I wish folks would stop polarizing the auto bail out issue....

[mike_c]

There seems to be two broad camps duking it out over the auto bail out. At some risk of trivializing their perspectives, one camp laments that one in ten Americans are employed directly or indirectly by the auto industry so we simply cannot afford to let the industry fail. If we do, millions will be unemployed, millions more will lose their retirement, America will utterly lose its manufacturing capacity, dogs and cats will sleep together, the sky will fall, and life as we know it will end forever.

The other camp responds that the big three auto companies are dinosaurs that have lost touch with American consumers, that bailing them out-- whether with suitcases of no-strings cash or with loans tied up tighter than a well-trussed turkey-- is simply throwing good money after bad, that auto executives fly private jets to appear before congress to ask for money, that the market is speaking, and that the American auto industry is destined to go the way of hundreds of other industries that have become irrelevant and there's not a damned thing we can do about it.

I think most of us can agree that these two scenarios are at the opposite ends of a continuum of possibilities, and that an actual solution-- one that leads to positive changes in the auto industry while preserving the stakes of at least the most deserving stakeholders, current and past workers-- is not only possible, but desirable. In other words, let's seek a solution rather than just add to the noise machine.

Some folks here (and elsewhere) have proposed solutions between these two extremes that make a lot of sense. One was to take over control of the auto industry, via receivership or by outright nationalization, and put them to work building mass transit infrastructure or serving some other national need while continuing to manufacture automobiles as necessary-- and retooling to produce cars and trucks better atuned to consumer needs and preferences. Another is to make them go through bankruptcy but with the caveat that the courts' first responsibilities are to ensure that worker pensions and health care obligations get top priority during reorganization.

There are an infinite number of possibilities between the polar opposites of "bail them out at any cost" and "let them die in their own mismanaged funk." A real solution is one that makes things better. Lots of those are possible. Congress needs to lead the way toward finding real solutions, rather than simply reacting at one end or the other of the knee-jerk non-solution spectrum.

[amitta]

1. after that press conference

it is obvious the auto executives are the problem.
That should be the starting point of any debate: they must be removed.

[mike_c]

2. oh I completely agree....

eom

[Pathwalker]

6. +1. And it's a loan. NOT a bail-out.

But make the top execs leave the company, Detroit AND Michigan.

[yodoobo]

7. No its a bailout

If it was a simple loan and they were credit worthy and the likelihood of the loan being repaid were high, then a lender would emerge, eager to earn money.

As it is, no lender is willing to touch them.

Its a bailout. And if it fails, that loan will never be re-paid

[Mike 03]

11. For what it's worth, I agree 100% with you. There's no way to put lipstick

on this pig. The private sector will have NOTHING to do with lending to these corporations. They are terrible credit risks.

[Mike 03]

3. Excellent rational post. Kick. I've noticed, the more reasonable and less divisive a post

is with respect to the auto bailout issue, the more likely it is to sink like a stone.

Rec.

Edit for typo

[Greyhound]

29. That is the key. Be as offensive/controversial as possible.

No point in actually discussing an issue when you can just insult someone.

[pampango]

31. Trying to reach common ground is never as exciting as flaming other posters, preferably in ALL CAPS.

I think most of us believe the bailout is a good idea, but only if there are strict conditions attached to a plan to make the industry viable in the long run. As far as I know, the auto executives have presented no plan, just a request for a $25 billion loan. Don't know whether they expected to get the money with no plan or what.

[ProfessorGAC]

32. Why Don't You Shut Up?!?!?

Sorry, i just couldn't resist! Your posted is very well stated.
The Professor

[Romulox]

4. Sorry, but there is no such thing as a "progressive" union buster.

There is no common ground with some of the hateful, anti-labor rhetoric expressed around here.

I'm still trying to find out what Jon Kyl's DU user name is. RGBolen??? :shrug:

[sarcasmo]

5. It's not a bail out it's a Bridge Loan, paid back plus 5%, the media needs to state this fact.

[yodoobo]

8. a 5% rate, with such a low likelihood of repayment is a bailout

From the perspective of a lender, its hard to imagine a worse loan candidate.

[Pathwalker]

10. China wants to buy them. Check LBN.

n/t

[sarcasmo]

19. If this happens, you will find me in Canada, whether the wife wants to come or not.

She can come see me for conjugal visits.

[sarcasmo]

12. Please, Chrysler paid it back. Do you think AIG or any bank will pay back their bailout.

[yodoobo]

17. Well don't ask me to defend AIG

First off, I reluctantly support the bailout.

Its like when you 16 year kid calls from jail and is looking for bail because he got caught spray painting some building. Morally, you want to let him stay to teach him a lesson about not doing it again. But...he's your kid. And you are worried about what jail will do to him. So you pay.


But I'm not convinced it will save the automakers.

It did save Chrysler, but that was a different time and the problem was far less systemic.

[Romulox]

14. Didn't stop the House Dems from giving $700 billion to Wall Street, now did it? nt

[yodoobo]

18. Certainly did not. nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. Well said. K&R

[reflection]

13. I agree with this sentiment.

I think as usual, the truth lies somewhere in the middle between "ZOMG! LET THEM DIE!!!1" and "ZOMG! UNION BUSTERS!!!1"

The best idea I have seen to date here on DU was this one:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4495568

[SammyWinstonJack]

15. Congress gave Lee Iacocca a loan guarantee in 1979 for Chrysler, why not do the same now?

[yodoobo]

20. BTW, that was a loan -guarantee- for 1.5 billion

This is a loan for $25 billion.

Significantly more.

The 1979 loan guarantee was just that. A guarantee to any private institution that if Chrysler defaulted, the feds would make that lender whole.

In this case, we're the bank, and its for 16 times more.

[SammyWinstonJack]

22. Yes I realize that.

[keepthemhonest]

16. you must know....

getting democrats to agree is like hearding cats.

[yodoobo]

21. not its not

:)

[mike_c]

27. and one of my favorite activities is usually STAMPEDING cats....

:rofl:

[specimenfred1984]

23. Why discuss real solutions when we can scream and create tension?

It's a propaganda culture we live in, like a sitcom, it's all just an act. TV creates confrontation, corporations try to cash in on it and our gov't uses it for cover so they can get paid off behind the scenes. Sure, go ahead and care about your country, see what that gets ya!

[Greyhound]

24. This, like every other issue we face anymore, has been presented as a binary choice

ensuring that no innovation or compromise is possible and therefore the outcome is bad either way. We have become a nation of extremists, constantly escalating conflict and deciding issues on the most unusual of circumstances.

We have crime and some judge or parole board let a maniac out of prison; quick let's just lock up everyone that does anything wrong forever!

Drunk drivers kill innocent people; OMG! we have to surrender our rights to privacy and due process and destroy people's lives forever when they get into a fender-bender and had a beer on the way home!

Somebody gamed the welfare system; Fuck those lazy poor people, let them starve in the streets!

People are being robbed in the streets; Argh! We must convert our police forces from civil servants to paramilitary thugs with no accountability!

and on and on and on...

[leftstreet]

25. Well said

And never more evident than with our "two party" system

[Greyhound]

26. Exactly, the illusion of choice. n/t

[mike_c]

28. bingo!

I agree 100 percent!

[JJ]

30. Straw man strikes again

As far as I can see there is no "bail them out at any cost" argument.

[mike_c]

33. in your search for OP meaning...

...did you come across the actual point of the post?