Why wouldn't they be when the government gives 750 billion dollars to banks? What is 25 billion for 3 companies in comparison to 750 billion that banks have received? And for FKING what? So they can make even more money and take peoples houses away? Were is logic here?

↓↑report

Totally agree. I dont get it.
The corrupt 'Gold Man Sachs board serving' finance firm CEO mingling Paulson can get 750 FRIGGIN' USD when they insure firms and any impact of their dissolution is really a stop gap effect as they dont produce any actual goods other than services (that can be reorganized qucikly). They dont have inventories, factories, tooling plants, distribution lined etc. Just abstract services that are of questionable value.

Here are 3 firms that as Chrysler makes in it's case, employ SERIOUS jobs, people and money. Letting them go down under has SERIOUS consequences.

Yes, Paulson fiercely guards his $750 billion (of course, because he only cares about his cronies, not the American working man) while 3 automakers BEG for a paltry 25-50 billion.

This is a separate issue from whether GM etc should file for Chapter 11. It's more about the principle of the thing that riles me up.

↓↑report

And the worse part of lending to these firms and bailing them out it realistically, it has done NOTHING.

Look at CNN's reort on AIG's lavish spending after they received 75 billion dollars. Insurance agents were getting spa treatments and so on. Wall street hasnt changes and will not since they have cronies who will spot them. Sure, Paulson is getting no kickback in his role. But after he retires, I'm sure his aid here will be 'appreciated' by Wall St.

Let's look at the basic problem. Creditors are bankrupt because folks taking variable rate mortgages cant make payments as interest rates are up. The Government has lowered them and pumped money into the markets so these banks can stop doing this. Have the banks lowered their rates since the last 2 years? NO. Essentially, there has been ZERO effect to the troubled American hoome owner.

↓↑report

Absolutely Valentino

↓↑report

So what about the Unions? I find it quite ironic that some high school dropout pushing a button can earn more than someone who went to college, spent 4 years earning a degree, and getting half of what a UAW guy gets per hour.

The biggest problem right now is the UAW. In addition to the CEO's, the UAW either needs to show they are for the economy and take a pay cut for a short time, or start striking and slowly die off.

↓↑report

You guys above really have no clue why they bailed out the banks-it wasn't for the good of the banks themselves, it was to get the banks to stop trying to save their own butts and start lending to OTHER people and companies. Kinda like how a lot of people were having trouble getting auto loans because the banks were too busy trying to save their money to stop themselves from going bankrupt. Except if every bank is trying to keep as much money as possible so they don't go bankrupt, the entire economy grinds to a halt. And banks stopped lending money to each other too, which is bad for the banks that needed loans.
That's the only reason that they "bailed out" the banks-a lot of the banks didn't even want the bailouts since they were forced to take money they didn't need and pay interest on it. And it wasn't $700 billion anyway, that's just the maximum they'll spend. Most of the banks that got the money are easily capable of paying these back anyway, so it's not actually costing us $700 billion, unless you think every single bank is going to go bankrupt and not pay us back, in which case every car company would be more screwed than imaginable anyway.
The bailout for the banks has already helped all the car companies, because without the bailout what would have happened is that eventually nobody could get an auto loan at all, since the banks panicking and refusing to loan money basically sent the loan interest rates skyrocketing (if no banks are loaning money then the ones that are loaning want a LOT of money to do it) and froze up all the credit out there.
Stop acting like morons and screaming about how the banks are evil out and how they're stealing your tax money. Paulson might be an ex-Goldman Sachs guy but that just means we'll probably end up profiting from the insane investments we just made in banks. The only people pissed about this are the bankers since they don't want the government owning half the banks.
As far as AIG goes, it was pretty bad taste to throw those stupid meetings but most of them were for the insurance sales people who aren't even employees and basically work on commission. No offense but they probably should have thrown all those events they canceled because otherwise those people can pretty easily switch to selling some other insurance company's products, especially right now when most of the other companies smell blood in the water and are already trying to poach as many people away as possible. It just looks bad when CNN talks about it but if it was your company you'd probably try to keep your earners from leaving too.
That said, the new AIG bailout is a pretty sweet deal for AIG compared to the old one that had them paying 14% interest. But you do realize that AIG's already paid BILLIONS in interest to the US government, and the US government now owns 80% of AIG? There's no way that taxpayers aren't going to end up profiting from this bailout. Right now it's popular to bash Paulson but chances are 10 years from now his $700 billion bailout will have made taxpayers a ton of money.
Anyways they already gave the car companies $25 billion, the only bailouts we're talking about now is more money on top of that. Which they have a 95% chance of getting so quit your panicking. It's probably going to screw over any shareholders though so if you're whining because you're a big 3 shareholder you'll still be whining after the bailout...go look at how great AIG shares are, or fannie mae, or freddie mac....they're all worthless.

↓↑report

catsgirlshyla,
So if one goes to college for four years (most likely on the taxpayers dime) and can't earn half of what a union auto worker earns (as previously reported slightly more than above middle class wage earners) then I suggest to you that not only have you wasted your time bet my money and yours as well. Or perhaps the graduate is a lot dumber than one thought.

↓↑report

Either way will affect you, open ye' eyes! This is not a bailout, it is a low interest loan that will be paid, unless they don't get it then WE as AMERICANs will pay for it via welfare for the MILLIONS nationwide affected. Please USA, understand what this means.

↓↑report

+1!

You don't see any other car companies whining right now do you?

Give the money to the folks - that's us - so we can buy the cars that we want to buy...and FoGenMo(par) Co can die the death they were dying before this all began.

↓↑report

"You don't see any other car companies whining right now do you?"

Yet.

You can bet if some foreign maker was on the edge of failure their govt would step up. You know it to be true.

Hell, the Japanese government paid the entire cost of the Prius platform development. So, spare me your whiny woes of tax payer money and how foreign auto makers are so free market innovative. They are not. They're just more elegant in the manner in which they belly up to the tax payer trough for their hand-out.

↓↑report

I agree with you in some respects. GM exists only to provide health care for hundreds of thousands of people. I agree that many of the workers should be helped to transition into a new industry.

The only way people will buy American at this point is if people are made or strongly incentivized(?) to buy American.

↓↑report

I find it amusing that you know how to properly use the word tantamount but can not spell welfare.

↓↑report

I find it amusing that people still check other people's spelling on blog comments.

↓↑report

And shouldn't it be "cannot", not "can not"? Or were you trying to be ironic?

↓↑report

I agree. People subscribe too rabidly to the theories of free-market economies. But sometimes you need to protect what is yours. Just ask the Japanese.

↓↑report

@Sid
Please Cite specific examples.

We have been giving incentives to buy American trucks for years
-We give businesses tax breaks that virtually allow them to write off the entire cost of the vehicle.
-Light trucks were not subject to the same fuel economy standards as cars until last year. That was 22 years of no mileage restrictions for trucks
-Emissions on Trucks are not nearly as stringent as they are for Cars making them cheaper to own and operate.

↓↑report