Are you for the proposed Auto Bailout?

[RiverStone]

This is a tough call.

On one hand, there is the greed and lack of vision by the BIG 3 auto makers (not to mention the Michigan legislature) who ignored calls for slimming down, making energy efficient cars, and/or raising mileage standards. They continued to pump out grotesque Hummers and SUV's and folks kept buying those gas hogs. Wow, what a surprise that the industry now is on the brink of bankruptcy :sarcasm:. Let em sink due to their own lack of foresight and total ignorance of environmental and economic issues for years. Retool and restart anew.

On the other hand, across the country if the BIG 3 went down we are talking a catastrophic effect on jobs --- potentially close to several million jobs would be lost or downsized (looking at related industries as well). President Elect Obama received 70 million dollars from the Unions and we did jump in and save the airlines a few years back. There is the simple human element of compassion. If we are trying to save corporate bigwigs on Wall Street - what about your hard working folk on the front lines in auto plants just trying to pay the bills?

What do you think? :shrug:



On edit to add: changed total job losses to several million

[bunnies]

1. Other. It doesnt matter what I think.

* is going to do whatever the hell he wants anyway.

[prayin4rain]

25. Exactly *, and the congress too. n/t

[shanti]

71. thank you n/t

[AngryOldDem]

81. Yep.

Just one more example of being "too big to fail." What is breathtaking to me with all of this TARP business is the sheer mismanagement over decades of all of these industries that are now crying for bailouts.

Do you think I could get a handout if I showed up on Capitol Hill? I've got debts, too...

[yurbud]

2. Your brother is a crack addict: should we shoot him in head or give him money to support his habit?

[madmom]

4. Depends will 3-5 mill people loose out if he's gone?

[Loki]

18. Put him in rehab

get him clean and make him a productive member of society.

[yurbud]

29. exactly--we are being given a false dichotomy

[Telly Savalas]

36. Not necessarily.

Given the record of the White House and Congress over the last few months, it seems pretty doubtful that this rational third option will ever be seriously considered.

What's probably going to happen is that the "action is needed but oversight and restrictions are too much work" crowd on Capital Hill will bribe a few of the "fuck 'em if their not in my district/state" crowd by padding the bailout with a bunch of pork, thereby getting the bill to pass.

However, I'm pretty optimistic that President Obama will force Congress to draft better legislation when the Big 3 come back in eight months begging for more money.

[yurbud]

46. current calculation is a little simpler: who am I going to work for when I leave office?

a hedge fund or some middle class shmuck?

Even more than donations, pols love those after office board member, exec, lobbyist, and consultant jobs.

[DearAbby]

96. I don't understand this analogy...

If the BIG 3 go under, there are peripheral jobs that will be affected, There are people in Pueblo Colorado, who work at the Dana Corp there, they make Pistons for these vehicles. People in COZAD Nebraska who makes the shocks for them...somewhere else in the country are people who make the computer chips that goes into these vehicles, then there are delivery people who take the raw materials to the plant. just to name of few.

How can adding Millions more to the 10 million we already have unemployed help our economy? These companies under ordinary circumstances would have filed bankruptcy and restructured to try to rebuild their company....these are ordinary circumstances, this economy isn't anything we have ever dealt with before, this crisis isn't just here, it's everywhere, it's global.

There is a Giant Ripple effect allowing these companies to fail. Where are we going to get the money to support the millions more that will be on the unemployment rolls, later welfare? We will have to pay for them anyway...lets pay to keep their jobs.

[glowing]

3. If we're buying in, I want a piece of the profits they turn when they start

using some vision.. No bail-out.. make it an investment. When I own a piece of the pie, I'll want to make sure the investment is well kept.. and I would be more encouraged to buy from my own pie.

[amandabeech]

23. Stock isn't part of the deal now, to my knowledge.

It's interest bear loans.

Perhaps those loans should be made convertible to common or preferred stock.

[GoesTo11]

48. GM could be bought for $2B now, then bail it out.

Or $1B for a 50% stake. If we're going to send $25B their way, spend $1.02B on acquiring 51% of shares in the company. Then our bailout is meant to get our (America's) own company back on its feet.

[Ediacara]

5. Only with lots of strings

Lots and lots of strings.

[baldguy]

6. The auto industry has to be rebuilt from the ground up.

The corruption & inefficiencies which brought them to this point are ingrained in their structure.

[DJ13]

7. Yes: I dont WANT another depression!

No:I always wanted to live in a recreation of those wonderful 1930's, sounds like fun!

[TexasObserver]

8. Should we try to save one of the last pockets of manufacturing in America? Hell Yes.

We don't have to reward the officers, or the directors. We can set requirements for those car companies which accept loans for a bailout. Such requirements would include making more efficient cars.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

9. If the big 3 go under, the people hurt will *not* be the people who exhibited "greed" and "lack of

vision". It will be the people who went in everyday and did their job

[IDemo]

10. Other: hand the companies over to the employees

It worked wonders for Harley Davidson.

Plus, require that retrofitting existing vehicles with plug-in/hybrid technology (when possible) be part of the bargain.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4473780&mesg_id=4473780

[yurbud]

30. yeah, if you want to keep jobs in America, when corporations fail, make them co-ops

when the workers own the business, they tend not to outsource their own jobs.

[tammywammy]

11. Yes. n/t

[Amerigo Vespucci]

12. I remember some of the comments here when the $700 bailout was under discussion...

...and a few people who said, in a pretty condescending way, "This HAS to happen. There's NO OTHER WAY."

So the cash flowed and the spa retreats and executive bonuses are still on the agenda. The difference, of course, is that the perks are now government funded.

Everybody's an expert.

[Idealism]

13. Points of interest:

It isn't a 'bailout,' like wall street, the gov't would receive pref. shares like they did before when they loaned money to Chrysler in the 80s.

The people out of work if the automakers went bust directly would be in the 5 million range, indirectly who knows. It can spiral out of control due to the multiplier effect money has on the economy (John loses his job, he doesn't go to the store as much, Sean loses his job at the store due to lack of volume, Sean buys less groceries because he is broke). Another thing to consider is the industrial suppliers to the automakers like widgets and such. these would be put out of work as well (think Delphi).

The people laid off by the direct and indirect ripple effect most likely wouldn't be able to pay their mortgages either. We would have many million more foreclosures, further saturating the housing market and lowering home prices. Lowered home prices mean loss of equity and direct wealth to every American.

If an UAW worker loses his job in Detroit, I feel it after awhile in Florida

[Jack Rabbit]

14. Other

I would be willing to bail out the auto companies on the condition that the collective head of present management rolls in the sand.

Preferably, the auto companies would become employee-owned enterprises. I do not believe for a minute that assembly line workers could run GM any worse that Roger Smith or Rick Wagoner. We really don't need Harvard MBAs with fancy salaries to run a company, especially after they've run it into the ground.

[panader0]

15. I don't get bailouts

So people will lose their jobs, I'm already unemployed and worried. Will I get bailed out? I have a small general contrating business, there's no work around here and most of the construction workers around here are idle. I am not entitled to ANY benefits as an employer. Why should the rich get a break with the taxpayers money?
Edit to add: Why should you get aid when you fuck up? The auto industry fucked up on purpose to make bucks on SUVs, etc, now we should reward their failure???

[yurbud]

31. I think we should send CEO's to Gitmo, and see if Bush interrogation methods will make them tell

where their off-shore accounts are.

If the methods don't work, it will still be a good life lesson for those parasites.

[GrizzlyMan]

39. Well your job isn't a union job

So it doesn't matter, according to some of DUers.

[Romulox]

53. Arizona receives at least $1.10 back for every $1 you send to Washington

You rugged individualists, you. :eyes:

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

16. Yes.

Enough with this ever-so fashionable, crypto-anarchic horseshit. Real people will be affected in incredibly bad ways if those companies go under. That said, if there is a federal aid package, stern, near-draconian conditions must be attached to mitigate the base urges of a clueless and delusional executive class. Universally, it is apparent that the largest amount of executives at large corporations just don't Get It, and continue on their merry ways as if nothing has changed.

Well I am here to tell you: you take taxpayer monies to bale your worthless asses out, things have changed, assholes. Changed bigtime, too. Get used to the new realities and what they mean to your neo-royalist lifestyles.

[ProfessorGAC]

87. What Tandalayo Said!

Well done!
The Professor

[blue_onyx]

17. I think we should go ahead with a bailout

The Big 3 did make a mistake by focusing only on SUVs. But there's a reason the auto companies focused on large SUVs....that's what people wanted. People act like the US auto companies just built these huge vehicles and forced them upon the unsuspecting public. Up until 2005, when gas prices really started to soar, the 3 US auto companies were indeed building what the public wanted. They do deserve blame for not foreseeing the changes that were ahead. It makes no sense why they neglected their small and mid-small cars...one would think a company would want to make sure ALL their products get funding and attention.

I think the politicians in Washington need to grow a backbone and increase the gas tax. The CAFE standards aren't working. We need to attack global warming from the demand side of things. It's just politically easier to force the auto companies to fix our environmental issues. Here's article from Nolan Finley of the Detroit News. He's a rightwing nutjob but he (for once) hit the nail on the head.

http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081116/OPINION03/811160306

[dkofos]

19. Make it a loan, make it conditional, get a return.

[fortyfeetunder]

21. Conditional on fuel efficient technology being baseline

I watched with dismay over the last 20-something years as the Big 3 focused on gas guzzling technology. I attribute their lack of attention on fuel efficiency to their current problems.

Hence, the bailout should be conditional on developing and selling more fuel-efficient automobiles.
Otherwise we will be doomed to repeating events like this past summer....

[dkofos]

24. That would be one condition.

More US content of parts is another.

[Capt. America]

20. I think it is amazing that for years Washington has been saying...

..that health care for the uninsured would be "too expensive" that it would "explode the debt with new entitlements". How is that in TWO WEEKS the Congress and the President "found" 700+ billion dollars for banks (on top of the previous AIG, bears Sterns, etc. bailouts) as a reward for bad business practices and yet 40 million+ people in this country do not have health insurance?

Why not give out another 25 billion dollars? The Congress has already spent at least 1 TRILLION dollars for bailouts over the last 4 months. At least this proves to me that our government (Dems included) do not really care about its citizens, but rather the corporations.

[RiverStone]

26. Bingo!

At least this proves to me that our government (Dems included) do not really care about its citizens, but rather the corporations.

Cue up Pink Floyd's Money here...

[Ian David]

22. I would have certain demands for a bail-out

1) Require ALL the share-holders to hold a no-confidence vote on each individual member of the boards of directors.

2) Require fuel-efficient vehicles with NO LOOPHOLES.

3) Require the top executives' TOTAL COMPENSATIONS to be no more than 1000 times the mean salary of their non-executive workers.

4) Require an immediate freeze on all outsourcing and factory closings.

5) Declare the development of high-efficiency electric car battery development to be a strategic national resource, to be paid for, developed by, and owned by The American People. The taxpayers will pay to develop the batteries and charging technologies and infrastructure which will be open-sourced, public-domain systems owned by the taxpayers as part of The Commons.

6) National single-payer health care for all Americans will relieve auto manufacturers (and indeed ALL manufacturers) of the burden of having to pay for health care.

7) 30% of the company's stock must be in the hands of non-executive employees, and no more than 30% can be in the hands of their executives.

8) Impose competitive tariffs on automobile imports to the United States when there is a comparable American-made vehicle available.

9) Require American manufacturers to sell fuel-efficient car models in America that they are currently only selling over-seas, once they have been brought up to American DoT and safety standards.

10) Make it illegal for any company to pay-out dividends or bonuses within 365 days after laying-off workers, cutting their workforce, or cutting worker salaries or benefits.

11) Require all auto manufacturers who wish to sell or manufacture cars within The United States to pay at least the American minimum wage to all over-seas employees, comply with American safety and pollution standards and all OSHA guidelines, and to submit to unannounced visits by OSHA, The Red Cross, and Amnesty International.

[amitta]

27. our opinion doesn't matter

at all.
They Don't care what we think.

[Fearless]

28. How about paying workers with CEO's salaries?

They seem to be doing well regardless of the well being of the companies.

[Swamp Rat]

32. Yes, but fire the CEOs and upper management, and let the workers own AND control the business

The guys and gals installing break pads should get paid as well as the CEOs, if not better.

[yurbud]

33. problems start when execs who make products replaced with those who make paper profits

As soon as the MBA, Wall Street parasites get into any business, innovation and product quality cease to be values, and manipulating the books, setting up shell corporations, and giving the least product for the most money get top priority.

[IndianaGreen]

34. Bail out the bankers and the financiers while telling the auto industry to get screwed ain't right!

Paul Krugman

Cars

Jonathan Cohn has the best statement I’ve seen of the case for a rescue. No illusions — these are companies that, to a large extent, drove themselves into a ditch. If the economy as a whole were in reasonably good shape and the credit markets were functioning, Chapter 11 would be the way to go. Under current circumstances, however, a default by GM would probably mean loss of ability to pay suppliers, which would mean liquidation — and that, in turn, would mean wiping out probably well over a million jobs at the worst possible moment.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/16/cars/

[Rosa Luxemburg]

35. providing they switch to making the electric car!

[mwooldri]

37. Nationalization. That's my answer.

If we can do AIG, we can do GM, Ford and Cerberus (who own Chrysler).

Technically speaking, it is possible for the government to just take over these businesses, screw the shareholders and start running the businesses themselves.

Of course there is the little issue of shareholder compensation to worry about but given that the alternative might be to lose everything in a total bankruptcy, then government takeover might even be better for the shareholders, because something could always be worked out that shareholders might get some compensation later on down the line. With a total BK, shareholders lose everything. Most workers will lose their jobs (not all, there's always assets there and GM, Ford and Chrysler have considerable assets and brands) and retirees may get screwed, but with a major crisis maybe only a nationalization might save these companies from ruin. They can always be privatized later on to realise the government's investment.

Mark.

[This One]

47. You could buy all of GM's stock for less than $2 billion

Their market cap is about $1.8 billion. They could actually just buy 51% and control the board and then make GM start producing fuel efficient cars. When the company is on its feet, either sell the 51% on the market for a taxpayer gain or hang on to it and operate it as a public/private company.

[JackRiddler]

38. Only if it's not a bailout but a takeover...

If they fail like this while others produce better product (at any rate, let's all admit: SMALLER product), then a rescue by public funds must mean:

- present management and major ownership decapitated - erm, meaning deposed, not literally beheaded (investigated? indicted?)

- directors' board must include representatives from site municipalities, company personnel (elected), government, health and environmental advocates

- all powertrain development henceforth goes into electric, hybrid and other alternative power or super fuel-efficient concepts

- these alt-power vehicles actually become the majority produced within a few years

- the function of the vehicle in terms of body and interior henceforth is understood to be transportation from a to b, i.e. no more oversize monsters and vanity cars

- a transportation plan goes along with that to revive rail travel and multimodal cargo transport solutions at the best energy and resource efficiency

Why am I bothering, though, none of this is going to really happen, either the govt. will throw more tens of billions into a hole or it won't, and either way the Big 3 will lay off a whole bunch of workers.

[RiverStone]

41. good ideas!

Those that oppose the bailout say that just giving $$$ without a plan is simply delaying an inevitable failure. I think your criteria for a "takeover" makes lots of sense Jack. Of course, the almighty dollar rules and the guidelines you suggest will only happen if they are force fed upon the industry.

Sadly, the BIG 3 may need to hit rock bottom and the industry will have a chance to start from scratch. There is no way out of this mess without suffering. I'd hate to see folks lose jobs, but a short term infusion of cash won't save them if ultimately, there are not other needed changes happening at the same time.

[JackRiddler]

44. Thank you! Much appreciated.

[MilesColtrane]

40. At this point I believe some plans are just calling for guaranteed loans.

I'm down with that if it helps them stay afloat.

[Alcibiades]

42. Compared to the finance sector bailout, it's a bargain

$700 billion to Wall Street gets you worthless paper. At least the big three own some things--factories, R&D campuses--that actually create real value.

What gets my goat is that so many who defend the Wall Street bailout are against the auto bailout, criticizing the auto industry "business model." I suppose the business model that lets insurance companies operate like hedge funds is so much better? At least the big three are going broke slowly. Wall street went bankrupt over a much shorter period, and threatened our entire economy over a series of deals that did nothing productive whatsoever. The average American does not use hedge funds, but almost all of us use cars/trucks/buses etc.

[dysfunctional press]

43. why do people blame the american automakers for making the kind of cars people wanted?

the united states isn't europe or japan- our gas prices have historically been much lower, and the distances driven usually longer, and more space available for cars. americans loved their big comfortable cars, and detroit was happy to oblige. european and japanese/asian carmakers got to be good at small economical cars because that's mostly what they made, as that is what their populations wanted.
when gas prices jumped precipitously, american automakers weren't as prepared- but that's because historically, they had no reason to be.

i'm all for bailing them out, and helping them retool to produce the cars we now want as a country.

[JVS]

49. The whole reason that they're in trouble is that nobody wants (or can afford) their cars now.

Why should we bail out an industry that can't move its goods? If we give them money, they're just going to make a bunch of cars nobody wants for another year.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Vidar]

45. Yes, but I agree with Senator Levin that all three CEOs & perhaps other management

should step down as a precondition.

[JVS]

50. Just spend the money hiring the workers to make something useful instead of more things nobody is...

buying.

[Romulox]

51. You are font of contentless posts regarding this issue.

Just thought I'd let you know.

[JVS]

54. If I valued your opinion, I'd have my head examined.

Sorry that the fact that there is no demand for the cars upsets you.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JVS]

58. Show me where I approved of that decision?

I never supported either bailout. Go take it up with someone who did.

[Romulox]

61. The point is that your "Free Market" ideology is passe.

It is exposed. Not even the most bloodthirsty of capitalists believe it any more. The bailout of the financial industry means that "free marketeers" can never again say "let the market decide!" without the unspoken, but very much implicit follow up: "except when I stand to lose money..."

[JVS]

64. Since when is the government spending money to employ people in a more productive line of work ...

"free-market"? Meanwhile you want government funds to go to private owners of industry? Get real. You want crony-capitalism. And you still wouldn't end up happy. They're just going to use it to outsource the jobs quicker.

25 billion could probably buy a lot of windmills or nuke plants (things we need in the future) and you want it to be pissed away on shitting a bunch of cars and SUVs that we already have more of than anyone wants to buy.

[Romulox]

66. There is no "market demand" for Social Security, or childhood healthcare, either

So to point to the lack of market activity as a reason that the government shouldn't be involved is patently absurd.

"Meanwhile you want government funds to go to private owners of industry?"

You mean like the $3 trillion that's gone to financial institutions, right?

"25 billion could probably buy a lot of windmills or nuke plants"

Right, but we're right back to the government funding things for which, in your words, there is "no demand". :hi:

[JVS]

69. There is plenty of demand for energy, and with oil being finite, new sources are worth funding.

Low quality gas-hogs on the other hand are not needed and if people wanted them the big 3 would be fine and dandy.

But go ahead, keep making up shit I didn't say and feel like some kind of hero because you want to help keep GM, Ford, and Chrysler shitting defective goods out the factory doors to a nation that doesn't want them.

[Romulox]

70. Then let the "market" pay for it...

You don't seem understand that you can't wrap yourself in "the market" to justify allowing one job to die, then at the same time call for massive infusions of cash into industries that you value.

[JVS]

72. You put public money where it is better spent.

It's not hard to see that the public benefits more from subsidizing the production of infrastructure than it does from the production of a consumer good for which there is no demand.

If the big 3 get money, it's either going to produce several more months worth of cars that they are already unable to sell. They'll take the money, sales will continue to suck, and they'll need more money. The same money could be spent to build numerous school, hospitals, power plants, or numerous other things that actually benefit more than a couple hundred thousand people and their corporate masters.

[Romulox]

74. OK. Now at least you're focusing your thoughts. The "market demand" bit was a red herring.

"It's not hard to see that the public benefits more from subsidizing the production of infrastructure than it does from the production of a consumer good for which there is no demand."

There is the "no demand" business again. There is "no demand" for infrastructure either, in the sense that individuals are not willing to pay the actual cost of said infrastructure. So you've got yourself tied up in the "market demand" knots once again.

"If the big 3 get money, it's either going to produce several more months worth of cars that they are already unable to sell. They'll take the money, sales will continue to suck, and they'll need more money. The same money could be spent to build numerous school, hospitals, power plants, or numerous other things that actually benefit more than a couple hundred thousand people and their corporate masters."

First of all, nobody is debating about investing in GM or else investing in schools (in fact, schools are largely funded in the US via local property taxes, which makes their inclusion in your list...puzzling.)

Moreover, all the credible estimates are that allowing the Big 3 to go under would cost 3 million jobs, not "a couple hundred thousand." So it sounds like you are working with a lack of basic facts on this issue.

Which is why I stand by my first response to you. :hi:

[JVS]

78. Those people killed in MN when that bridge collapsed would have liked some infrastructure.

Tell me this basic fact if you know so much. Who's going to buy these pieces of shit that the big three generate if they get this bailout? The economy is slowed and nobody has the money for these things.

Now traditionally when the economy has slowed, the government does increase spending in order to try to increase aggregate demand, but just dumping the money into producing things of which there is already a glut isn't what has been done. Because it makes the problem worse. We already have too little money going after too many consumer goods. By increasing production of consumer goods along with the supply of money, you're dampening the effect of the intervention in the economy. The government normally buys goods that it wants (or if not really wants, can use) in order to raise aggregate demand. Your bailout is a supply-side intervention, and will be less effective because of it.


BTW: according to wiki GM: 266,000, Ford: 87,700, Chrysler: 132,130 . A few hundred thousand it is.

[anigbrowl]

77. No shit, sherlock.

Get back to us when you can tell us what that 'something useful' is.

[JVS]

80. How about windmills for generating electricity?

Or has the energy crisis been cancelled

[anigbrowl]

83. Well, maybe if you'd started out with concrete suggestions

It's not that I disagree with you, but statements like 'we need to manufacture stuff people want to buy' are so obvious as to be a waste of bandwidth.

[JVS]

84. It's an obvious statement that is ignored by the pro-bailout side.

Thus as offensively obvious as it is, it must be stated.

[anigbrowl]

91. Without specifics, it's just flamebait

And I'm not pro-bailout, so that ain't why I'm saying so.

[LeftishBrit]

55. I haven't voted as it's not my country; but we do have sadly relevant experience in the UK

On the basis of this: I would recommend (a) yes, intervene, the consequences of letting them sink are just too disastrous AND there is much more potential long-term benefit in rescuing companies that actually produce something than financial institutions per se; (b) a big shakeup of management is necessary, and perhaps even nationalization; (c) - and this is where British experience is most sadly relevant - it can only work if there is real commitment to preserving and expanding the industrial base; not just a short-term fix for individual companies. IMO, the attempted rescue of Rover did not ultimately work here, to a large extent because it was attempted in a vacuum - the government tried to prevent *one* company from going under, but not to reverse years of erosion of British industry, in favour of turning us into FinancialServicesVille, totally at the mercy of the banks and Big Money.

[mwooldri]

59. as they would say in Parliament: Hear Hear!

Yep, we did try to save the British Car Industry in the 1970's. Then we had Thatcher. Enough said.

Mark.

[Hubert Flottz]

56. It beats the hell out of bailing out credit card companies that

want to charge 29% if you're a day late on one payment. The Bushies want to put the credit card crooks in charge of auto and student loans now...better watch that hearing today.

GM of anybody else will go out of business if a car loan goes up to 29%, and so will every college in the country. The neoCons want to steal every penny in the country ASAP.

[Canuckistanian]

60. WITH conditions

1. The bulk of R&D goes towards renewable energy vehicles

2. Strict oversight over distribution and spending - no more cronies handing out loot to their buddies.

3. Public/private cooperative ventures.

3. Union participation.

[Romulox]

62. Nope. Same conditions put on AIG, GE, and American Express.

That means tropical resorts all around. :hi:

[minnesota_liberal]

63. Bailout with plenty of strings

Oversight, public ownership stake, restrictions on exec pay, etc.

[HamdenRice]

65. I support the bailout with conditions that effectively nationalize nt

[Romulox]

68. Which means consistency is not one of your vices.

As you demanded no such conditions on the strings-free money you so famously urged be granted to multinational financial corporations. :hi:

[HamdenRice]

82. Which means that reading comprehension is not one of your virtues

Search is your friend. I applauded socializing the financial sector, and controlling the TARP asset bailout at the top in conjunction with controlling efforts to keep people in their homes at the bottom, in a way in which the Treasury could not fail to make money, and would provide a way to finance universal health care.

Learn to read.

Then learn some economics.

Then learn logic.

Then learn some tricks to improve your memory.

Then learn to "search" the internet. There's this thing called "Google."

Then get back to us.

Till then, however, it seems your posts contribute nothing of value to any discussion because they're not reality based.

[Romulox]

85. Revisionist crap. The TARP bailout came with no such "strings"

Nor have such "strings" been imposed after the fact.

You were an unqualified bailout booster, and most people will remember this, regardless of how much embarrassment it may cause you.

[Romulox]

86. I think the utter ludicrousness of this snippet deserves its own reply!

"in a way in which the Treasury could not fail to make money, and would provide a way to finance universal health care."

LOL at the suggestion that the $3 trillion Wall Street bailout is the precursor to Universal Health Care! :silly: :eyes: :rofl:

[HamdenRice]

92. What's 5% interest on $3 trillion?

Actually it's 5% on the $250 billion in bailout money. The other money is the Fed's making a market in commercial paper, which I'm sure you don't understand anyway.

Unfortunately, my trying to argue income on the bailout with someone who can't calculate interest on preferred stock doesn't get any of us very far.

On edit: Oh yeah, I think you were one of the economic illiterates who could not grasp that the interest (5%) is in addition to getting the bailout money back when the banks are required to repurchase the preferred at face value.

[Romulox]

94. You are not discounting for RISK, Mr. Economist. nt

[TWiley]

67. Wall Street = Repukes, Detroit = Blue Collar Democrats

[LatteLibertine]

73. Exactly

the financial market bailout package proved that what I am for or against doesn't matter to our elected officials. What the wealthy few wish to go down is what will happen.

[OwnedByFerrets]

75. There is NO bailout proposed....there is, however, a proposed LOAN

Semantics matter.

[Taverner]

76. No, but the bailout is going to happen so we might as well make the best out of it

Demand stock or controlling interest or something

[JPZenger]

79. "GOP to Auto Workers: Drop Dead"

Does anyone really think people will want to buy cars from a company in bankruptcy? That will cause a quick death spiral for GM, and its dealerships.

[Fire1]

88. Gap loan or Bailout? Last I heard, it was a 'gap loan,' to be

re-paid. Of course, this has probably changed since two days ago. NTL, if we let the auto-makers drown, who's going to make the tanks in times of war (and there will be war)? China? LOL! Will there be anything left of American manufacturing? What about the impact of 3 million jobs lost? Sorry folks, but bailing out 'working stiffs' means more to me than bailing out corporations that had to make good on 'swaps.' I'm all for restructuring as a stipulation, too. Bring back people like Ioccoca.

[On the Road]

89. The Level of Support for an Auto vs Financial Bailout is Intersting

given that the consequences of the finance industry failing are a lot more severe than losing the auto industry.

Personally, I favor the auto bailout but only with a plan and serious concesisons from both management and labor. The temporary deadlock may turn out to be a good thing.

[On the Road]

90. The Difference in Support for the Financial vs the Auto Bailout is Interesting

given that the consequences of the finance industry failing are a lot more severe than losing the auto industry.

Personally, I favor the auto bailout but only with a plan and serious concesisons from both management and labor. The temporary deadlock may turn out to be a good thing.

[spoony]

93. What concessions did bankers accept, again?

Did they give up their healthcare and retirement? If not why should real working people?

[lpbk2713]

95. Hell no. They will just do like AIG did.

Lavish weekend getaways for the top brass while the grunts get pink slips.

We can't expect them to change their lifestyles now, can we? :sarcasm: