Comments on: More Movement Towards Filibustering a Bailout of the Big Three? Not Likely

By: jpm100

jpm100 — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 00:49:52 +0000

“In 2007, General Motors lost $38.7 billion.”

In 2007, GM had to restate previously listed capital assess as funded obligations due to Sarbanes-Oxley. No money actually went anywhere.

By: ginsocal

ginsocal — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 22:02:39 +0000

I say we keep them hanging on ’til after 1/20/09. Then, when they fail (as they inevitably will), everyone will blame O!. As they should.

By: Brad S

Brad S — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 19:52:31 +0000

The Intellectual and Media Right is learning a valuable lesson from this bailout of the Detroit 3: Never underestimate the power of lobbying and public relations.

Unless the Right is willing to admit that it, too, engages in class warfare when it suits its purposes, it will continue to get its head handed to them by those with prettier PR women.

By: Another Drew

Another Drew — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 18:12:57 +0000

If they want an “auto-czar”, wouldn’t it be cheaper to just buy the stock on the open market
(current market-cap of GM & Ford is less than $5B IIRC),
and appoint a federal receiver to run a consolidated industry as a sub-department of the DoT?

By: redc1c4

redc1c4 — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 17:51:28 +0000

everything you need to know about the proposed bailout:

December 10, 2008 Stat of the Day

In 2007, Toyota sold 9.37 million vehicles.

In 2007, General Motors sold 9.37 million vehicles.

In 2007, Toyota made $17.1 billion.

In 2007, General Motors lost $38.7 billion.

better we just take $15 billion and burn it. at least we’d generate some heat. the only thing that might save Detroit is Chapter 11.

from: http://www.crossingwallstreet.com/archives/2008/12/stat_of_the_day_1.html

By: DCSCA

DCSCA — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 17:23:40 +0000

Shelby is anti-American. He’s been bought by foreign auto companies. Republicans bailed out the financial industry. But not the auto industry.

By: Kevin Murphy

Kevin Murphy — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 17:04:41 +0000

Worse, if they need votes, they’ll carve out a few billion in local graft and pass it the secnod time. The TARP bill was not improved on the second go-round — they just added some graft to get the holdouts.

By: The rational Dana (which doesn't imply that the adjectiveless Dana is irrational!)

Wed, 10 Dec 2008 16:28:06 +0000

No, they’ll let something pass, quite possibly just a stop-gap measure, and pass the buck onto the next administration.