My Photo

Feeds and more

  • [ BadgerLink logo ]
Blog powered by Typepad


Uppity Wisconsin - Progressive Webmasters

« Bailout: Bernanke Blunder and Betrayal | Main | Herb Score and Preacher Roe - Line Drives and Spit Balls. »

November 12, 2008


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Michael J. Cheaney


Your a Democrat. Democrats are anti-big business. You should not be supporting a bail out under ANY circumstances.


Paul I would agree with your condition if it includes those organizations that would also benefit from the bailout; namely the UAW. If you want to muzzle one you should muzzle both.


Paul, that's ludicrous. It's probably unconstitutional, so they can just take our money and then win the right to lobby in court.

Oppose the bailout, period. Two wrongs don't make a right, so don't try to sell one bad idea with another bad idea.


Why does it have to be a bail out rather then a loan? Chrysler received a loan during the Carter years and paid it back early. All these handouts should be loans. They can trick or treat somewhere else if they want handouts.


I think that the problem with the GM bailout vs. the Chrysler loan in the 70's is that Iacoca had a plan to get Chrysler back on track but GM doesn't have a way out of its mess.

A completely reorganized GM may be a better way to go. Painful, I understand, but better than trying to keep this paitient alive.


Unfortunately the hand out, er, I mean, bail out will pass and there won't be much in the way of strings attached. How about a guarantee to protect these high wage, family supporting union jobs? Not.

More of the same from the Obama Administration. Who won again?

Peter Rickman

How about a simple provision that if automakers receive a bailout they become subject to the same financial action that any firm would under an infusion of capital? That's right, ownership stakes. And the federal government as a plurality owner needs to inject itself into the strategic decisions of the firm. The government appoints 'trustee' executives that draft a real plan to get these companies back on track in service of both the mission to yield the highest profits possible as well as the public interest (which, in a case where the government is a stockholder and not just a stakeholder, the fiduciary duty of the company is to its stockholders, which in this case, would include the public).

GM, Chrysler, and Ford need new strategic direction. For too many years, they engaged in the political process very heavily to stave off the necessity of changing their business. Now that chickens are making their way back to the roost - or have already settled in the coop - Detroit needs to get its act together for the 21st century. The federal government, and by proxy the American people, as stockholder with real decision-making power can right this ship, something the "best and brightest" of Detroit have proven unable to do for decades now.

In this case, autoworkers need a bailout not because we care about some sentimental notion of Detroit (which isn't even the center of automotive commerce the way it once was), but because of the economic ramifications of failure. Tens of thousands of workers directly in the auto industry will lose their jobs, which will then cause hundreds of thousands of other workers to suffer and probably lose their jobs. But if we simply prop up Detroit and let them continue with the status quo, that looming spectre will still exist. They need to change strategy, and at this point, it looks like only the democratic power of the government can make it happen.


I'm just curious, how many bailout's resulting in government ownership of American companies does it take to equal Socialism? And, why do we stand aside while control is systematically being taken out of the hands of the people?

Obviously, I don't have answers, but it would be nice to hear a reasoned explanation for this.


Opel in Europe is GM and they build 50 mpg diesels, so building those here, for starters, can't be a bad place to begin to revive them with a short interim project. I agree no money without serious strings. To paraphrase a recent read, we have all probably bought our last automobile, we just haven't realized it yet. Continuing any support of the auto industry in any semblance of its present failed facade is a complete waste of our resources that need to be used to spur growth in a new direction.


A couple of years ago, a group of us were in Italy and we rented a nice 9 passenger Ford van which the bravest of us drove around the country. It was a nice diesel vehicle that got good mileage but guess what - that vehicle was not available in the US. It is pretty hard to have sympathy for a company that misses so obvious an opportunity.

Rich Preston

The best thing for the US auto industry would be to let these car companies die and force real change. What would likely come back would be carmakers that paid lower competitive wages and made cheaper and more competetive vehicles. Not the huge gas guzzlers and high wages that exist today. Bailing them out would only delay and maybe even block this much needed change.

Consered citizen

Are there any Boston Tea parties left in American? What can we do to stop this unconstitutional redistribution of our tax money?

Consered citizen

Are there any Boston Tea parties left in American? What can we do to stop this unconstitutional redistribution of our tax money?

The comments to this entry are closed.