Filed under: Government/Legal, Chrysler, LLC., Ford, GM
If GM's situation worsens, McCain open to "every option"
In the wake of GM's Tuesday press conference detailing its plans to have enough cash on hand through 2009, politicians have been eager to voice their thoughts regarding the possibility of a government bailout. President Bush gave the possibility a strong no, but the two guys in line for his job have taken a different route.
Senator Obama has said that he supports automaker's attempts to restructure without outside help, but says he's willing to work with the companies on fuel saving tech. Republican Senator John McCain took an even stronger pro-automaker stance, saying "if it looks like it is approaching that, everyone has to consider every option." The Arizona Senator and presumed Republican nominee has stated in the past that he wouldn't support a buyout, but would instead provide tax breaks and infrastructure support to create more fuel efficient vehicles. McCain's "every option" comment may not sit well with his party, but it could sound good to Detroit automakers. McCain is visiting the GM tech center today. Both presidential candidates are working hard to woo Michigan voters, which will be a key state to win in the November election. Even though GM has stated it isn't looking for a handout, Michigan residents would love to know that the automaker would get one if it really needed it.
[Source: CNN Money, Image: Getty/Bill Pugliano]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
HotRodzNKustoms 1:41PM (7/18/2008)
Though I am fundamentally against government assistance to any industry (I like small government) I do believe you can never completely rule out any option before the time comes to tackle the problem. Making your mind up before properly and completely assessing a situation can make you look like, but not limited to, a idiot or a liar.
So being open to possibilities is a good choice on McCain's part.
Reply
mk 2:27PM (7/18/2008)
I, like you, are a big proponent of small government.
There is no such thing as "too big to fail." There is no reason that people who's earnings are sinking like the titanic, with stagnant wages, and falling value of the dollar, should be forced to spend those dollars supporting a private business.
Not GM, Not Fannie Mae, not Countrywide, or United Airlines.
All it does is further debase the american taxpayer (who are less able to afford to buy a GM car now, and in the future, should they CHOOSE to) and postpones bad medicine for worse medicine later. This is happening to everything that the Gov't has it's fingers into.
Small government IS the answer, even to the point of pain. It is going to be painful either way.
If the John McCain wants to help, why is he not suggesting DE-REGULATION? why not have the government, and hopefully even the unions loosen the noose around this, and many other industry's necks.
THEN (and now) it is the responsibility of the company to remain viable, and people can CHOOSE to spend money with GM, instead of being forced at gunpoint to spend money on GM via taxes and police who will haul you to jail if you don't pay your taxes.
Every option.... There is only ONE real option. Get the government the hell out of the way.
McCain, Obama, and the rest of them are talking... their mouths are open... that is how you can tell they are lying. All of 'em.
Vote small government for local, state and federal. If a candidate doesn't exist, write someone in, or run yourself. That, and small government conservatives running for office are the 'only' option, before the government loses all fiscal credibility and destroys our currency and economy.
MajorGeek 2:31PM (7/18/2008)
Thank you, I came here to say just that. I also was going to add, since this is politics, he actually said nothing and did it well since everyone here seems to think this means bailouts. Ill break it down for the rest of you, he just said he was open to options. Hopefully he gets a union vote from it, as well as those strapped by fuel prices (everyone) and he then listens to the options in November and decides all the options suck. Game over.
baffledu2 2:37PM (7/18/2008)
mk
You and Trotsky ( you do remember that famous Anarchist) would make great, albeit strange, bedfellows.
The constant regurgitation of Reagan's inaccurate "government is the problem" when in actuality it is not government but rather "bad" government that is the problem (and God knows we have had enough of that over the last 7 1/2 years) is boring and flys in the face of reality. Name me one instance where deregulation has worked to benefit any industry.
If government is the problem then all the success of Brazil in weaning themselves from hydrocarbons must have come from ?????????????
There is a role for government. It is their job to set policy not the markets.
bailout=fascism 3:13PM (7/18/2008)
"Though I am fundamentally against government assistance to any industry (I like small government) I do believe you can never completely rule out any option."
Your another phony hypocrite republiclan. You're all for "small government" and "free markets" until one of your corporate handlers corrupts themselves into bankruptcy, then its "no option is off the table". Let GM and any others fall on their own sword. Otherwise forget the free market BS and lets actually look at "every option". One option to deal with gas prices is to nationalize all domestic oil resources so it can be offered domestically at a set price and eliminate the bankruptcy of the middle class. Another option is severe criminal penalties for executives and CEOs of the companies that engage in reckless or corrupt business practices - only strong penalties will deter such actions so minimum sentences should be set at 10-25 years with no parole, depending on involvement, with the option of the death penalty for company heads found to be complicit.
"If the John McCain wants to help, why is he not suggesting DE-REGULATION? why not have the government, and hopefully even the unions loosen the noose around this, and many other industry's necks."
Deregulation. Yeah, thats exactly what we need. Less oversight. Its done wonders with our financial markets, and it did wonders in the energy markets with Enron and the rolling blackouts in CA. We need much stronger regulation of these industries, otherwise they will skim the books on a gradually escalating scale till it catches up to them and completely wipes away their solvency and credibility.
Deregulation is for corporations what an open tab is to alcoholics - do it if you only want it to end in a messy car wreck and financial ruin.
mk 3:14PM (7/18/2008)
Baffled, you must really BE baffled.
I am not in ANY WAY suggesting anarchy. If you would read my post, I say just that. There ARE roles for government, I agree. The roles are CLEARLY DELIMITED in the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution does not limit the people. It guarantees freedom for the people by limiting the government. Anarchy is not nearly that well spelled out, and would not want to abide by the constitution.
Ronald Reagan was exactly CORRECT that government is the problem, not the solution, and when he was referring to Carter-era policies, he may as well have been describing the US government trying to repeat history again now. What we are seeing now is just the beginning of that repetition, if the congress doesn't get it's act together directly.
IF you think that is boring, or unreal, I am sorry. It is real, and it is essential to the survival and success of this nation.
How do you define "BAD" government? Government that doesn't coddle people from cradle to grave? Government that lets failure teach lessons for success in the free market, by leaving the market alone?
Reagan de-regulated the Airlines, and they thrived for a while until they forgot the lessons, and now are facing higher fuel costs than anyone ever imagined running airliners on, and are now behind the 8-ball due to energy policy. By the GOVERNMENT.
They de-regulated the telecommunications conglomerates, and they became somewhat more competitive. Any time business is unleashed and not monopolistic, it competes, and the customers benefit by getting more value for their dollar. Over regulation COSTS the american people, by making it harder for businesses to be efficient and competitive. Take Econ 101. You'll learn something.
How about Bad government being self-agrandizing, unaccountable, special-interest driven elitists who completely divorce themselves from accountability to the people who elect them? That is what we have. That is what "BIG" government breeds. Power and corruption on all sides.
Brazil is Brazil. If Brazilians have the impetus to convert to sugar cane ethanol, or whatever (and use up their aerable land for fuel, instead of foodstuffs, which is more efficient and profitable use of sugar) then the people can do that in the free market, and companies can make money by doing it. The brazilian government is not required for that to happen.
BTW, Sugar, and alcohol, are hydrocarbons, in a chemical sense. And they require energy to cultivate.
I am not an anarchist. I am a conservative. Conservatism works every time it is honestly tried.
MGBYG 5:00PM (7/18/2008)
"Conservatism works every time it is honestly tried."
That Spanish Inquisition and those Salem witch trials were a huge success, no? The 'conservatives' in Revolutionary France, standing in the right wing of the Parliament, wanted to keep the King. True conservatives would of never waged the American Revolution...King George was a fine dude!
McCain is pandering in a pile of old man drool.
Disgruntled Goat 7:17PM (7/18/2008)
The more I read Autoblog the more I realize that 'Rock the Vote' is ultimately a bad idea.
bailout=fascism 7:29PM (7/18/2008)
"The more I read Autoblog the more I realize that 'Rock the Vote' is ultimately a bad idea."
Yep. And WE decide the election this time around. Your generation of corrupt, perverse, heartless politicians and corporatist are symbolized by the decrepit and decaying McInsane, and within another generation you are your stink will be gone. If GM can't convert to a high-economy car maker, then they will go bust. No need for bailouts, they just weren't the right business model for the current market, no way in hell that warrents a bailout. Let them fall by their own sword.
Disgruntled Goat 11:12AM (7/19/2008)
I'm not sure who "WE" or "your generation" is but you validate my point since you don't either. Go ahead - prove me wrong.
Personally I've never understood the benefit of encouraging the uninformed to vote. The uninformed voting is part of the problem, not part of the solution.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNbLQ6DC8mw
HotRodzNKustoms 12:58PM (7/19/2008)
@bailout=fascism:
So I am a hypocrite for because I am open minded, analyze the situation at hand, and try to come up with a sensible solution? RRRRRiiiiiiiigggghhht
2004m3driver 1:44PM (7/18/2008)
I oppose bail outs, but if it helps the economy and they really rebuild GM to a thriving company then they should do it. Not some cheesy bailout for now continue to suck later bs plan.
Reply
baffledu2 1:45PM (7/18/2008)
The economic impact of G.M. or Ford declaring bankruptcy can not be overstated. Chrysler, being a private comany not so much but would still be a disaster. The ripple effects from suppliers to investors ( both private and institutional) might well be the straw that broke the camels back and send this economy into a fatal tailspin. There is NO WAY the government can allow either one to actually go belly up.
Reply
torpeau 2:32PM (7/18/2008)
"Bankruptcy" does not equal going out of business. However, if these companies have chosen to produce products that are inferior, do we need them? They should have learned many years ago that the customer wants quality.
Matt 4:17PM (7/18/2008)
torpeau:
What is inferior to what?
The days of "oh em gee american carz suxxorz dood!" are over. Get over yourself.
torpeau 6:26PM (7/18/2008)
Look at Consumer Reports, Motor Trend, etc. and see where Chevrolets, Fords and Chryslers rank. Dude, they ain't ranked real close to the top.
Purifoy 2:08PM (7/18/2008)
Suggesting financial assistance to GM, or any other company or industry, is nothing new. The government has done it before. Chrysler and Lockheed are just a couple of examples. And after all,
But if we're not careful, before you know it more and more companies will start running hat-in-hand to Uncle Sam for a few dollars everytime they run into trouble.
And once they get hooked on that the real person who'll take it in the shorts is George and Martha Taxpayer followed by their neighbors John and Jane Consumer.
Reply
Vintage 2:08PM (7/18/2008)
McCain: Quit pandering.
About GM: The only people you have to blame are your own CEOs and project leaders (read business major asshats). It's your own fault. Not the taxpayer's.
Reply
Lucas 2:09PM (7/18/2008)
something has been telling me that McCain really don't give a crap about things and just trying to win the campaign by throwing out every type of ideas that can win the public without thinking about the entire picture. who knows if he will follow his ridiculous proposals if he got elected.
Reply
Wildgoosechase73 2:09PM (7/18/2008)
If the government wants to help out the big three all it has to do is adopt European emmissions and crash standards. That would allow many smaller cars to enter the market overnight.
Reply