"Hawke" wrote in message
...

Would you prefer it if we let the companies go bankrupt and throw a
million
people out of work? Then when they all apply for unemployment
compensation,
which the taxpayers pay for anyway, the cost will be ten times higher.
Don't
you understand that the cost of the bailout is a lot less than it'll cost
if
those companies go under? Sorry, that was a dumb question. If you
understood
it would cost far more to let them go bankrupt than to bail them out you
would never have posted what you did. Never mind.

Hawke

Why does it have to be all or nothing? Chrysler is suspending production
for a month. The law of supply and demand. They are making more vehicles
(or the wrong type) than their is a demand for, they need to reduce the
supply, not be bailed out with taxpayer money. The plant I work at,
Continental Tire, is cutting back on production. It hurts my income but
it's better than having taxpayers bail us out.

I feel like if the big 3 wanted to, they should be able to make cars as good
as any Japanese or German auto manufacturers. I need reliable and
economical transportation so I don't have much of a choice from the big 3.
It isn't like they made cars run on water before putting too many eggs in
the basket of the gas guzzling SUV's and the like. The point is that they
got themselves in the mess and want taxpayer money to bail them out. If
they had put their efforts into making reliable fuel efficient autos I
wouldn't have to buy foreign cars.

An alternative to the bail out or bankruptcy could be to shut down one week
per month or something like that. Or maybe it would just be to cut out the
overtime, reduce production and don't cover people on vacations. Personally
I'd like to see the big 3 get some compacts and sub-compacts in the top 10
of reliable and economical transportation.

To answer your question, I think the bail out is better than bankruptcy but
maybe that isn't the only choices.

RogerN