_jobs_lost_with_autom.html

Also, see the latest Planet Money podcast as to why bankruptcy in GM's case DOES probably mean total liquidation. You can download it here: http://www.npr.org/rss/podcast/podcast_detail.php?siteId=94411890

You screech about sourcing and yet do not source your own claims. Now find articles which state that huge job losses won't occur and that GM, with its 45billion in debts, can go through bankruptcy without being liquidated.

[mirror wall]

69. Here's a direct link to the Planet Money on the Auto Industry.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2008/11/hear_auto_industry_asks_for_he.html

Give it a listen. Pay close attention to what Obama says right up front.

[taught_me_patience]

75. Completely biased source

It's from the "Center for Automotive Research", which is funded by the auto companies! Completely biased source of information. Next, look at the scenario... 50% reduction in production, one company completely liquidated, and a merger of the other two. There has not been a complete liquidation of a major industrial company in America for as long as I can remember.

[Atman]

28. It's not the country, it's the COUNTRY CLUB.

The same small band of crooks, over and over again. They've rigged the system in their favor. "We" aren't doing anything.

Literally.

And therein lies the problem. "We" are letting them get away with it.

.

[Greyhound]

46. and that's the truth. n/t

[Hannah Bell]

61. Yep. *We're* the insane ones, *they're* just evil.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our fourth quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[Gregorian]

40. In theory it's exactly what we need.

I'm forty years ahead of the crowd when it comes to efficiency. I've been cursing for decades. We lead the way for companies like Subaru, who had a nice little 45 mpg car back in 1972, to becoming just another big fatass lousy economy vehicle manufacturer. We helped ratchet down the entire industry. And again, it's not just the car companies, it's not just George Bush, but it's the consumers, the voters. We just ate it up. Well, not me. I got on a bike.

To reply to your post though, it's a great idea but we'd have to make sure there was no lapse between the big companies going down and the small companies starting up.

Here's how I see it. As an economy, we plan all of the steps. But this is really war. And we should just do it. But if we did that, the big companies would slam their doors shut. The ceo's would hop on their jets and fly home. The workers would lose their homes.

We blew it. We could have taken the money Bush tossed to his buddies and organized this. Oh heck, we could have not had a war, and had even more. And a million alive Iraqis. But I digress.

We blew it in 1970, and we blew it again just now.

Fat chance we're going to do much in our garages. Hewlett and Packard started up in a tiny shed in Palo Alto. They designed a tone generator, if I recall. Not rocket science. At the time it was somewhat sophisticated. But what we're talking about now it far more complex. This is battery technology. It doesn't exist. Diodes existed when HP got their thing going. So this would be similar to what Shockley and friends did when inventing the diode. And that cannot be done on demand.

I'm one of those people. I'm building a huge shop on my property for just these kinds of purposes. I'm an engineer. I may play some peripheral role in some area of this. But I doubt it. This is going to take a miracle of genius. Lots of science is going to go into this. f\Fission wasn't created in a day.

To be honest I think we're in much bigger trouble than it seems. Behind everything is global warming. As we sit here talking about war and money the planet is now turning into a monster. More people are arriving every day. About a quarter million, in fact. Many who will be driving cars.

[earth mom]

41. As much as I hate the bailout & the pigs who ripped us all off, I think we need to save those Union

Jobs. Those jobs are the last of the decent paying jobs for the working class. We all need those jobs to be saved.

If Obama doesn't want riots and chaos on his hands, he should make sure those jobs are saved and the Auto industry gets a clue and starts manufacturing cars that are energy efficient and environmentally sound. If not, we'll all know for sure the "hope and change" he sold the country was total and complete bullshit.

[Gregorian]

42. It may be time for Congress to force them.

There is no time to wait. Screw the CAFE standards, it's time for Congress to simply demand that they get on with helping to curb global warming. That is after all what we're trying to do here. That is far more important than a few jobs, forgive me for saying it.

The big car companies already have the infrastructure in place. New startups would take years to get going.

So I backtrack from my post above. We cannot just dump everything and hope that startups rescue us.

This is an emergency, even if no one sees it that way yet. We have ten years to stop combusting petroleum. Even then we're not going to be able to stop that. T Boone Pickens has it right when he says that semi trucks can't run off of batteries. And that's a lot of vehicles.

We nationalized the banks, but can't even force CAFE standards on the auto industry. And those standards are WEAK. We need a magnitude beyond them. No fuel. All renewable energy. In ten years, that's massive. All while broke. Thanks George. Now what do we do?

[earth mom]

43. Yes, Congress & Obama have the power to make the changes necessary, but will they?

I totally agree with you that we have an emergency on our hands. I had hoped that Gore's endorsement of Obama would mean that Obama would rely heavily on Gore's advice about the environment, but I'm not seeing anything to give me "hope" that the environment will be a major priority under an Obama administration.

All we've seen so far is that many of the same bankers from Wall St. who ripped us off are now financial advisors to Obama. That does not bode well in my book as far as the environment or the economy or fuel efficient/environmentally sound cars go.

I've had a sick feeling in my gut for months, if not years about it all. :yoiks:

[Hannah Bell]

64. Congress exists to *enable* them, didn't you get the memo?

[shimmergal]

66. Yes.

Repubs are so opposed to an auto industry bailout because they don't want to help an industry that has strong unions.

Think about that before y'all conclude we should let them fail.

Not that their management hasn't made blockheaded decisions all along. We need to address that in any sort of financial aid package. How is it that the president of Toyota makes only $200,000 a year, and yet it's the most thriving auto company right now? We need a completely different template for management decisions, but still ---

Don't let all those union jobs fall down the rabbit hole!

[Strelnikov_]

47. Auto bailout should be a loan to retool and fund startup costs

for production of 'fleet average' 70 mpg+ (gasoline equivalent) vehicles only (fleet defined as vehicles produced by the bailout funded facilities).

The only way the US auto companies will be competitive on the world market is production of energy efficient vehicles.

What is going to be the demand for land yachts when the monthly gas ration is 20 gal. People seem to think, with a collapsing world financial system, we will continue to consume 30% of the worlds petroleum export market using money borrowed from other countries.

At some point, we will have to balance imports with exports. Being a world leader in energy efficient personal transportation would be one way to get there.

[exboyfil]

71. 70+ mpg

If we relax some emission standards (such as on diesels), then we would have a much better shot at making 70+ mpg (ie Loremo for example).

One thing that should be recognized about the U.S. is that it is not Europe. We have larger families which require larger vehicles for transport. I don't know this for a fact, but it appears we also do more kid transport (ie bunches of kids transported to 4-H meetings, school events, soccer and baseball games). This requires the minivan or another greater than 5 passenger vehicle. Since it only makes economic sense to have no more vehicles than drivers, many families end up with two vehicles (the minivan or equivalent and a passenger sedan or possibly a pick up). Pick ups are very useful vehicles, especially when you consider how much delivery charges can add up for delivery home repair materials etc. Granted I get very uneasy when I walk around the parking lot and see the HUGE pick up trucks parked there. I have to ask myself, why the heck do they need such large vehicles? I have a 2002 Cavalier and my wife has a beat up 1996 Escort that needs to get replaced.

Since I only commute about 4 miles to work, fuel efficiency is not a primary concern for me. I worry more about overall cost and reliability of the vehicle (it is just something to get me to work). I have a hard time justifying spending $25,000+ for a more fuel efficient car (Prius - 45 mph) versus the $13,000 I can spend on a less expensive car such as Chevy Cobalt (31 mph). You would have to assume no time value of money and $6/gallon gas for this to even begin to make sense (residual value of $5,000 and $1,000 for each respectively after 12 years).

Instead of screwing around with the artificial CAFE standards or gas rationing, I would strongly recommend that we kill two birds with one stone (CO2 emissions and foreign dependence on oil) by having an additional federal tax on gasoline and diesel with no exemptions of $1/gallon and ratcheting up this tax by a $1 every year that Obama is in office. This tax should be clearly printed on the pump so that everyone knows the reason for the price of the gasoline. As what happened with the recent run up in gasoline prices, this tax will cause the desired behavioral changes (purchase of smaller cars, more car pooling, combined trips, and decision not to take trips).

Until we figure out the infrastructure/generation issues, electric cars will only be a novelty. Another limitation is that battery technology is still not where it needs to be. Battery disposal issues have not been addressed as well as reliability.

If we assume nuclear is off the table for electric generation, then we are going to have to figure out how to deal with the environmental impact of solar generated in the Southwest. Right now the environmental laws are crippling coherent development of solar farms in the Southwest.

[uppityperson]

49. It won't, at least not right away. And that is not why they are doing this.

Jobs. Depression. That is why. They need to make a big part of it a restructuring of the auto industry and what they are doing so far as cars go.

But this is about making the depression less severe, about keeping jobs open, I see it rather like the WPA during the Great Depression.

[ProfessorPlum]

52. right, except the executives and shareholders of those

companies get to keep the profits?

[uppityperson]

56. What profits? If they are going bankrupt, and the $ is to keep them from closing,

and there are stipulations put in place to make sure the $ is used properly, then there shouldn't be profits. I know. In a perfect world. Or maybe, if I were Queen of the Universe.

I have seen little on DU about WPA comparisons. Need to go look (gvt making jobs for people, minimal wage, >30 hrs/wk, to keep people working on something and having some income)

[treestar]

51. Good point, in fact, just bail out the unemployed directly

The only reason to save these big banks and big industries is for the people who work for them not to end up out of a job.

[judasdisney]

57. When the bottom really falls out (currency collapse), Obama will get the blame for this

[Hubert Flottz]

59. It just goes to show you, that the people pick better leaders than

the Supreme Court Does.

[Hannah Bell]

60. Not insanity, very purposeful.

[goforit]

70. Yep!!! Time to rally at the Treasury to protest Bailout in the millions of people.

[suston96]

72. Whatchu mean by bailout?

In 1980 the US government "bailed out" the Chrysler corporation by guaranteeing a small loan (by today's standards) which it paid back - with interest - ahead of time.

Considering the effect on the job market of the three automakers closing down - 14 million jobs nationwide - and the effect of those lost jobs on government revenues - especially Social Security and Medicare - I believe that a little more serious consideration should be given to a bailout like the one in 1980 to Chrysler.

Google 'Chrysler bailout 1980' and get some background.