Lonewolf,
I do respect your opinions on this matter. Here are some of mine. To your above post:
1. This so called "bridge loan" of 50 billion dollars would be consumed in the very first financial quarter of 2009 admitted by the very mouths of the CEO's themselves. What then???? This is why #3 (Affectionately referred thereafter as "The Big Plan" important- particularly to US taxpayers) is of such importance. BTW, the plan (we're being kind here) that GM, Ford, & Chysler revealed to Congress was an open-ended joke. This did work before for Chrysler, when Lee Iacocca was CEO and refused his salary and executive lunches during the crisis. You can betch your *ss Lee would have driven to Washington in a 'K' car for the hearings. Even Chysler had to jump through hoops (as they should) during the Reagan administrations bail-out plan.
2. The fundamental difference here is that the original intent of the 700 billion dollar bailout was for federally backed financial institutions to begin utilizing the money for American consumers to free up the credit crunch in housing, business, and auto lending practices; not for free enterprise businesses . Obviously, this has now been diverted. Don't recall seeing Citibank having the financial balance sheets repeatedly over time that the US automakers have had. We have seen a domino effect in the failure of financial lending markets. We do not seem to see this rampant in the automobile industry with other non-US auto manufacturers. This is also the reason that Congress wants a detailed plan. Toyota, Honda, and Nissan have all suffered as well in this economic recession but they are no where in the same financial straits as GM, Ford, & Chrysler.
3. Couldn't agree more with you on this one!
