Not that I'm having a love affair with some banks and some auto manufacturers, but I have hatred for the fact that the government wants to take these industries over, and run them. The government can barely run it self. What the hell does it know about banking and cars.

Let's look at GM, Chrysler and Ford. With the exception of Ford, we gave the other two (2) a pile of money, with "no strings" attached. If they want more money they MUST, not maybe or sort of, MUST reorganize their companies, using the organization models of "Detroit South", Toyota, VW, Lexus, etc. UAW can stay as a union or fold, but they MUST adapt how they work to the model of all the other car manufacturers. There's not much else to do in Detroit except sell drugs and kill people, so it's work for less or get out. The government should oversee that plan, but not take over the companies.

As for the banks, two (2) come to mind Citigroup and Bank of America. Now the government expected you to dump your stock in those companies, and any investor that's hanging around will get jack shit for their holdings if the government takes over. I don't want them taking over those banks, so I would suggest if your of the same mind, and you bank with either of those banks....Take all your money out!! No depositors...No Money...Nothing to take over. That's something I do not hear the government say, and that's typiclal. They usually do not think these processes through. When you shut out the light at the lighthouse at night to save money, please don't plan to go out on your boat at night.

If we think that BHO's plan to follow FDR's New Deal is a good idea, do yourself an favor, and read up on what happened between 1932 and 1938, and the New Deal. It didn't work!! Unemployment was over 19% in 1938, and World War II is what broke us out of those numbers. Hopefully BHO is not thinking the same way.

Happy Banking!!

Yes, unemployment was still high after New Deal policies. What would the unemployment numbers be without the New Deal? 30% or more? What finally ended the Great Depression? You guessed right, even greater government spending in the form of WWII. Why did we win? Maybe because the New Deal maintained an active, skilled workforce that could out-produce our enemies.

Our choices are: government intervention, or global economic depression. Remember it was free-market republican Henry Paulson who started the bailouts. Do you think he did it on a whim? You ask what does government know about banking and cars? Well, government can't do any worse than totally bankrupt.

Oh yes it can!! We used to have three or four other auto manufacturers. They couldn't cut it, for whatever reason, and they fell by the wayside, no bail-out, no "free money". Let the system work and take it's course. Chrysler's a great example. They make shit cars and their CEO is a reject from GE and Home Depot. Merge with GM or fold your tent.

No more money for you!!

Sure Bull....

How do you feel about paying more taxes to pay for another 2-5 million added to unemployment?

I'd rather risk tax money on the possibility of saving US jobs and creating greater opportunity than to surrender!

Is the money free or does the government get a cut? I know the banking deals were done with the government getting an ownership stake I figure the auto bailouts would be the same. If everything works out maybe it won't cost anything in the long run, but if GM and Chrylser have to go bankrupt so will all the parts suppliers plus the shedding of hundreds of thousands of jobs.

I agree that bailouts are terrible. The solution is agressive anti-trust legislation, breaking up companies "too big to fail", and saying "no dice" to mergers. Separating commercial banks, investment banks and insurance companies is critical. If two companies ask for a merger the government has to ask " If this new company fails will the government be compelled to bail them out?" If the answer is yes. Then no merger.

Actually, your claim that we gave money to GM and Chrylser with no strings attached is false.

We made them prepare reorginazation plans and submit to federal oversight.

Which is probably what is going to happen to the big banks.

The alternatives are two fold.

We can hand them more borrowed taxpayer money with no strings attached, as Bush did.

You see how that worked out.

Maybe if we are going to have to keep shoveling money into these banks, we can get them to ease credit.

That's obviously what the plan is. They're going to run these bank through Mr Gaither's "sieve", and then they'll know how much money will be needed to bail them out, and exactly what conditions to impose on them to make sure credit becomes available.

I don't have to read up that much on what happened between 1933 and 1938. (and I don't get my "history" for Fox Noise or AM talk radio). Unemployment was cut nearly in half by 1937, and rose sharply only after FDR tried to balance the budget.

If you want to see what letting everyone fail and apply the "free market" take a look at what happened between October of 1929 and the end of 1933.

That's the world that the Republican party would have us in.

If you don't like the way America responded to the Great Depression, maybe you would choose the way Germany responded.

I think I will go with President Roosevelt's remedy.

IF you think that Roosevelt prolonged the Depression, as the current right wing revisionist history spin line would have you believe, may I submit that you consult the people who lived through it.

Take a look at the 1936 Presidential election results.

That should tell you all you need to know.

It also provides a strong hint as to the direction the Republican party is headed in if it doesn't wise up.