The bailout oxymoron
posted at 10:45 am on November 17, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
George Orwell, please call your office –stat. Today’s Washington Post report on the proposed auto bailout bill has the humorous oxymoron of taxpayer protection embedded in loans to an industry whose entire market capitalization comes to less than a third of the loan itself. If that sounds like a Fannie Mae loan program, it should come as no surprise, since the same people who brought you the financial collapse are pushing this monstrosity as well:
A measure to speed $25 billion in emergency aid to the nation’s automakers will include provisions designed to protect taxpayers, congressional Democrats said yesterday, including a ban on bonuses for employees who make more than $200,000 a year and a government oversight board with power to veto corporate decisions.
The bill, which is expected to be unveiled today on Capitol Hill, also would bar the automakers from paying dividends to shareholders for as long as the firms owe the government money, Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) said on CBS’s “Face the Nation” yesterday.
Despite strong opposition from congressional Republicans and President Bush, Democrats plan to press ahead with legislation aimed at staving off the collapse of the auto industry when Congress convenes this week for its final session of Bush’s presidency. …
Both measures would carve cash for Detroit out of the $700 billion financial rescue program Congress created last month to shore up the U.S. banking system. The White House opposes using the money for that purpose and has urged lawmakers instead to modify an existing $25 billion loan program to help the automakers retool factories to produce more fuel-efficient vehicles.
The amount of money Congress wants to spend on bailout loans could buy Detroit’s Big Three, and perhaps have enough left over for a German automaker or two. The value of the stock in these companies amounts to $7 billion combined:
As of the close of business on Friday the market cap for General Motors was about $1.9 billion, Ford about 4.3 billion….Chrysler is privately held but it’s a safe bet that their FMV is less than $2 billion…probably a LOT less….so for approximately a lousy $7 billion….a rounding error for the federal budget…the government could simply BUY the entire U.S. auto “industry” — actually, of course, it’s just the U.S. nameplate manufacturers, but that’s another story — for what amounts to a pittance.
Of course, one reason Congress seems so intent on investing in these automakers is that they run their businesses much like Congress runs the federal government:
The numbers are literally absurd….Ford has $160 billion in debt!….with NEGATIVE book value of equity….GM has about $60 billion in debt…and a HUGE negative net worth on a book basis of $56 billion!….Essentially, the market is valuing the companies — well above their (negative) book values — but at what amounts to scrap value!…so $50 billion more from forced tax exactions should be thrown at them?….and that’s NOT absurd?
Now, let’s look again at the oxymoron of “taxpayer protections” regarding loans to companies who already cannot repay their debt, and whose debt far outweighs their value. That sounds more like a Fannie Mae security than a solid bet on taxpayer money. Putting aside the obvious fact that the government has no business intervening in the collapse of a poorly-run private enterprise, the loans will only prolong the agony of collapse. If $160 billion in credit for Ford couldn’t correct their problems, an additional $8 billion will hardly turn the auto manufacturer into a stable powerhouse, or even keep them above water.
And who’s pushing this bill? Barney Frank, the same genius who assured us that Fannie Mae was solvent and that further regulation wouldn’t be needed.
The real taxpayer protections need to be placed on Congress, not the automakers. Representatives who engineered the collapse of the GSEs have no business plotting any more government interventions.
Update: Fixed the bad link; should have gone to Power Line.
You must be logged in to post a comment.

















Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
http://www.superpoop.com/102008/bailout.jpg
reshas1 on November 17, 2008 at 10:47 AM
Two many letters…
right2bright on November 17, 2008 at 10:48 AM
WHAT THE HELL?!
Can you even imagine what Jefferson would think of this?
lodge on November 17, 2008 at 10:50 AM
Could we get a warning on that from now on?
amerpundit on November 17, 2008 at 10:52 AM
The founders have been rolling in their graves for years. The only benefit of this is that one day someone will discover a way to harness that energy and fuel a city off of it. The downside is by then the entire city will be filled with cameras and video screens displaying the smiling face of Dear Leader from the safety of his underground bunker in Canuckistan.
*eats*
Grue in the Attic on November 17, 2008 at 10:53 AM
The only Jefferson Democratic Party leaders remember is William.
amerpundit on November 17, 2008 at 10:53 AM
We need to begin working now to ensure these communist bastards are not in power 5 years from now.
rplat on November 17, 2008 at 10:54 AM
Hmmm, so, just WHY would anyone want to buy stock in these companies?
All profits go to the Feds… and the Feds control the company?
Socialism in all but name?
Romeo13 on November 17, 2008 at 10:54 AM
This reminds me of the New Orleans “bail-out”. Some one will have accurate figures.
But wasn’t it something like we could have written a check to each family like $500,000 and we would have been money ahead? So much of this money is lost in the government bureaucracy.
Cut a check to each holder of each mortgage ($50,000) & redo the mortgage to market rates, screw the executives, take care of the people. And then move on. Yeah the people made a bad decision, let’s just get the money in the hands of the people who will spend it.
It will be much cheaper, quicker, and nothing will be “fair” anyway. But let’s get this behind us.
Let GM fail, other cars will be made, let AIG fail, others will take up the slack. And if someone gets harmed becasuse of lack of insurance, write them a check…cheaper then writing AIG a check.
right2bright on November 17, 2008 at 10:56 AM
As a Free Marketeer, I oppose Gov’t oversight of Corporations, but to claim the Founders would roll over in their grave is wrong, I think. If you look at their writings, they were no fan of corporations, or “stock market speculators”. The only one with foresight was Hamilton.
jacrews on November 17, 2008 at 10:57 AM
Dem payoff to big unions for supporting Dems who together will bancrupt this country.
Looks like the stock market is not likin it too well.
Soros got a pretty good investment the US government and three auto makers.
dhunter on November 17, 2008 at 11:01 AM
Barney Frank is now known to have been sleeping with an officer of Fannie Mae while responsible for oversight of the company. Can anybody explain to me why he’s still in office? Can anyone explain to me why no criminal charges have been filed against this blot on the nation?
philwynk on November 17, 2008 at 11:01 AM
Ed,
these are the folks that wanted to funnel tax payer money to ACORN. What is ACORN’S future? I don’t hear anything about ACORN anymore there were many investigations taken out during the Campaign related to ACORN. Surely some of those are complete by now and the results reported on. If nothing else the demise of ACORN and it’s umbrella of voter registration fraud will be exposed. Those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it. The Republicans too busy in fighting to seize opportunities? Like making an example out of ACORN. Who was the biggest Democrat enabler after all?
Dr Evil on November 17, 2008 at 11:01 AM
Why is Barney Frank not in prison?
Kevin in Washington State on November 17, 2008 at 11:02 AM
All partisanship aside, we are so out of control. The moral hazards we have now set in motion may take generations to undo, if ever.
Capitalism, what vestiges there were, has been seriously hampered going forward. The mythical Greenspan put is now part of our economic landscape. I would not have believed it a few years ago.
Despite what they tell you there will be no end to these interventions, only pauses. While we argued about the pimples on conservatism, squandered the national treasury and expanded the government under Repub leadership, it is only now we are seeing what we may have truly lost—free enterprise.
By losing the last two elections we may have killed the golden goose.
patrick neid on November 17, 2008 at 11:03 AM
what about GEORGE JEFFERSON
rico101 on November 17, 2008 at 11:04 AM
Because to do so would be oppressing him and his “unique lifestyle”.
“See the violence inherent in the system! Help, help, I’m being repressed!!”
*eats*
Grue in the Attic on November 17, 2008 at 11:04 AM
Because being locked up with 1,500 men looking for sex is punishment to him?
right2bright on November 17, 2008 at 11:06 AM
not is , but isn’t
right2bright on November 17, 2008 at 11:06 AM
I agree that capitalism has been dealt a severe blow in this market collapse. An interesting article came up recently in BBC, which tells us the story of an amazing growth in China after they switched to free market principles. And you know what riles me most? The GOP led by Bush allowed this balloon to the point that they had to champion a $700 billion bailout. That pretty much struck the last nail in the coffin, IMHO. Sad, very very sad.
Cheers,
The Family Guy.
peter_griffin on November 17, 2008 at 11:07 AM
They are a dying race. We should let them pass.
The corporations? Or the the unions?
Yes.
Count to 10 on November 17, 2008 at 11:07 AM
It’s time for citizens to march with their torches and pitchforks before this dangerous lunacy goes any further.
jix on November 17, 2008 at 11:08 AM
why not just buy their inventory?
If they need 25 bil.. Big 3 should sell the gov. 25 bil in autos.. Government has new vehicles.. they have their money..
Otherwise let them sink
theblacksheepwasright on November 17, 2008 at 11:09 AM
destroy the unions by telling them instead of 80 bucks an hour, you earn 35 bucks an hour, or you lose your job. BTW that’s still over 72 grand. enough to pay fair share of health bennies and have Obama tax them to hell.
MNDavenotPC on November 17, 2008 at 11:10 AM
This is insane.
forest on November 17, 2008 at 11:14 AM
Socialism,,,,, at its best…….?
DL13 on November 17, 2008 at 11:14 AM
Will punishing the bad management overcome the loss of so many workers.
tomas on November 17, 2008 at 11:15 AM
I used to think that I was from the most embarassing electorate being from NJ. Now I realize, the dimwits that send this lisping, criminal moron (Frank) to congress election after election make NJ look sober by comparison.
Wine_N_Dine on November 17, 2008 at 11:15 AM
What happens if they go under
tomas on November 17, 2008 at 11:15 AM
Oh, for frak’s sake. Why don’t they do what they really want in their little statist hearts and just nationalize Detroit?
irishspy on November 17, 2008 at 11:17 AM
Asking Barney why anyone should trust him.
One of the jobs American reporters just won’t do any more.
Let’s cut back to Sarah Palin’s book deal, Chris!
drjohn on November 17, 2008 at 11:18 AM
if they go under the govt owns em and barney will be ceo
rico101 on November 17, 2008 at 11:18 AM
We’ll eventually turn to another Margaret Thatcher who will re-privatize all these enterprises and get the economy growing again. But it’s going to be a crap sandwich of socialism for the next 4 years.
The only problem I have with this is allowing the Democrats to get away with euphemisms that this is any kind of a rescue. It’s a recognition that General Motors is essentially a privately funded and managed welfare and pension program, and Congress does not want its workers’ or retirees; wages or benefits touched, even while the rest of America’s workers are facing layoffs.
rockmom on November 17, 2008 at 11:18 AM
Maybe Barney is inadvertently making bankruptcy more attractive. I really do not see Rick Waggoner letting Barney Frank veto his corporate decisions. Ditto for those bonuses for those making more than $200K.
By the way, that photo — did Barney forget to put his teeth in?
BigD on November 17, 2008 at 11:20 AM
Face it, when it ain’t your money being given away, why should one care?
Has anyone totaled up all the “free money” given away in just the past 90 days by this Congress? A few trillion here, a few trillion there….suddenly that paltry sum paid out for the Armed Forces looks like chump change.
Borrowing and borrowing and spending and spending is not a good way to get out of debt.
As for the auto industry, if you produce a product that people will buy, and pay your price for that product, you earn profit. If you produce a product ( a few million units or so per year) that the public does not want to buy, why should the public be forced to buy that product ( and get no utility out of it) in the form of a bailout?
I have two cars…one 20 years old, and the other 10 years old, and I maintain them, keep them running, and try to stop problems with them before they get serious. Buy a new car? Not in this market. Not at the prices they are being offered. I drive less. I spend less. A new car every other year, through purchase or lease, is what got so many Americans in real debt, and allowed the auto industry to play yet another shell game on the public.
Bail out? Not with MY money.
coldwarrior on November 17, 2008 at 11:24 AM
In a normal world, their competetors would fill the gap.
In Bizzarro Land, though (IE, United States of America circa 2008 AD), who knows…?
*eats*
Grue in the Attic on November 17, 2008 at 11:26 AM
If you let the Big 3 fail, you lose a lot more then just the Big 3–and more people than those working directly for the Big 3 could lose jobs. There are many corporations and services specifically related to those companies such as suppliers, parts manufacturers, retailers, and dealerships that would be hit incredibly hard if they lose their reasons to produce. That’s a lot of income lost (forget about tax implications, because that seems to be what everyone on the ‘hill’ is worried about). I’m worried about what will happen–my job (at a distributor/manufacturer) could definitely be lost.
In these areas, there isn’t much left to do, and a lot of these jobs have already been reduced as a result of the incompetence of these corporations. Their failure would be pretty devastating nation wide. I’m not in favor of government intervention, but if any money gets thrown at these companies, they ought to require that they ‘renegotiate’ with the unions to lower wages and benefits to a more rational level. In spite of their terrible decisions in what vehicles to produce, and the low quality of their product, one of the biggest failings of the domestic auto industry has been its continued unionization. But that type of negotiation won’t happen, will it? There is too much money for campaigning involved.
thequeball on November 17, 2008 at 11:30 AM
The big three have been hamstrung by the UAW. If they could get union labor to agree to major concessions on drastically scaled back labor agreements, they might have a chance to survive. My farts might turn into gold dust too…
Wyznowski on November 17, 2008 at 11:31 AM
What Jefferson would think of this, or any modern economist, like Hayek, Friedman…
When will this money orgy end? When the deputy treasury guy gets a big fat no from Saudi Arabia after begging them to buy our bonds?
PattyJ on November 17, 2008 at 11:34 AM
Outlaw unions…it’s the only way.
Wine_N_Dine on November 17, 2008 at 11:34 AM
A lot of bills have oxymoronic names. And the “protection” of taxpayers by limiting bonuses to the fat cats? Nothing more than based on envy, and class warfare. That appeals to a certain segment. Let GM die. Will we let it happen? I hope so. What a horrible choice, to bail them out. Can the Senate Repubs block it? I sure hope they do. Let Chrysler die too. Maybe even Ford. The enterprising will buy up their assets. It will hurt, but not as much as subsiding failure will hurt in the long run.
Paul-Cincy on November 17, 2008 at 11:34 AM
If the Big Three file for bankruptcy, then under the provisions of bankruptcy law they will be forced to restructure, trim expenses, and redefine their market goals. It won’t be like the all the Big Three plants will be shut down and left empty for generations to come. The Big Three should have read the tea leaves years ago. GM, for example, has been generally profitable in China and East Asia…why is that? No UAW to contend with.
coldwarrior on November 17, 2008 at 11:36 AM
Bloody Peasant!
HawaiiLwyr on November 17, 2008 at 11:36 AM
Congress should just buy the comapnies and give them to the UAW. Let’s see how well the UAW can do with total control.
GM alone lost $ 57 billion in the last 2 years alone. How long will a mere $ 25 billion keep them going? And once you start down the road of “loans” that you know can’t be re-paid when and where will it end? If the first rescue package doesn’t work, why not try another in 6 months?
Fred 2 on November 17, 2008 at 11:37 AM
The only rational argument I have heard against allowing GM and Ford to declare bankruptcy is that they might not be able to get credit for a while, and thus might be forced to sell assets that they wouldn’t if credit were available.
A better approach would be for the government to solve this problem. Allow GM and Ford to file bankruptcy and then offer a government guarantee for future loans. The banks will have to lend them money if the government directs thm to.
rockmom on November 17, 2008 at 11:37 AM
Bankruptcy does not kill a company’s production, it just allows it to renegotiate things like union contracts and debt.
I think this article explains it:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122688631448632421.html
Count to 10 on November 17, 2008 at 11:37 AM
I’m with you.
Count to 10 on November 17, 2008 at 11:39 AM
+1
Snowed In on November 17, 2008 at 11:40 AM
Barney Franks needs to be on trial. So does Pelosi, Dodds, Reid, Rangel, and others. They need to be investigated like now! WTF? So they will get by with their greed? And of course some in Wall Street, AIG, and so on. This is getting ridiculous. Even The One and some of his picks need to be on trial. This is Unjust.
sheebe on November 17, 2008 at 11:40 AM
No, people should be allowed to form unions. And companies have the right to fire them for striking.
The problem is, we give unions too many special priveliges which allow them an unfair advantage over the management which distorts the free market.
BTW, I can’t wait for my car designed by Bawney Frank and Pelosi.
lodge on November 17, 2008 at 11:41 AM
We should take the hit now. The American auto industry, as it is now, is clearly a massive mis-allocation of resources that costs jobs and wealth. It has gone on far too long. Time for a little creative destruction.
mr.blacksheep on November 17, 2008 at 11:42 AM
Just wrong on many levels LOL….
But whats more incredible is that the guy who gived us Fanny and Freddie is now proposing to run the auto industry!
God. Help. Us.
Dritanian on November 17, 2008 at 11:46 AM
That’s a little more appropriate for Bawney methinks.
*lurks*
Grue in the Attic on November 17, 2008 at 11:47 AM
Just want to clarify. I’m not worried about the company not existing anymore, but at the outset, and for quite a long time after, there is a great probability of a lot of jobs being lost.
At any rate, since I don’t think the government won’t not (not sure if that’s right) intervene, I thought one of the conditions of that ‘loan’ should be union renegotiation of compensation to more rational levels. What they would do to restructure, or if they even would, who knows? Do you set a condition of reorganization on that loan as well?
Again, I’m not saying bankruptcy would be a bad thing for the industry and those corporations, it just worries me, since my job is directly related to what GM does, and the area I live in has many jobs and companies producing parts and tooling for the big three.
thequeball on November 17, 2008 at 11:47 AM
This is too much to be believed. The whole thing has a surreal quality —like a bad dream that will go away when you wake up. Except that this one isn’t going away.
jeanie on November 17, 2008 at 11:49 AM
They are monopolies, or trusts, of the labor market. Worse, there are a number of laws on the books enforcing them.
In the private sector, unionization is down, but it is still big in the public sector. How can it possibly be legal for public service unions to extort money from our governments like they do?
Count to 10 on November 17, 2008 at 11:49 AM
Kind of like rowing the survivors back to the titanic if they just throw money at it and no changes to go with the money. duh.
johnnyU on November 17, 2008 at 11:50 AM
“Taxpayer Protection!” It’s a cook-book! It’s a cook book!!
/Zone
Noocyte on November 17, 2008 at 11:51 AM
If the companies can use bankruptcy to renegotiate union contracts and pensions, there may be no need for any lay offs or cuts in production–the problem has always been how much the unions are making the company uncompetitive through costs. Clearly, a 30% cut in compensation is better than a 30% cut in jobs.
Count to 10 on November 17, 2008 at 11:55 AM
That would be the one you’re not allowed to own…you can only make payments for as long as you drive it, be it 3 years or 15.
Only problem is that it only goes in reverse…
Snowed In on November 17, 2008 at 11:56 AM
UNIONS control much money & VOTES, that is why they are allowed to exist. and that is why we will bail out these automakers.
kelley in virginia on November 17, 2008 at 12:00 PM
OK, Romeo13’s save American Auto maker plan… send it to the GOP…
We have a National Security interest in keeping our auto industry in America. IF we at some time in the future have an extended War, we need American made and produced vehicles.
We also have an interest in helping the environment…. therefore I propose the following.
Create a 100 Billion dollar fund to finance the move to Compressed Natural Gas as an alternative to Gasoline. We have huge amounts of Natural Gas in this country, and the technology already exists to have CNG cars and Trucks, we just don’t have the infrastructure in place to do it… we need pipelines and CNG filling stations, as well as Cars produced which can run off of CNG.
LOAN Detroit money to retool to CNG, and LOAN Gas stations the money to be able to pump CNG…
CNG is a commodity which does not ship well… so it would help get us off of non North American Energy. CNG also burns much cleaner than oil based producets (Green arguement).
So, American built cars, running off of clean burning American produced Natural Gas….
Thats a SOLUTION to a number of problems, instead of just throwing money at failing institutions.
Romeo13 on November 17, 2008 at 12:02 PM
They are monopolies, or trusts, of the labor market. Worse, there are a number of laws on the books enforcing them.
True, and manufacturers are hesitant to build in states that make it difficult to run a non-union manufacturing shop. Yet Obama wants card check.
The big problem for Detroit is, as long as the unions have such favorable laws in MI, new manufacturers aren’t going to start businesses there and the displaced autoworkers will have nowhere to go. Honda and Toyota won’t want them to come to their shops because they won’t want them to start organizing. It’s a giant mess.
Why doesn’t someone ask Warren Buffet to buy GM or Ford? If it is such a great investment that is. Plus, then he could decide who has oversight (imagine Congress overseeing a business! yikes).
MayBee on November 17, 2008 at 12:04 PM
Somebody owns the debt of the big three. If they go bankrupt, the bonds own the company assets — which will pay pennies on the dollar for Ford.
Bailing out the US auto makers delays recognizing that their bonds are worthless.
Right_of_Attila on November 17, 2008 at 12:05 PM
That article you linked makes a very good case for bankruptcy, but there seems to be too much money tied up in unions and politicians perhaps for that to be allowed to happen right now. If they don’t receive a bailout of some kind, I would be surprised–not necessarily happy if they do.
I don’t have exact figures, and have no sources, but those compensation obligations are one of the reasons why smaller more fuel efficient vehicles lost/lose so much money for the big three. The push for large trucks and suvs was a direct result of that, since they had a high margin of profit for them.
I’m still worried about the future of my job and area though.
thequeball on November 17, 2008 at 12:05 PM
At this point, Toyota and Honda are more domestic than the big three.
Count to 10 on November 17, 2008 at 12:07 PM
I don’t mean to be harsh, but consider moving.
In some sense failed entities (companies, states, programs) have to be allowed to fail. Immortality is a major source of suffering.
Count to 10 on November 17, 2008 at 12:11 PM
thequeball on November 17, 2008 at 11:30 AM
The Honda factory near Indianapolis is looking for good people at respectable wages.I am willing to bet their product will be in higher demand soon, and current demand isn’t too bad either.
UNREPENTANT CONSERVATIVE CAPITOLIST on November 17, 2008 at 12:13 PM
Obviously the value of money has become meaningless to people in Congress and it is mostly because our representatives have convinced us to divorce the idea of money from the idea of wealth and, as such, from property allowing them to treat money as something like a commons for which all have access.
The supply of money is not as infinite as they think and the tragedy will come quickly. If I didn’t think they were idiots, I’d believe they were ushering in anarchy purposely.
Dusty on November 17, 2008 at 12:14 PM
Not harsh at all, it’s just easier said then done you know?
thequeball on November 17, 2008 at 12:17 PM
Romeo13,
I need to show you the bullshit response I got to such a proposal I sent to Dick Lugar, IN Senator. The EPA actually said CNG pollutes more dangerous chemicals. I was astounded. Instead of retooling the big 3, let them die a quick death, and then make the money available to brand new companies who will be required to make the CNG cars as part of the loan agreement, or other companies who could do the CNG conversions cheaply. The EPA has some kind of mandates that make the cost of a CNG conversion 3500-7500. We need a cheaper alternative to this kind of red tape bullshit. Nice Idea though, but lets not send the UAW 3500.00 for every car built at GM and maybe a new company could compete.
UNREPENTANT CONSERVATIVE CAPITOLIST on November 17, 2008 at 12:24 PM
I agree with Count to 10. That WSJ article is very good.
I had no idea these companies were worth so little. This is an excellent point concerning the ‘loan’. Subprime lending all over again. A rule of prudent lending would be that you loan less than the collateral you could get. This would mean that the loan would have to be 20-30% less than the 7 billion. With subprime lending, one of the problems was that the loans were 100% of asset value. With 25 billion, the loans would be 300% of asset value. This supposes that the value of the companies increase dramatically in the mid term. I can’t see this happening without drastic actions to cut costs.
The only way this would make sense is if the loan came after such drastic actions were taken and there were a path to recovery (the presence of private money would be a better indicator of potential success). But if the loan is made before, then it will take the urgency away for some time and make future change even more difficult.
FrenchguyinTaiwan on November 17, 2008 at 12:29 PM
So, let’s see. We add the assets of the applicant to the amount of debt it has assumed, and that is the value of the applicant for further loan purposes.
I can see where this is going, but you have to bootstrap yourself into a condition where you have no assets and no job, but a huge amount of debt. Wait a minute, isn’t that one of the rights accorded in the Constitution of the State of Welfare which I think lies along the Eastern and Western Seaboards, with something called the State of Flyover somewhere in between?
Where can I sign up for one of these programs? I want solid gold toilet paper dispensers!
unclesmrgol on November 17, 2008 at 12:32 PM
Oh, I know. I just relocated from one cost to the other for a job, and that was a pain even though it was just me and my car full of junk. I don’t know how double income house holds with kids do it.
Count to 10 on November 17, 2008 at 12:36 PM
I think banks, automakers, and airlines, just to mention a few, were doing just fine until they encountered one common denominator. Congressional interference. Deregulation, forced loans, forced MPG requirements. And now they’re throwing our money in bailout black hole for all who need it. When will it stop? Back when I was a kid when people bought a home and lived in it for a few years they didn’t expect to get more than they paid for it, same as a car. There was wear and tear and depreciation, so you sold it for less than you bought it for. Stuff happens, markets fluctuate. If we have to bail out every person who took a hit on a house (me included0 the line will wrap around the universe.
scalleywag on November 17, 2008 at 1:40 PM
“Barney Frank, the same genius who assured us that Fannie Mae was solvent and that further regulation wouldn’t be needed.”
How can this fool, who is the primary catalyst for the largest loss of wealth in the history of mankind, be allowed to stay in offic
notagool on November 17, 2008 at 1:51 PM
LET THEM FAIL!!!
Some Hank Rearden will buy up the pieces, and in a year or two be turning out autos that will put the junk from Japan to shame.
This is long overdue, just like the banking failures and the wallstreet failures. And once again, congress is stepping in to screw with the laws of nature. If they get their way, they’ll force the ‘big three’ to turn out ‘green’ cars that will be little better than junk. I bet Japan is cheering them on. If the democrats succeed with this bailout, I predict Japan owns 90% of the auto market in five years.
Falconsword on November 17, 2008 at 1:55 PM
I want a world with a “Barney Frank Free Zone”. The people who keep voting this sack of crap back in office have to share DNA with the ones who voted for Jack Murtha after he called them racists and rednecks. If it wasn’t an insult to the mentally handicapped, I would say Ann Coulter was right when she called them retards.
Sweetness0726 on November 17, 2008 at 2:06 PM
Not very compassionate. However, any industry that fails and takes the unions down with them is fine by me. If those autoworkers can’t retire on whatever they have left of 144K/year, then I don’t know when it is ok to retire. If they move to a nice cheap section of the country, they could retire after a few years of work.
Oh, I forgot, Detroit real estate is already worth next to nothing. So, they don’t have to move.
anti-boomer on November 17, 2008 at 2:47 PM
why do you hate gays so much? How would you like it if we made the US a Sweetness free zone?
BIGOT!
anti-boomer on November 17, 2008 at 2:50 PM
Your second link is broken btw ed.
Tacitus_SGL on November 17, 2008 at 3:45 PM
Can we say ‘Democrat’? Of course we can…
JIMV on November 17, 2008 at 4:25 PM
Barney Frank + Bailout = economic masturbation
armorman on November 17, 2008 at 4:33 PM
The dimmocrats have to have an early start. They only have four years to execute their five year plan.
darwin-t on November 17, 2008 at 10:00 PM
He’s a Democrat. Ergo…
theregoestheneighborhood on November 18, 2008 at 1:25 AM
Comment pages: