Saved by a zero!

it sure is a good thing we have a bicameral legislature that creates laws, and that no one man can just unilaterally decide what's going to happen.

it's nice to see mr. obama standing up against this violation of both the spirit and letter of our system of laws, and supporting instead a system featuring oversight and accountability to the taxpayers. oh, wait. he supports this action.

america, we are truly screwed. watch the oligarchy dance.

If they declare bankruptcy, don't they get permission to default on the loans? Aren't the taxpayers basically screwed over if this doesn't actually save Detroit (hint: it won't)?

@dlynch: One flaw to your logic is that there was a majority in favor in both the House and Senate, but two union hating Senators threatened to filibuster.

Sigh. Imagine if Al Gore was selected by the Supreme Court in 2000. How much more likely would it have been that CAFE (fuel efficiency) standards would have been raised? And therefore, how much more likely would it have been that the formerly Big 3 wouldn't have been caught so flat-footed by this rapidly changing world we live in?

But NoooOOOOooo, we had to have captain free enterprise at the helm the last 8 years driving this country into the ground the same way he did Arbusto, Spectrum 7 and Harkin Energy. The man can't manage anything. The only thing I've ever seen him be good at it is douchebaggery and ducking shoes.

Georgey, Georgry, Georgy...Ive been a supported of yours up to the end. Cried with you when 9/11, stood by you when invaded Iraq, even tolerated your financial bailouts. Well George, Im sorry. Im leaving you. May God have have leniency on your soul.

@stevejust: Considering Bush never lost any of the recounts in Florida, I'm not sure how the Supreme Court could have "selected" Gore.

[newsbusters.org]

@mzs: Also forgot to mention that polls show that over 60% of Americans were against it.

@punkrawka: I think that's why a "government managed bankruptcy" was part of the Bush proposal in this case.

@Ingram81: This I don't get...why tolerate $700 Billion in financial bailouts, then get worked up over a "mere" $14 Billion?

Even though I know it's wrong, I'm going to rejoice -- if only because this means the end of "Possible Hypothetical Auto Bailout Almost Being Considered, Maybe" teaser headlines.

@stevejust: captain free enterprise? you don't know what you're talking about

Bush was later overheard saying "ha ha ha ha... HA HA HA HA.... WAAAAH HA HA HA HA!" and then drinking the blood of a newborn baby.

@dlynch: What's the alternative? Bankruptcy?

Then what do you do with the millions of people -- the few hundred thousand employed by the Big-3 directly, the several hundred thousand employed by the suppliers, and the several hundred thousand employed by the dealerships?

So you've got a few million people that lose their jobs. And some of those jobs at $27 an hour manufacturing jobs. Those jobs aren't coming back. So those millions of people who all have homes then won't be able to pay their mortgages. So that will further erode and screw up the finanical system that helped to start the dominoes falling (though selling 16 million cars a year was never sustainable -- and I said as much on autoblog in February of this year when I predicted that there'd be 12 million cars sold this year.)

Nobody wants to bail out companies that made crappy cars and can't compete. But what do you do with the conundrum that they're too big to fail? That phrase means something. Where you going to get the money to pay for unemployement benefits for all of those people? What are you going to do if they get TB while working at McDonald's, but can't get health care, and can't afford not to go to work, so they're there serving you hamburgers?

Seriously, what's the alternative?

@punkrawka:
I was wondering that too, if they do not get their stuff together in th next three months, they won't actually have the money to pay back.

I guess it basically comes down to that it won't be Bush's problem at that point.

I still think this is better than, almost literally, a whole state out of work.

@SomeoneGNU: Took me a minute. :)

@InfiniTrent: Most people I've talked to in the finance industry explain it as the 700 billion dollar bailout as basically saving our financial infrastructure.

the logic is, the auto industry needs the financial infrastructure, but not necessarily vice versa.

I think people are kind of focusing on the wrong thing here. It's not "we should bailout industry X because they contribute this to our economy". In today's economy, all industries play a role, all provide jobs. Whether or not we bail somebody out should be a function of , what the return on our investment is. Many industries are hurting right now, let's focus on giving loans to the ones we want to keep and are going to contribute back (growth, jobs, etc.) as well as the ones that are most likely to be able to pay back these loans.

This is no big deal in comparison to the size of what the bankers got.

I don't mind this bailout as much as other proposals since the funds come from the huge bailout the was already approved. I'd rather see that money go to a company that will directly employee people and indirectly employ more than see it go to a bank that will use it to expand.

@VOIDMunashii: Well, Clinton left Bush Osama bin Laden, so Bush will leave Obama the financial collapse! Fair's fair!

@Ingram81: 95% of Americans get their news and understanding of complex financial situations from five second news blurbs, media propaganda, and "their buddy who knows somebody". I'm glad we don't have a true democracy with all people voting on all issues - our citizenry is mostly uninformed on key issues.

@stevejust: I agree with most of what you posted (which is why I hold my nose and "support" these loans).

But I must point out that Bankrupcty does NOT equal Going out of Business.

Plenty of companies reorganize under Chapter 11 (which in this case would allow them to renegotiate some of their union contracts, get rid of their dead-weight dealers, adjust compensation, etc.).

@stevejust: that's why out bankruptcy system exists. everyone acts like it's a bad word, and a horrible option - but chapter 11 would force these poorly run companies to have ACTUAL oversight, and to run the businesses the way they needed to be run to pay creditors. this is the best chance for people to retain their jobs and pensions, and this "bailout" crap is just another way to get more money in the pockets of the execs and financial backers at the expense of the workers.

watch - the workers will still get screwed. our bankruptcy system is elegant, well-run and solid, and would have been a far preferable option to what is going to happen.

they really just want to get in as many fuck ups as possible before he leaves, don't they?

@crabbyman6: minus the part where this isn't the first time the auto industry has been bailed out...

::ahem::

All those complaints about how Obama was a big time socialist during the election and what are we going through now?

All these bailouts sound alot like Socialism to me...and they are all being spearheaded by the same republicans who were pissing and moaning just a couple months ago!

Im not exactly for all this bailing out. So far the Banking industry has shown nothing but contempt despite having their asses saved by the tax payers. I know the big 3 going under would be very bad for a great many people but are we really going to make sure they fix all the stupid **** they are doing?

They put themselves here, the bad economy didnt do it bad management did. Had they offered good products and had smart people who could plan for hard times maybe they wouldnt be in such a bad place.

Did they think making so many damn cars was a good idea? Year after Year they produce waaaaay more cars then they ever sell but they never seem to learn. Instead we see them parked by the thousands in lots all over the country.

So my first tip to help them save money is to scale back production so that at least for the time being its inline with consumer demand. Stay at the same level because there is no point in making cars that wont sell until they are being sold below cost in a mad rush to clear out inventory for new models.

@SomeoneGNU: +100 points for the pun.

+250 points for making homerjay have to think about it (no slam against homerjay...it just made me chuckle)

@dlynch: It's important to remember that our government system was not designed to be simple majority rule. The founding fathers were wise enough to understand that majority rule is just another way of saying mob rule. Sometimes the right thing to do and the popular thing to do aren't the same thing, and in this case, I'm not sure the gut reaction of "my '96 Lumina had a bad intake manifold gasket and I had to spend $500, so we should eliminate millions of middle class jobs" is really the wisest decision to make.

I didn't see so many people screaming in the '80s when all those jobs went overseas, and people here lost their jobs. I'm talking auto and steel, not to mention millions of manufacturing jobs.

I feel bad that millions of new jobs will be lost by anything that is done for the auto industry. Bailout or not, jobs will be lost.
Trying to sell things that people don't want has never been a successful option until now, when you can count on blackmail to bail your ass out.

here's the long and short of it: We're screwed. One way or another, capitalism has sold us out to the lowest bidder.

I actually agreed with a number of President Bush's decisions throughout his term. It's sad to see him drop the ball on this one though.

@lpranal and the magic holiday taco dip: @InfiniTrent: Because we are basically giving $ to an industry that has knowingly been producing sub-par merchandise for over the past 3 decades. We are like that parent that gives their spoiled un-deserving kid crack cause they're going through withdraw...contributing to the problem without fixing it.

This is a good plan for Bush.

If it turns out to be a bad idea, and a big mistake...it will just be one of many during his presidency. No biggie.

If it turns out to be a good idea, then he'll have left on a high note and people will say "The last thing he did before he left was save the American auto industry!"

@parad0x360: government interest in private industry isn't socialism.

@stevejust: I'm sorry, is "Captain Free Enterprise" the guy that has socialized the Banking and now the Automaking industries in America? The one that nationalized the banks by forcing them to take government money in exchange for part ownership of the banks?

lol, free enterprise.

Free enterprise, since you so totally fail at grasping the concept, is how Toyota, Mazda, and Honda took over the car market, through innovation and marketing of products that met the supply/demand cycle for cars in the US - that meant cheaper gas sippers when gas hit $4+.

The opposite of free enterprise is when the government intervenes to bail out failing enterprises - especially ones that caused their own demise by not understanding their customers and the market demands.

Free enterprise has spoken. This fail-out will not work, because nothing the government can do can make people want to buy GM's crappy offerings in this market.

Not surprising, but a shame. None of these bailouts should happen. If companies that make bad decisions don't have to suffer the consequences of their bad decisions, there is no disincentive for taking bad risks or for following bad business practices.

@stevejust: You mean like when US Airways went into bankruptcy? And when Delta went into bankruptcy? And when Sharper Image went into bankruptcy?

If there is such a thing as a corporation that is "too big to fail" then there should be a regluation restricting the size of companies from becoming "too big to fail."

This is ludicrous. What is a short term loan going to do when people aren't going to be buying new cars for another 2 years? You notice that private industry isn't making these loans. Why? Because they aren't going to get paid back.

Has anyone even considered that we are nationalizing our automakers in the same way we are nationalizing our banks? Hello Venezuela?

We need to fail before we can rise back up again. Plain and simple. There are far too many hands in the pot at this point and everyone has their own misguided idea of how the economy should spring back and what steps we need to take to get there. We haven't bottomed out. [Yet] It is going to happen, but the rate of how quickly we bottom out and the severity of such is dependent on the number of bull$%* choices our elected officials and Wall Street decide to make over the coming months.

The more we screw around with our funny money the more likely we are to be missing the bigger picture of how we got here and what steps are needed to avoid this mess from overtaking us as a global economy again.

What I like about this plan: The money comes from the bank bailout instead of spending more tax payer money.
What I don't like so much: The whole bailout thing in general. Still, I'd rather the automakers get bailed out instead of the bankers.

@InfiniTrent: Fair enough, it is true that under the standard the Fla Supreme Court set forth for the recount, had it continued, would've increased Bush's win from 537 votes to 1,665 votes. That's true. But, the Miami Herald, which is not liberal, said that under a more comprehensive recount, something more like what's going on with the Franken/Coleman race in MN right now, Gore would have won by 393 votes. So the newsbusters.org writer conveniently seemed to skip over that scenario.

@Ninja007: Sorry, I didn't know you were omniscient. Please do educate me, kind ninja sir.

@itrenorg: I'm sorry. Why again is it better that I should have to give up the money I earn to bail out auto workers? I worked hard to get into an industry that is in high demand. Yet my reward is to have a larger amount of my salary taken by force to be relocated to a mismanaged company to save it from it's own unionized labor and poor understanding of market demand?

@katylostherart: Yeah, it's something that I can't say for fear of invoking Godwin's Law... oh shit.

This sucks, I may have been one of the last supporters of President Bush left, but this seals the deal for me, not a fan anymroe.

@Ingram81: I just wanted the dambass, er, president, to use the phrase "fuel efficient" in his announcement this morning. I liked that they are going to basically have to match the other automakers on wages, now if they could do the same on quality and efficiency.

@Burgandy: Damn Fridays, can't even spell dumbass right today.

@TheFlamingoKing: irony much?

@Ingram81: I'm torn on this. While they USED to produce sub-par merchandise, such is no longer the case. I feel like they're turning it around. Chrysler probably is going kaput...probably merging with Nissan or VW. The biggest issue in the bailout unfortunately isn't the cars it's the UAW. GM has spent 100s of Billions in legacy care for the retired union workers. As cushy as they have it as a union employee in the auto industry, if we kill GM, we'll end up paying those Billions anyway when those retirees hit up medicare, medicaid.

This way at least the auto industry can try to right their boat.

@APFPilot: Welcome to the club, it is getting rather crowded in here, but welcome.

@sleze69: WEll, the airline bankrupticies prove your point, but Sharper Image, and say, the Pan Am bankrupcies do not.

Companies don't always emerge from the end of bankruptcy. And I understand they can.

But here's the question, is there a difference between being "bankrupt" but getting a bridge loan from teh government and going to a bankruptcy judge and having all those creditor attorneys and everyone else involved in the the huge turd of what the American Auto Industry has devolved into?

I say in this case it's better to avoid the bankruptcy proceedings and focuse on the reoganization that needs to happen. Dealing with the bankruptcy itself doesn't help the reoganization, it's another layer of crap to deal with.