What's going on with the bailout?

[tazber]

Posted: 11/13/08 at 1:42pm

According to congress banks aren't lending like they should be.
And now the government won't be buying the bad mortgages.

So, what's changed?

And now they're talking about infusing the auto industry with cash.

They need to put the proper oversight in place for the "bailout" we have before throwing more good money after bad.

Grrrr.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 11/13/08 at 1:50pm

They need to put the proper oversight in place for the "bailout"

Ahahhahahahhah! That's almost as funny as anal rape!

[Unknown User]

Posted: 11/13/08 at 2:04pm

President Obama hasn't changed anything. All he seems to care about is taking away my guns. What a horrendous disappointment.

[tazber]

Posted: 11/13/08 at 2:19pm

Actually, Obama has very little to do with this at this point.

Chris Dodd on the other hand should be drawn and quartered.

[frogs_fan85]

Posted: 11/13/08 at 2:47pm

The problem is that there was no mechanism in the language of the bailout deal to force the banks to use these funds to free up credit. Most of the banks are just holding onto the money... most likely to use to purchase other banks that end up failing.

[Parks]

Posted: 11/13/08 at 2:55pm

Taz, I think Mr. Joe might have been a little facetious... :)

[Unknown User]

Posted: 11/13/08 at 2:57pm

I was imagining what it would be like to be a Republican. Lonely. And a little bit terrifying.

[tazber]

Posted: 11/13/08 at 3:01pm

Well, if the bailout flops, it's the democrats who will be blamed since they make up the majority of congress.

The republicans are probably hoping for it does fail.

[SNAFU]

Posted: 11/13/08 at 3:16pm

I am seriously beginning to feel that we should just let the companies die and ride it out. Are we putting a band aid on a gaping chest wound? The US is already borrowed out. Our national credit rating is on the brink of taking a nose dive. China pretty much owns us now.

[KrissySim]

Posted: 11/13/08 at 3:20pm

It's "Take the money and run!" time.

Swiss banks, get ready!
Updated On: 11/13/08 at 03:20 PM

[frogs_fan85]

Posted: 11/13/08 at 4:20pm

While I don't really want to have the country continually throwing money at any company that's asking for it (especially AMEX, which pleaded successfully to be considered a bank this week so it could get bailout money), helping out the Big Three in Detroit might be necessary due to how many other industries that the auto manufacturers (steel, electronics, etc.) prop up and the number of workers that GM, Ford and Chrysler employ.

[KrissySim]

Posted: 11/13/08 at 4:25pm

The Detroit Big Three:

It's their own fault. They should have known in the 70's to focus on more fuel efficient cars and trucks, not huge gas guzzlers. I think the Fed should take over the Detroit auto industries until they can be sold to a new generation of auto makers.

The Federal government owned and operated a Brothel in Nevada until it could either sell or fold (it folded). They can certainly run Detroit for a few years, head it to a new direction then privatize it.

[best12bars]

Posted: 11/13/08 at 4:28pm

I love that we're already being blamed for this crappy situation and Obama and the new elected officials don't even take office until January 20th!

Talk about stupid people.

Sorry, I gotta call that stupid, because it is. I'm just glad he's trying to organize now before he gets there, instead of playing golf, like W would have done (or is doing, for that matter).

W is still the president of this country for another two months.

I hate to give you nightmares, folks, but contrary to popular belief, he's not dead. He is however just a complete waste of HTML for me.

I agree that a plan needs to be in place before money is thrown at them. I thought a detailed plan WAS in place, with MANY stipulations.

Am I wrong?

[Gothampc]

Posted: 11/13/08 at 4:52pm

"I love that we're already being blamed for this crappy situation and Obama and the new elected officials don't even take office until January 20th!"

Do the names Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid mean anything to you? They were the ones that pushed this bailout through Congress before Bush even got to see it. Blame the Democratic-controlled Congress for the mess we're in, not the POTUS.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 11/13/08 at 5:55pm

Someone bailed out on it.

Let's bail out the auto industry which is dying from a self inflicted wound & their own stupidity.

[best12bars]

Posted: 11/13/08 at 6:07pm

Actually, Goth, I choose to blame you personally for everything that's wrong with this country.

Better? You're the reason why.

[Yawper]

Posted: 11/13/08 at 6:14pm

I hope those of you who are cheering the demise of the American auto industry already have your future jobs lined up overseas because there won't be any left here.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 11/13/08 at 6:36pm

I am not cheering the demise of the auto industry. They did this to themselves by caving into the UAW instead of taking strikes.

The idea of any company giving medical benefits to people who no longer work for them is fiscal insanity. It adds tons of money to cars people do not want because the auto industry is not making cars people actually want to buy.

We used to know people in pittburgh who told us that the steel industry priced themselves out of business by constant union demands. The companies felt enough was enough & jobs were moved overseas. The same is happening with the auto industry.

[Yawper]

Posted: 11/13/08 at 6:41pm

Nice anti-union message there, pal, but it doesn't mean anything.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 11/13/08 at 7:09pm

Anytime you say any thing against a union you are branded anti union. To say that everything unions do is good & they do no wrong is naive. They push up prices & in times like this they refuse to see the handwriting on the wall & they stonewall any attempt to ask them to be part of the solution.

Just keep dreaming on & when you pay more for a car or more in taxes just remember how much unions do for you & how much they cost you.

[Yawper]

Posted: 11/13/08 at 7:28pm

If you actually knew anything about the auto industry you would know that there have been union givebacks and that even more go into effect in 2010 when the new contract kicks in.

As a matter of fact if the financial sector hadn't gotten so greedy and killed the economy the automakers wouldn't even be looking for loans now.

[KrissySim]

Posted: 11/13/08 at 8:04pm

I don't think that skyrocketing gasoline prices and auto lots full of new gas guzzling SUVs and trucks was a result of the financial sector getting greedy. The present economy was not caused of one thing only. Oil companies were driving their prices up seeing how far they could push it, making record profits by the way. The cost of oil influences everything else.

If a corporation made a bad call as a result of bad management, throwing money at it won't help it. Let GM Ford and Chrysler be taken over by the Fed until it is restructured, remapped and privatized by more competent management and owners.

The Fed should be helping start-ups in small business and industry, not trying to prop up massive failed corporations whose foundations have rotted away. The Fed can run the automotive industry for awhile until it is restructured.

[Yawper]

Posted: 11/13/08 at 8:33pm

Skyrocketing gas costs and the downturn resulting from it had been accommodated in the automakers' planning. The collapse of the financial sector and dry-up of lending was not something they could anticipate. It's also very questionable that GE is getting up to $139 billion of the $700 billion bailout while GMAC isn't getting a penny.

[KrissySim]

Posted: 11/13/08 at 8:45pm

Skyrocketing gas costs and the downturn resulting from it had been accommodated in the automakers' planning.

I'm not sure why, following the oil crises of the '70s Detroit went on to build giant SUVs and trucks and not focused on fuel economy - anticipating a restructuring of the transportation industry - prior to now. But perhaps you are right on one level.

My point is that if a giant company that is essential to the economy fails, rather than throwing money at it, the government can take it over and restructure it without having to comply with any existing contracts. In that way it can set a completely new course for it and subsidize it until it becomes viable for private ownership.

[Yawper]

Posted: 11/13/08 at 9:51pm

With the exception of Chrysler these are publicly traded companies that are viable. The issue is that due to the financial sector collapse they cannot get access to the lines of credit in the US they would have in the past.

As far as what they build - they build what the consumer will buy. The foreign manufacturers knows this, too, that's why they *all* jumped into the SUV market. Believe it or not the top selling vehicles in this country for decades where full size pickup trucks. After only one or two months out of the number one position the pickup trucks are back on top. One manufacturer has even called back 1,000 employees to add an extra shift at a truck plant.

The design cycle for a new vehicle - concept to street - is three years - for ALL of the companies, not just the US ones. None of the companies can respond overnight to rapid market changes like the gas price spike. The foreign manufacturers' sales are getting hammered just as badly as the domestics' sales, but the foreign companies have definite financial advantages in not being US based. That inherent disadvantage to US companies is what the Federal government needs to address.