OK, UAW, please answer this.

[DonCoquixote]

I hear a lot of people get pissed at Democrats because they demand a plan from the Big 3. All of sudden, people are accused of union-hating. Now, I want Union Labor to be strong again, I look forward to a day when "right-to-work" laws go the way of the dinosaur, because I know they mean "right to fire and treat people like dirt." However, I do want some sort of plan, some stick to the carrot, and the reason so is this: "If we give them this loan, what is to stop the Execs from using that money to gain more leverage and buy more time to screw over unions?" All the Fats Cats will have to do is simple NOT pay back the loan, claiming poverty, and then they can also blame the Government (which they would, without any shame and with all the help of Fox news and Rush.) Obama's government will be even more broke than it is, which means that Bush will have killed any reform before O even gets into office. You already know that they are NOT coming to Washington for the sake of the UAW, and if we just give them the money without demands, then lo and behold, they will come back in six months, in a much stronger position to demand more money, knowing the government is already too broke to fight them in any real way.

I want the UAW to live, I think that the Execs going to Washington are taking advantage of National Hunger to slip poison down their throats.

[aquart]

1. Right now I'm in favor of a federal law mandating hanging

for any CEO caught lying to Congress. And when they testify UNDER OATH or not at all to Congress, I want them to then sign transcripts of their testimony in the presence of a notary.

Actually, let's be fair. I'm in the mood to mandate hanging for ANYONE lying to Congress.

[texastoast]

2. Oh, you mean like the banks using the "bailout" money to buy other banks?

So they can keep their big CEOs in bonus money for failing the companies?

[pampango]

4. Speaking for myself, that is precisely what I want to avoid, since that would do nothing

to improve the auto industry and provide a long term solution to the industry's problems and long term jobs for their employees.

[JDPriestly]

3. You put it very nicely.

As I have pointed out umpteen times, if you manage a non-profit and apply for a grant for let's say $30,000 for charitable purposes, you have to present a plan, budgets, statements about equal opportunity hiring and then if you are lucky enough to get the grant, you have to report on the quantifiable use that you made of the money. You have to report back and account for virtually every goal you established in your grant proposal.

Here we are not talking about $30,000 or a few hundred thousand dollars or even a few million, but many, many millions to businesses that are failing, that haven't lived up to the promises they made to their investors. We are talking about businesses that overpay their management and that have not retooled and restructured to meet the demands of the market. Asking for a business plan and demanding periodic reports on the use of the money is the least Congress can demand.

We used to have to provide detailed budgets for the government grant proposals. Why shouldn't GM or Ford or Chrysler? They have many times the staff we had. What a bunch of crybabies. If they don't know how to present an acceptable proposal to Congress, they should hire a grantwriter from a non-profit.

[NNN0LHI]

5. What is your question?

[Mike 03]

7. From reading the OP, it seems like the questions might be something like this:

This issue is so complex, although some of the automotive union people on DU would have you believe it's apple pie stuff, black and white.

The question that needs to be answered is do we want to give away more money to particular corporations as we select winners and losers during a period of time when thousands of companies are going to go belly up.

Secondly, it's not right to call these loans because anybody with an IQ over 35 knows they will never, ever be repaid.

Thirdly, are these corporations that deserve to be rewarded? In some instances the answer might be yes, in others no.

Fourth, what is to prevent the corporations from taking the money and, in spite of that, screwing the workers? We may well be entering a period of deflation, where that will be the excuse to demand workers take wage cuts.

Fifth, these hand-outs are band-aids simply prolonging the inevitable collapse of these corporations because they are having trouble surviving. They are not competing well in the world markets. If we are going to become simply an originator of charitable donations, why these three? Why not everyone else in trouble?

[DonCoquixote]

8. Question

O put my question in quotes, but Mike )3 has done a better job laying them out than I did :)

[Mike 03]

6. Spot on post. There's nothing to stop these corporations, which are failing, from

not only accepting the loans but in spite of them forcing down the wages they pay their workers.

They came to Capitol Hill with no plan. They seemed confused about why they were asking for the amounts they were asking for.

This is a bridge loan, but a bridge loan to nowhere. I guarantee you we will have a repeat of this by the end of February if not sooner.