On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 11:35:14 -0800, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:


I doubt it. The money was an effort to save Bush's reputation not GM or
Chrysler.
He's provided his party with political cover, nothing more, and it's
pretty
thin cover at that.
There isn't any reason GM couldn't have a special meeting and fire the
lot.

JC- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"Correct...Bush doesn't want to be remembered for being the President
who destroyed the car companies."

Bush has stated that failure to keep the Big Three open with a bit of cash
would mean that the Republican Party will end up being remembered a the
party of Herbert Hoover forever. He also said that if the Congress
wouldn't
act, he would, and in so doing would provide the Senators from Toyota the
cover they needed to coddle their principal contributors without having to
suck it up and do the right thing by those that voted for them. It really
is
that simple.
100 percent political posturing.

JC


Yes, there is some political posturing, that's true but that's not all there
is to it as you are saying. The fact still remains there is a good reason
why Bush is coming up with the money to keep the "Big 3" afloat.
Unemployment is going through the roof right now. In California it's over
8.4%. If a million people lose their jobs all at once because the auto
makers and lots of related businesses all fail that is going to send
unemployment through the roof. That is a scenario no one wants to see
happen. If it did happen the cost would be gigantic. So, while there may be
some reasons for doing this bailout that are political the main reason is
that not doing it is just plain unacceptable to any administration. The
irony of the situation is that for once Bush is making the right decision.
Of course he didn't want to, but the circumstances are forcing to do what's
right. Now that's funny. Too bad it couldn't have happened before.

Hawke