jpolz

Let them die.

The cost of propping GM, the financial industry, and everything else is going to be far more painful later the longer we postpone the market correcting itself through a recession.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TP_aJ...eature=related

Jim the Nomad

Yes, let's let all the jobs associated with the big 2.5 evaporate. That won't hurt the economy.

I agree that bailouts are a horrible idea, but the ball is already rolling, and honestly, I don't see how we can spend close to 1 trillion on bailing out the banks and NOT spend/loan a few billion bailing out the automakers...

jpolz

What good is having jobs if your currency is worthless?

Fbodfather

WHY are people using the word "bailout"????

Bailout means the government "GIVES" the company money.

GM/Ford/Chrysler are simply saying: "Hey -- give us a low-interest loan - we need to get thru the current malaise -- and we'll pay you back with interest!"

People STILL talk about how "The United States bailed out Chrysler" in the 90s.....NOT TRUE! Chrysler paid the loan back -- LONG before the loan was due -- with every penny of interest associated with the loan.

GM is NOT asking for a 'bailout' -

As to low-interest loans - go look at what foreign countries GIVE to their auto and airliner industry..............

Northwest94Z

Exactly. Can anyone say Airbus.

Eric Bryant

In my mind, a "bailout" is financial aid - loans, grants, or otherwise - that would not otherwise be available to a company on the free market.

I'd also be interesting in knowing what timeframe GM sees itself paying back, say, $20B in loans. Would the government (me, the taxpayer) receive preferential treatment and get repayment before GM's bondholders? Would GM pay out a dividend to its shareholders before paying back the loans? And what's a reasonable timeline for paying off the loans, considering that some in the industry are now claiming that it may very well be 2012 before production volumes pick back up to the 17M/year range?

Convince me that the current situation is anything like Chrysler back in the 80s, because I think there are significant differences - not the least of which is the fact that GM is fundamentally insolvent, with only $120B of assets to put up against its $190B in liabilities (the latter number would only grow larger with some sort of government assistance).

I don't want to see GM fail, but I also don't want to see an otherwise non-viable company propped up with taxpayer money. I'd want to see GM come to the table with an admission of exactly where, when, and how it screwed up. I'd want to see a plan that would put new leadership into place. I'd want to see how the taxpayer would be protected if GM can't meet its targets. I'd want to see strict requirements about where this money is spent - no more lowest-common-denominator suppliers from low-cost countries, and no more spending $400M on plants in Russia on the same day that you're stating there is only enough cash left for the next quarter.

And I'd want to see GM admit what this really is - a bailout that was required by the company's own inability to control its destiny.

routesixtysixer

If I'm not mistaken, the government didn't loan Chrysler a dime back in the 80s. They guaranteed the loans.

Purple 92 SS

I think everyone says bail out because the companies will fail if they do not recieve the "loan" from the government. Thus they are being Bailed out, from financial ruin.

Either way, call it what you will, they in my opinion shouldnt happen, as no one will bail me out if i screw up my finances, why should we "bail out" anyone else? However, that being said, the bail outs are already happening, and honestly, I dont want to see GM fail, simply out of selfishness, as I want more camaros.

GTOJack

17 million units per year in US light vehicle sales has been deemed as artificially high due to easy credit. Analysts predict the new norm to be 15-15.5 million units per year if and when we break out of current slump. The rescue plan actually is a bailout since it will save GM from declaring bankruptcy.

94LightningGal

We are sitting here arguing semantics. You say "bailout," and others say "loan guarantees."

Who cares.

In the spirit of today, when the banking/investment industry is having massive piles of cash thrown at them............. a few loan guarantees looks like nothing in comparison.

Yes, there will need to be conditions on the money, especially for GM, who has not shown a consistant plan or vision. But, a loan non-the-less.

HuJass

I believe the "loan guarantees" need to proceed.
The loss of the jobs associated with the big 3 going under would be astronomical. It would be a severe blow to the economy.

And yes I believe that there should be numerous conditions attached to the "loan" money. All to protect the taxpayers and employees.

bossco

http://www.autoextremist.com/current/

super83Z

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27607725

What I don't understand is this: if GM fails the economy will fail. If Gm gets the loans and the currency fails then the economy fails. So why not save them since it will more than likely cripple our economy literally overnight? Remember 1 in 14 is directly or indirectly tied to the auto industry, that is a staggering figure. Also if GM goes down it will probably bring Ford with them. Why does it seem like their are more people saying let GM fall and outraged that they are asking for LOANS than people that were outraged about the $700B dollar giveaway? (Which the execs were vacationing a week after they received it)

bossco

Experts or the average guy super or both?

IMO, the experts are free market smacktards who are hellbent on seeing this mess go through iregardless of the cost to the country at large betting the farm that it will work out eventually, at the other end of the spectrum are knuckleheads who have grown to hate or have been raised to hate the domestic auto industry and want to see it go down in flames ignorant of thier peril.

SSbaby

The old adage, "What's good for GM, is good for America" is no longer true according to the 'former' president. Dubya was definitely keen to see the auto industry die as he did nothing to help its cause during his 8 years in office. The current crisis is partly a legacy of his abandonment of the world's greatest industry - let's face it, it's the whole American auto industry and not just GM. Yet Dubya was determined to see that the banks were properly looked after. How's that for hypocrisy... on the grandest of scales?

I'm one of those who favors a bailout/loan. But only if we know GM will be with us as the great company it once was (and in my heart, it still is, always will be)!

In regards to your question... why do people want to see GM/auto industry die? Well it weakens America. Those who write these things are echoing thoughts from the powers that be. The sheep just spread their gospel.