Melissa puts the whole auto-makers non-bailout non-deal most succinctly and correctly of them all:
In short, the GOP demanded that the bailout be contingent upon busting unions, and, when their demand wasn't met, they tanked the deal.
With each such stunt, over the years, Republicans lost another segment of the voting population and this one is no different - all the people employed by or dependent on the car industry will remember this for a generation.
The craziest thing that Shakes notes, though, is this silly quote by Dick Cheney:
"If we don't do this, we will be known as the party of Herbert Hoover forever."
Ha! He wants to improve the party branding? For it to be remembered just as the party of Herbert Hoover and not as the much more atrocious party of Bush and Cheney? Fr rlz?
The US car industry deserves a quick and merciful death. Money which would have been spent bailing out these companies should be spent on helping car workers switch jobs.
US banks got a few things terribly wrong, but they are a fundamentally sound industry. But GM and Ford...
Wow. Roman Werpachowski's comments need to be addressed. First, "Money which would have been spent bailing out these companies should be spent on helping car workers switch jobs." And which of the many, many jobs out there would we help car workers switch to? Of the hundreds of thousands in the Detroit area alone, are they all going to become computer repair technicians? Nurses aids? Managers at Applebees? Even if all these jobs were in demand right now (and of course they are not), do you think an entire region can support itself selling each other burgers and providing each other health care? How about actually producing something that is sold outside the region?
Second, "US banks got a few things terribly wrong, but they are a fundamentally sound industry. But GM and Ford" Banks are a fundamentally sound industry? If banks were fundamentally sound, then why did they require HUNDREDS of billions of dollars from U.S. taxpayers to stay afloat and in business. I'm sorry, but you cannot be both fundamentally sound and require hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars.
I could easily say that GM and Ford "got a few things terribly wrong, but they are a fundamentally sound industry. But the banks..." So perhaps Roman could explain why he thinks the banks are "fundamentally sound," and also explain why he thinks that GM and Ford are fundamentally unsound, as opposed to having simply gotten "a few things terribly wrong."
"And which of the many, many jobs out there would we help car workers switch to?"
The ones created by Obama administration, of course. Or the ones in new car companies, once somebody clever takes over what's left of Ford and GM.
"How about actually producing something that is sold outside the region?"
And just HAS TO BE cars?
"If banks were fundamentally sound, then why did they require HUNDREDS of billions of dollars from U.S. taxpayers to stay afloat and in business."
Because they got some things terrible wrong and, which is probably more important, because the banks are crucial to any economy. An economy can function without an auto industry. It cannot function without banks.
"I could easily say that GM and Ford "got a few things terribly wrong, but they are a fundamentally sound industry. But the banks...""
You could, but you would be wrong. The US car industry was in troubles since the 80's.
Car makers did a lot of things wrong (fixation on SUVs, for example). However, GM realized it and started to improve. They were in a middle of restructuring process when the current crisis happened.
Also, GM is now preparing for a production of plug-in hybrid (Chevy Volt) which can become a "game-changer".
A few more years, and GM wouldn't have been hit that badly.
Bankruptcy would be beneficial for this. GM and Ford could be taken over by some company which actually knows how to make cars, you know.
"The ones created by Obama administration, of course."
Obama plans to create 2 million jobs. At least that many would be lost in a disorderly bankruptcy of one or more of the Detroit car companies. And he plans to spend several hundred billion to create those new jobs. For a loan of only $14B, at least 2 million domestic auto jobs are saved. The loans to the auto industry are a good deal. And these auto jobs exist right now. It will take quite a bit of time before Obama's federal spending kicks in and actually creates jobs.
"Or the ones in new car companies, once somebody clever takes over what's left of Ford and GM"
You sound a little too confident that someone has the money and the desire to take over what's left of Ford and GM.
"And just HAS TO BE cars?"
Well, no, technically it does not HAVE TO BE cars. But, as a practical matter, it should be cars. There is a huge infrastructure already in place to make cars. The Big 3 have the extensive tooling and the knowledge base in place to make cars. And until something better comes along, people are going to be using cars in the forseeable future. It would be a serious waste of resources to let that infrastructure collapse and then be dependent on import cars. Maybe you like trade deficits?
Besides, name another product or service that could replace the automotive sector in terms of employment within a reasonable time frame. If you can come up with something, I'd love to know what it is.
"because the banks are crucial to any economy. An economy can function without an auto industry. It cannot function without banks."
Well, banks may be crucial to an ecomomy, but are SPECIFIC banks crucial to the economy? How is Citibank any more crucial to the economy than GM? I could easily apply your logic to Citibank: Citibank should be allowed to collapse. Someone competent will come along and replace Citibank or take over what's left of Citibank after a bankruptcy. See? Problem solved.
"The US car industry was in troubles since the 80's."
And yet, somehow, the U.S. car industry has been surviving since the 80's without government assistance. Of course they have had some rough years lately, but GM and Ford regularly made billions of dollars of profits at least as late as the '90s. I think your basic factual premise is incorrect.