<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Why GM is More Bailout-Worthy Than Citigroup</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.moneymorning.com/2008/12/05/gm-bailout/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.moneymorning.com/2008/12/05/gm-bailout/</link>
	<description>Investment News Provider</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 15:36:16 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Mr. briggs</title>
		<link>http://www.moneymorning.com/2008/12/05/gm-bailout/comment-page-1/#comment-12894</link>
		<dc:creator>Mr. briggs</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Dec 2008 03:07:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.moneymorning.com/?p=3627#comment-12894</guid>
		<description>Anybody figured out why Bank of America took part of TARP and bought stock in Construction Bank of CHINA with our taxpayer money? Not even a US bank. Does rep. Shelby of Alabama not want to bailout auto industry because of the money the State of Alabama has put out for 5 foreign auto manufacturers to set up plants in the state? Seems like he&#039;s looking out for Alabama not the United States of America. I think we fought a Civil War over States Rights. Who IS looking out for the Country as a whole instead of their little fiefdoms? Thanks Guys, Mr. B</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Anybody figured out why Bank of America took part of TARP and bought stock in Construction Bank of CHINA with our taxpayer money? Not even a US bank. Does rep. Shelby of Alabama not want to bailout auto industry because of the money the State of Alabama has put out for 5 foreign auto manufacturers to set up plants in the state? Seems like he&#8217;s looking out for Alabama not the United States of America. I think we fought a Civil War over States Rights. Who IS looking out for the Country as a whole instead of their little fiefdoms? Thanks Guys, Mr. B</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mr. briggs</title>
		<link>http://www.moneymorning.com/2008/12/05/gm-bailout/comment-page-1/#comment-12893</link>
		<dc:creator>Mr. briggs</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Dec 2008 02:57:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.moneymorning.com/?p=3627#comment-12893</guid>
		<description>In response to Sydney Lyons&#039;s statement of 12/5. You are right Sid. I too work in construction and with us it&#039;s &quot;No tickee-no workee&quot; The errors were not made by middle class America, they have common sense, they were made by so called high dollar geniuses in the name of greed. If we had a Congress that ran on common sense and a government, we&#039;d have our Country back again as a functioning unit. Remove the Lawyers from House and Senate and get back to Trumanesque mind set to return to a prudent USA. The more words that are added to a law, the more loop holes created. Keep it simple and direct, thou shalt not, thou shalt, period. Running a company or a country does not have to be complicated unless you make it so because that way no one knows what&#039;s going on because of the chaos. Thank You, Mr. Briggs</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In response to Sydney Lyons&#8217;s statement of 12/5. You are right Sid. I too work in construction and with us it&#8217;s &#8220;No tickee-no workee&#8221; The errors were not made by middle class America, they have common sense, they were made by so called high dollar geniuses in the name of greed. If we had a Congress that ran on common sense and a government, we&#8217;d have our Country back again as a functioning unit. Remove the Lawyers from House and Senate and get back to Trumanesque mind set to return to a prudent USA. The more words that are added to a law, the more loop holes created. Keep it simple and direct, thou shalt not, thou shalt, period. Running a company or a country does not have to be complicated unless you make it so because that way no one knows what&#8217;s going on because of the chaos. Thank You, Mr. Briggs</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Myron Martin</title>
		<link>http://www.moneymorning.com/2008/12/05/gm-bailout/comment-page-1/#comment-12884</link>
		<dc:creator>Myron Martin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Dec 2008 20:40:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.moneymorning.com/?p=3627#comment-12884</guid>
		<description>Bailout or no bailout, there will be a lot of jobs lost and the mantra is, &quot;that can&#039;t be allowed to happen&quot;! The basic problem in my view is the accumulated &quot;sense of entitlement&quot; that has become all pervasive at all levels of society, from highest levels of management with all their perks and bonuses, even while their companies are losing money! Equally destructive is the adversarial union stance of &quot;we just want our share&quot; that has driven costs to unrealistic levels that can not be sustained.

Restructuring is essential and the only way to accomplish that efficiently is a Chap 11 bankruptcy, replacement of management, downsizing, elimination of redundant models (too many choices) and better quality. What also needs to take place is cessation of the cycle of &quot;government as lender of last resort&quot; where everybody just expects that if they get into trouble, they can dump their problems on the taxpayer. Under our fractional reserve fiat money system the government has to borrow at interest just like the rest of us and then raise our taxes to cover the cost, or just roll the debt over and leave it for our children and grandchildren to pay!

Whatever happened to old fashioned capitalism where there was real competition, you produced a QUALITY product that people wanted at a price they were willing and able to pay, or you went out of business?

Seems too me our whole society has developed the &quot;gimmes&quot; all rights and no responsibilities for bad decisions!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Bailout or no bailout, there will be a lot of jobs lost and the mantra is, &#8220;that can&#8217;t be allowed to happen&#8221;! The basic problem in my view is the accumulated &#8220;sense of entitlement&#8221; that has become all pervasive at all levels of society, from highest levels of management with all their perks and bonuses, even while their companies are losing money! Equally destructive is the adversarial union stance of &#8220;we just want our share&#8221; that has driven costs to unrealistic levels that can not be sustained.</p>
<p>Restructuring is essential and the only way to accomplish that efficiently is a Chap 11 bankruptcy, replacement of management, downsizing, elimination of redundant models (too many choices) and better quality. What also needs to take place is cessation of the cycle of &#8220;government as lender of last resort&#8221; where everybody just expects that if they get into trouble, they can dump their problems on the taxpayer. Under our fractional reserve fiat money system the government has to borrow at interest just like the rest of us and then raise our taxes to cover the cost, or just roll the debt over and leave it for our children and grandchildren to pay!</p>
<p>Whatever happened to old fashioned capitalism where there was real competition, you produced a QUALITY product that people wanted at a price they were willing and able to pay, or you went out of business?</p>
<p>Seems too me our whole society has developed the &#8220;gimmes&#8221; all rights and no responsibilities for bad decisions!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ron Tuggle</title>
		<link>http://www.moneymorning.com/2008/12/05/gm-bailout/comment-page-1/#comment-12882</link>
		<dc:creator>Ron Tuggle</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Dec 2008 19:34:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.moneymorning.com/?p=3627#comment-12882</guid>
		<description>The government created the Community Re-development Act in 1977, and they used that to encourage home mortages to be given out as an entitlement.  The unintended consequences over the last thirty years are obvious.

The government created all the safety and epa regulations that the car companies had to adhere to.  

The democratic congress has spent the last two years talking about no drilling, raising taxes on oil companies, raising taxes period.

Management for the financials and the auto industries have not shown much expertise or common sense over the last thirty years either but I think government has been the biggest problem and now they sit in judgement on problems they are mainly responsible for and try to lay the blame on everybody else.

The major problem over the last two months has been the credit freeze up.  What happened to the 67 trillion dollar credit default swap (CDS) problem the media including &quot;Money Map&quot; has been pushing the last several months, thats what caused the credit freeze and then pushed the correction into a recession.  According to the Depository Trust Clearing Corporation (DTCC) the problem was grossly over estimated, primarily because the data was created by a survey.  The survey included info from both buyers and sellers so some info was included twice or even three times or more. The DTCC handled the sale info of Lehman&#039;s CDS auction.  Their $72 billion turned into a net funds transfer between sellers and buyers of  $5.2 which is 7.22% of $72 billion.  DTCC says the total CDS contracts as of 10/9/2008 was $34.8 trilllion so if you apply the Lehman net funds transfer of 7.22% the liability is $2.5 trillion.  Still a lot of money but a long ways from the media number of $67 trillion.  Just like yelling &quot;Fire&quot; in theater, you go to jail for that.  Any people in the media want to go to jail for yelling $67 trillion CDS problem?????????</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The government created the Community Re-development Act in 1977, and they used that to encourage home mortages to be given out as an entitlement.  The unintended consequences over the last thirty years are obvious.</p>
<p>The government created all the safety and epa regulations that the car companies had to adhere to.  </p>
<p>The democratic congress has spent the last two years talking about no drilling, raising taxes on oil companies, raising taxes period.</p>
<p>Management for the financials and the auto industries have not shown much expertise or common sense over the last thirty years either but I think government has been the biggest problem and now they sit in judgement on problems they are mainly responsible for and try to lay the blame on everybody else.</p>
<p>The major problem over the last two months has been the credit freeze up.  What happened to the 67 trillion dollar credit default swap (CDS) problem the media including &#8220;Money Map&#8221; has been pushing the last several months, thats what caused the credit freeze and then pushed the correction into a recession.  According to the Depository Trust Clearing Corporation (DTCC) the problem was grossly over estimated, primarily because the data was created by a survey.  The survey included info from both buyers and sellers so some info was included twice or even three times or more. The DTCC handled the sale info of Lehman&#8217;s CDS auction.  Their $72 billion turned into a net funds transfer between sellers and buyers of  $5.2 which is 7.22% of $72 billion.  DTCC says the total CDS contracts as of 10/9/2008 was $34.8 trilllion so if you apply the Lehman net funds transfer of 7.22% the liability is $2.5 trillion.  Still a lot of money but a long ways from the media number of $67 trillion.  Just like yelling &#8220;Fire&#8221; in theater, you go to jail for that.  Any people in the media want to go to jail for yelling $67 trillion CDS problem?????????</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Daduce</title>
		<link>http://www.moneymorning.com/2008/12/05/gm-bailout/comment-page-1/#comment-12878</link>
		<dc:creator>Daduce</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Dec 2008 17:27:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.moneymorning.com/?p=3627#comment-12878</guid>
		<description>BINGO !! Mr. Ronald Smith.  You&#039;ve nailed this dead on with respect to the US consumer shying away from the BIG 3 and opting with the Asian imports. When we&#039;re car shopping we typically consider these things: Dependability ratings (consumerreports.org), Fuel Economy, Resale Values and finally the Cost per Mile (CPM) to own our cars.  After doing diligent research, ALL GOOD $$ SENSE take us directly to the Asian imports. European and US are all riding on their laurels and just aren&#039;t willing to face (nor meet) the demands of we Joe and Suzie SixPacks,, soo - Adios gas guzzling, poor CPM American and European cars that lose 25 to 35% of their value the second we purchase and bring them home to our driveways or garages.   When American cars are willing to get tough with their Boards of Directors, cut costs and force the UAW to join in to meet a good CPM,, we American consumers will be more than happy to BUY AMERICAN. We do not need governmental intervention to tell us why we do not buy American cars - we need GM, FORD, Chrysler to get with the times and build cars we&#039;re willing to buy.

&quot;Comment by Ronald Smith on 5 December 2008:  I stongly disagree with the excuses for failure of GM stated in the article, blaming its demise on government regulations related to emmisions and fuel economy. GM has plenty of fuel efficient models that compare favorably with foreign automobiles. Labor costs are not the culprit either. Many of the foreign brands are built here in North America paying similar wages. The real problem is the mindset that we will buy American cars just because they are built here and look good. Consumers want dependability and durability at a reasonable price, a concept that has totally escaped the big three. GM might look a their cometitors distribution networks as well. They do not have grand showrooms with hundreds of autos on the lots in every small town in North America!&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>BINGO !! Mr. Ronald Smith.  You&#8217;ve nailed this dead on with respect to the US consumer shying away from the BIG 3 and opting with the Asian imports. When we&#8217;re car shopping we typically consider these things: Dependability ratings (consumerreports.org), Fuel Economy, Resale Values and finally the Cost per Mile (CPM) to own our cars.  After doing diligent research, ALL GOOD $$ SENSE take us directly to the Asian imports. European and US are all riding on their laurels and just aren&#8217;t willing to face (nor meet) the demands of we Joe and Suzie SixPacks,, soo &#8211; Adios gas guzzling, poor CPM American and European cars that lose 25 to 35% of their value the second we purchase and bring them home to our driveways or garages.   When American cars are willing to get tough with their Boards of Directors, cut costs and force the UAW to join in to meet a good CPM,, we American consumers will be more than happy to BUY AMERICAN. We do not need governmental intervention to tell us why we do not buy American cars &#8211; we need GM, FORD, Chrysler to get with the times and build cars we&#8217;re willing to buy.</p>
<p>&#8220;Comment by Ronald Smith on 5 December 2008:  I stongly disagree with the excuses for failure of GM stated in the article, blaming its demise on government regulations related to emmisions and fuel economy. GM has plenty of fuel efficient models that compare favorably with foreign automobiles. Labor costs are not the culprit either. Many of the foreign brands are built here in North America paying similar wages. The real problem is the mindset that we will buy American cars just because they are built here and look good. Consumers want dependability and durability at a reasonable price, a concept that has totally escaped the big three. GM might look a their cometitors distribution networks as well. They do not have grand showrooms with hundreds of autos on the lots in every small town in North America!&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bernie Torbik</title>
		<link>http://www.moneymorning.com/2008/12/05/gm-bailout/comment-page-1/#comment-12853</link>
		<dc:creator>Bernie Torbik</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 06 Dec 2008 06:18:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.moneymorning.com/?p=3627#comment-12853</guid>
		<description>Mr. Hutchinson:

While I agree with your suggestion concerning Citicorp, you are far too easy on GM in your assessment of their woes. Successive CEOs have made abysmal product and financial decisions, signed irrational labor agreements with greedy unions and offered substandard products to the US domestic market. 

A trip down memory lane brings back unpleasant memories of Chevy&#039;s Corvair, Vega, Citation, Cavalier and the miserable Cobalt. GM also gave us modified gasoline engines sold as diesels, the Cadillac Cimmaron (aka, the Chevy Cavalier), lookalike Buicks, Pontiacs, Oldsmobiles and Chevies in the 1980s courtesy of Roger Smith, and more recently, the Hummer.

GM&#039;s financial woes can also be traced to a dealer network that is far too large to support the market share it has, and to the brand proliferation GM has continued despite continued loss of market share. Does it really need Pontiac, Buick, Saturn, GMC, Hummer, Saab, Chevy and Cadillac, when Toyota, Honda and Nissan all manage to do quite well with only two brands?

GM needs to enter a &quot;pre-packaged&quot; Chapter 11 to rid itself of unnecessary dealers, brands, restructure health care and labor agreements and create a much leaner organization.

GM shouldn&#039;t receive a dime from Congress, i.e, the taxpayer, until it demonstrates a credible business plan that is a blueprint for profitability, not years of dependency.

One final comment. Rick Wagoner is without doubt one of the worst, if not THE worst, CEOs of all time. Under his watch GM has run up over $50 billion of losses in the past four years, including the writedown of $30+ billion of tax benefits because of an abortive partnership with Renault. Wagoner and his stooges need to be fired, without any golden parachutes, for their incompetence. Unless GM cleans house at the highest levels, and &quot;recovery plan&quot; it presents will be little more than a joke.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mr. Hutchinson:</p>
<p>While I agree with your suggestion concerning Citicorp, you are far too easy on GM in your assessment of their woes. Successive CEOs have made abysmal product and financial decisions, signed irrational labor agreements with greedy unions and offered substandard products to the US domestic market. </p>
<p>A trip down memory lane brings back unpleasant memories of Chevy&#8217;s Corvair, Vega, Citation, Cavalier and the miserable Cobalt. GM also gave us modified gasoline engines sold as diesels, the Cadillac Cimmaron (aka, the Chevy Cavalier), lookalike Buicks, Pontiacs, Oldsmobiles and Chevies in the 1980s courtesy of Roger Smith, and more recently, the Hummer.</p>
<p>GM&#8217;s financial woes can also be traced to a dealer network that is far too large to support the market share it has, and to the brand proliferation GM has continued despite continued loss of market share. Does it really need Pontiac, Buick, Saturn, GMC, Hummer, Saab, Chevy and Cadillac, when Toyota, Honda and Nissan all manage to do quite well with only two brands?</p>
<p>GM needs to enter a &#8220;pre-packaged&#8221; Chapter 11 to rid itself of unnecessary dealers, brands, restructure health care and labor agreements and create a much leaner organization.</p>
<p>GM shouldn&#8217;t receive a dime from Congress, i.e, the taxpayer, until it demonstrates a credible business plan that is a blueprint for profitability, not years of dependency.</p>
<p>One final comment. Rick Wagoner is without doubt one of the worst, if not THE worst, CEOs of all time. Under his watch GM has run up over $50 billion of losses in the past four years, including the writedown of $30+ billion of tax benefits because of an abortive partnership with Renault. Wagoner and his stooges need to be fired, without any golden parachutes, for their incompetence. Unless GM cleans house at the highest levels, and &#8220;recovery plan&#8221; it presents will be little more than a joke.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dave</title>
		<link>http://www.moneymorning.com/2008/12/05/gm-bailout/comment-page-1/#comment-12838</link>
		<dc:creator>Dave</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Dec 2008 19:37:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.moneymorning.com/?p=3627#comment-12838</guid>
		<description>While I agree with some of the editorial points above, there is an error. The CAFE standards initiated during the Carter years to address the second oil crisis helped, not harmed the car companies. As early as 1973, during the first oil crisis, the Nixon clean air legislation sounded the death knell for pointlessly large vehicles. With gas prices rising and only foreign car manufacturers offering efficient cars, sales of domestic cars suffered. As the big three (and AMC) began to create more efficient vehicles, sale again rose. Since domestic cars better suited American tastes, the fuel economy standards forced the car companies to build what the Public needed (not just what they wanted). The damage was done when oil got cheap again. Reagan abandoned the progressive CAFE fuel economy standards and no progress was made by American auto companies until fuel prices again rose. It was not on their own dime that things changed. In exchange for not forcing the car maker to meet new economy standards, Clinton asked the Big Three to come up with efficient prototypes. Each developed hybrid cars that would have answered the future demand quite well. In fact, the Japanese were so worried about being locked out of the new efficient car market in America, Honda &amp; Toyota rushed to develop their own hybrids. Of course, we lost an important market advantage because of the old line thinking of the Big Three. For the record, the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standard for 1985 was supposed to be 27.5 miles per gallon. Even with small mandated annual improvements, just imagine where we would be today had the progress continued. 

Whoever we decide to bail out needs to operate by different rules than they have in the past.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>While I agree with some of the editorial points above, there is an error. The CAFE standards initiated during the Carter years to address the second oil crisis helped, not harmed the car companies. As early as 1973, during the first oil crisis, the Nixon clean air legislation sounded the death knell for pointlessly large vehicles. With gas prices rising and only foreign car manufacturers offering efficient cars, sales of domestic cars suffered. As the big three (and AMC) began to create more efficient vehicles, sale again rose. Since domestic cars better suited American tastes, the fuel economy standards forced the car companies to build what the Public needed (not just what they wanted). The damage was done when oil got cheap again. Reagan abandoned the progressive CAFE fuel economy standards and no progress was made by American auto companies until fuel prices again rose. It was not on their own dime that things changed. In exchange for not forcing the car maker to meet new economy standards, Clinton asked the Big Three to come up with efficient prototypes. Each developed hybrid cars that would have answered the future demand quite well. In fact, the Japanese were so worried about being locked out of the new efficient car market in America, Honda &amp; Toyota rushed to develop their own hybrids. Of course, we lost an important market advantage because of the old line thinking of the Big Three. For the record, the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standard for 1985 was supposed to be 27.5 miles per gallon. Even with small mandated annual improvements, just imagine where we would be today had the progress continued. </p>
<p>Whoever we decide to bail out needs to operate by different rules than they have in the past.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sidney Lyons</title>
		<link>http://www.moneymorning.com/2008/12/05/gm-bailout/comment-page-1/#comment-12837</link>
		<dc:creator>Sidney Lyons</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Dec 2008 19:28:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.moneymorning.com/?p=3627#comment-12837</guid>
		<description>I&#039;ll ask the same question here.that my Senator won&#039;t give an answer to.
I work in construction.The banks and auto makers used poor judgement and put themselves in this position.
Because of the banks,the construction industry has gone to hell.Who is going to bail us out?
Damn sure won&#039;t be any of that trillion dollars I&#039;ll have to help pay back.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ll ask the same question here.that my Senator won&#8217;t give an answer to.<br />
I work in construction.The banks and auto makers used poor judgement and put themselves in this position.<br />
Because of the banks,the construction industry has gone to hell.Who is going to bail us out?<br />
Damn sure won&#8217;t be any of that trillion dollars I&#8217;ll have to help pay back.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: daniel Kormanik</title>
		<link>http://www.moneymorning.com/2008/12/05/gm-bailout/comment-page-1/#comment-12830</link>
		<dc:creator>daniel Kormanik</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Dec 2008 17:33:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.moneymorning.com/?p=3627#comment-12830</guid>
		<description>I  like you article and think your points are both relevant and 
timely. I also think helping the auto industry bridge to the future is smart politics. But I would prefer the help to minimize
taxpayers money as much as posssible while still offering good solutions.

A) The government should provide the troubled auto companies a one year Federal Tax Hoilday. This should greatly increase their cash flow available to retool and manufacture since they could skip making their quarterly tax payments.  Consider that ultimately their tax losses will be so great that most of their taxes would be refunded anyway. So why not save the trouble and allow them to beter utilize those dollars to help themselves for the next 12 months.

B) Offer revolving lines of credit, say at 2% interest, to be used to finance the purchase of new cars or trucks that are either: electric or natural gas powered, or get 30 MPG fuel efficiency.

These two proposals along with the already provided $25 Billion by the Bush Administration and approved by Congress is quite substantial and should be adequate without requiring further taxpayer assistance. After all GM for example can sell GMAC or other assets or car lines to manufacturers in other countries. The American taxpayer should not be required to foot the entire bill.

Done this way the soultions can be considered a helping hand not a bailout!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I  like you article and think your points are both relevant and<br />
timely. I also think helping the auto industry bridge to the future is smart politics. But I would prefer the help to minimize<br />
taxpayers money as much as posssible while still offering good solutions.</p>
<p>A) The government should provide the troubled auto companies a one year Federal Tax Hoilday. This should greatly increase their cash flow available to retool and manufacture since they could skip making their quarterly tax payments.  Consider that ultimately their tax losses will be so great that most of their taxes would be refunded anyway. So why not save the trouble and allow them to beter utilize those dollars to help themselves for the next 12 months.</p>
<p>B) Offer revolving lines of credit, say at 2% interest, to be used to finance the purchase of new cars or trucks that are either: electric or natural gas powered, or get 30 MPG fuel efficiency.</p>
<p>These two proposals along with the already provided $25 Billion by the Bush Administration and approved by Congress is quite substantial and should be adequate without requiring further taxpayer assistance. After all GM for example can sell GMAC or other assets or car lines to manufacturers in other countries. The American taxpayer should not be required to foot the entire bill.</p>
<p>Done this way the soultions can be considered a helping hand not a bailout!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paul Schnobrick</title>
		<link>http://www.moneymorning.com/2008/12/05/gm-bailout/comment-page-1/#comment-12829</link>
		<dc:creator>Paul Schnobrick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Dec 2008 17:32:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.moneymorning.com/?p=3627#comment-12829</guid>
		<description>Ron Harris said it well above. Why do we throw trillions at financial institutions that have no plan on how to survive other than simply going back to the taxpayer well for more as Citi recently did. The auto companies want a loan not a bailout. The GM plan submitted to congress shows them repaying the loans by 2012.  And why would anyone suggest that the taxpayers should pay the pensions for GM through the PBGC when the GM pension plans are more than 100% funded right now. Does the PBGC have the money to handle the number of retirees the big three have? I doubt it. How much will that cost the taxpayers. I&#039;ll bet it&#039;s a lot more than $34 billion. If the big 3 fail, the supplier and dealer community will collapse. The 533,000 jobs lost in November will look like a good month by comparison.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ron Harris said it well above. Why do we throw trillions at financial institutions that have no plan on how to survive other than simply going back to the taxpayer well for more as Citi recently did. The auto companies want a loan not a bailout. The GM plan submitted to congress shows them repaying the loans by 2012.  And why would anyone suggest that the taxpayers should pay the pensions for GM through the PBGC when the GM pension plans are more than 100% funded right now. Does the PBGC have the money to handle the number of retirees the big three have? I doubt it. How much will that cost the taxpayers. I&#8217;ll bet it&#8217;s a lot more than $34 billion. If the big 3 fail, the supplier and dealer community will collapse. The 533,000 jobs lost in November will look like a good month by comparison.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
