The government should not have bailed out the financial institutions and should not bail out the auto companies. I understand the possible ramifications of both, but these companies brought it on themselves. Both industries have been mismanaged. The auto companies should have stood up to the unions a long time ago. No hourly worker is worth $30-70/hour. They now have robots which can do much of the work that laborers did a few years ago. I believe the investors should have saved their financial institutions. I believe it is up to the unions and auto companies to save themselves. I don't understand why both of these situations are all of a sudden so critical. Frankly, I think it is poor management if both of these situations became critical so quickly. They should have seen it coming some time ago. Congress has turned over billions of dollars to the banks. Now they want to do the same to the auto industry. Very little that goes in to U.S. made cars is actually manufactured in the U.S. These plants are mostly assembly plants. If the government continues to bail out these industries we will no longer be a capitalistic country but a socialist country. Socialism doesn't work. It has failed in every country where it has been tried. We are in at least a recession. Some of us believe we are in the early stages of a full blown depression. Whether the government bails out the auto makers or not we will still need to suffer through some difficult times. It could complicate things somewhat, but it will not solve the problem. One thing that will help is for the government to break up the mega banks. That will help everyone. No bank should be allowed to become so big that the government thinks that it is too big to fail. By the way, the largest shareholder in Citibank is (or was) a foreigner.

 

There are emails going around, if you have not seen them, that are recommending all legislators that voted in favor of the "BAIL-OUT" be replaced at the next possible election. Spreading the money out at that level has done little to nothing to put people back to work. I've also read newsblogs that have said about the same thing.

No one up there seems to realize that if the blue-collar worker is able to pay his bills, those high and mighty financial institutions would not have a problem. Detroit would be healthier too. We seem to have the privilege of electing leaders that are blind as bats. For that matter, some of the things I've heard from up there sounds more like listening to "DRUG-BURNOUTS". They need to start taking "RANDOMS" just like we do. And, if they come up dirty, face the same consequences we do.

 

I have an idea. I know how they can get out of this mess. Maybe they can take 90% off on their vehicles. Wouldn't that be something. Buy a new pickup for about $2,500.

 

In my opinion we had no choice, we had to bail about the banking industry. It was partly the fault of the government by making changes in the Community Reinvestment Act. They wanted to raise the numbers of homeowners in this country by loosening up lending practices. By loosening up lending practices they had to make some bad loans. We just saw the end of the housing bubble that was found to break, well it broke and here we are.

 

I don't know where you get your numbers but the workers at the Honda plant in Greensburg, IN all start at $14/hr.

 

His numbers are right from a recent newspaper article I read at least with UAW and GM.

They won't go out of business, they will all file for bankruptcy protection and in a few years everything will be fine with them again. The only one who can survive with no help, Ford. They have publicly stated they can last about 2 years at the current economy state while GM and Dodge may not last far into January without help.

I'm with GMan, no help should be given to the Auto's and none should have been given to the Banks. Both have acted stupid and now they want a free pass to get out of their financial mess that they created themselves. Sorry, I don't feel bad for any of them.

 

Same here, If they want to save money I think the unions should be done away with. Those at the top should be payed based on sales and production. I have no problem with the big boys making big money provided the company is making money but for a CEO to get payed millions while driving the company bankrupt, that should be against the law. My dad has had a small construction business for 30 years and his workers and overhead get payed before he sees a single penny. Some years he does well, lately well, he's in bad shape and hoping he doesn't have to file bankrupt. If they can't trim the fat, they need to go under, eventually someone else will take up the slack.

 

It is not up to the American taxpayers to bail out private enterprise. Let the unions invest in the auto companies. They have billions invested in gambling casinos and other investments. Perhaps they should put their money where their mouth is. All any of them seem to want is to take. They need to put something back into their company. It is up to those who own and work for these companies to bail themselves out. After all, they are the ones who have benefited most for years from the profits. They should be willing to put some of those profits back into their companies. That goes for the bankers as well.

 

I guess you better ask yourself:

"What is it called when I go to the government for help?"

It's called wellfare, and generally frown upponded by taxpayers, whom seem to think that their very own taxes are paying for these people. And the amounts they get are nowhere close to the billions of dollars these so-called "American-Mexican-And anywhere else we can save a buck" corporations want.

And for them, it's called a "Bail-out"......

And where is the help that millions of small business get that go out of business on a dailly rate? Do they, too, deserve a bail-out?

Let's call it what it is. The RICH shoring up the RICH. That's it, nothing more. The fact that these f**kers threaten to kill thousands of jobs doesn't makes a different. Fact is, those jobs are still open to be cut, no-matter what we do.

I not only do not support a bail-out for business, but I didn't believe that we should have "GIVEN" the banks the money either, whom, BTW, have seen fit in telling the little guy that they still will not get the credit the bail-out was suppose to help with.

Finally, every-one who voted for the bail-outs need to be voted out, including the president elect, who I believe supported in the tax payers getting screwed.

So when you ask, "should we bail them out, so the workers can keep their jobs?", my answer will not just be no, BUT HELL NO!

Just my .02 cents.

 

While some of them may have been "bad loans", there are also quite a number of mortgages that have been getting their monthly payments for over 25 years, only to go bad in the last 3 years. They were not bad loans 20 years ago. They were not bad loans 10 years ago. But, because of no change in the annual income over the last 10 years, and other costs going up, they were no longer able to keep up in the last few years.

If you're going to be stuck in "BAD-LOANS" gear, you're pulling at the leaves. The problem is that income has not kept up with the rising cost of living when you include food and energy costs. But, someone chose to not include these two figures in the cost of living calculations. And, that would have most likely been at the urging of those same businesses that now need the bail-out.

If income went up at a rate of 10% over the last ten years, and cost of living figures did the same, now add in the performance of energy and food. That 10% no longer coveres it, and that's where the problem came in. That's why the loans went bad.