Comments on: WOW! Waxman beat Dingell!

By: a friend of the law

a friend of the law — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 00:27:38 +0000

I agree that any money given to the automakers should be in the form of a loan to be paid back. Reworked union contracts should be part of the deal as well. These companies can’t survive and compete with that albatross around their necks.

But, the bottom line is that they need to start making vehicles that people want to buy, and that get good gas mileage. Its really just good common business sense.

By: Ben Cole

Ben Cole — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 20:16:44 +0000

ThirdSouth: There’s a bit more to the story. The government never loaned Chrysler a dime … but it guaranteed loans Chrysler made. Additionally, Chrysler’s vendors and other creditors were required to suffer significant markdowns in their claims against Chrysler, so it was “bankruptcy” cloaked in different garments. I’m going to give you a link from a source that makes me feel dirty for using it as reference information. You can accord the source and the info such credence as you deem appropriate.

http://www.heritage.org/research/regulation/bg276.cfm

Now I’ve got to go wash my hands. Twice.

By: ThirdSouth

ThirdSouth — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 18:08:34 +0000

If that’s the definition of “bailout,” I’m all for it.

By: NMC

NMC — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 17:07:49 +0000

what chrysler got– a low interest loan that was paid back at a profit to taxpayers– was called a bailout.

By: NMC

NMC — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 17:06:50 +0000

I think loan is one of the “bailouts” being considered, isn’t it?

I’m not for a gift. I mistrust a purchase (then the government becomes an owner? Not smart. Plus I think management and equity ought to come third to govmt $s), so that pretty much leaves a loan. If they’re talking about a gift or some sort of equity position (other than a preferred position that gets paid out first), I’m against a bailout.

By: ThirdSouth

ThirdSouth — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 17:03:41 +0000

It’s not a good case for a bailout in my opinion, NMC, it’s a good case for a low interest long term loan.

By: NMC

NMC — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 16:26:14 +0000

It’s probably interesting news for dealing with the bailout issues, too– would Waxman be a skeptic there, too (as opposed to a subsidiary…).

I really am having trouble getting my mind around the car bailout question. I understood the debate about the financial meltdown. The auto bailout seems to be completely debated in conclusions– and part of them I don’t understand how they got there.

If it is really a fact these companies are salvageable (in the way that Chrysler was salvageable) but can’t get what amounts to debtor-in-possession financing and are going to go broke because of that, then that’s a good case for a bailout.

The argument that buying three years of operation and staving off the loss of these jobs is critical given the economy is a weaker argument, but still in favor.

On the other hand, it’s hard to be sympathetic to their refusal to make changes to deal with a future that pretty much everyone thought was coming….

By: Ben Cole

Ben Cole — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 16:23:13 +0000

Yes we can ….