2.) I see no good reason to trust the same rationale that was behind bailing out the big banks. That $700 Billion TRAP was designed only to assist banks, however now insurance companies and even credit card giants like American Express are trying to get in on that action. Thus, This auto bailout is nothing more than, informal fallacy argumentation, ethier we complie or we caused everyone to be affected. How did that first bailout work again? Oh that’s right it was pork filled and paulson changed his mind on how that 700 billion should be spent. Not to mention, the economy has gotten worse. The stock market has tanked, and the deficit has soared to historic proportions. We’re now on the hook for over $7 trillion and some people are still begging for more? Who created this situation? Was it the fault of the tax-payers? Or was it the fault of bad management, the UAW with democrat ties, and the big Government regulations? All Evidence points to the latter. Furthermore, this isn’t the first time in history one of these car companies has asked the government for a bailout. In the late 1970’s Chrysler asked the government for a bailout telling the government their sob story and in the end they got their bailout. Flash forward to 2008 here they are again with another sob story asking the government for another bailout. ie. The government trough has reopened and the bad management, the lobbying special interest, and the UAW all feel they’re entitled to feed from it once again. The point of my example is this, they’ll just keep coming back asking for more and more tax-payer money. Those who learn nothing from history are doomed to repeat it. The big three are like bank robbers with alot of hostages so they aren’t afraid to black-mail tax-payers with the canard of 3.3 million jobs will be lost. The only way to cure the big three once and for all is to let them file chapter 11 and restructer from the bottom up. Moreover, Those auto part manufactureers can also do bussiness with the international auto-mobile makers that produce right here in america. Obviously they’ll pick up the slack for the big three if they end up failing. Honestly, do chief executives who fly on private jets really need a bailout? Seems to me, if one can create enough urgency then one can implament their agenda. And their agenda is obviously; Lemon Socialism!

Other industries have survived bankruptcy just fine:

eg. Most of the major airlines have spent time in bankruptcy, including United, Continental, Delta, Northwest, and US Airways. Their predicament looked particularly dire after 9/11. But the major carriers made it through. And to the extent that they suffered, low-fare competitors such as Southwest and JetBlue picked up the slack, often offering superior service in addition to cheaper prices.

Others have not:

eg. TWA/Delorean too big/historic to fail? (obviously not america is still here)

While another auto-mobile industry (leyland) which was in a very similar position to the big three’s situation now was indeed saved by a government bailout only to still fail in/by 2005: eg.http://edition.cnn.com/2008/BUSINESS/11/20/auto.industry.uk/index.html

(Note: For now I’m not even asking the big three to fail i’m only asking they file chapter 11.)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122939117718809261.html?mod=rss_opinion_main
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9787
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=F0FB4204-8E58-4E63-A348-AD9151BB6834 (Chapter 11 allows operations to continue while helping shed fatally unsupportable obligations. It does not mean liquidation.)

3.) They don’t all pay similar real wages: “The average private sector worker earns $25.36 an hour in 2006 $17.91 an hour in cash wages and $7.45 an hour in benefits such as pensions, paid time off, and health insurance. Autoworkers at Japanese plants located in the United States earn substantially more than this: between $42 and $48 an hour in wages and benefits, which amounts to over $80,000 a year in total compensation hardly cheap labor. However, The typical UAW worker at the Big Three earns between $71 and $76 an hour in 2006. This amount is triple the earnings of the typical worker in the private sector and $25 to $30 an hour more than American workers at Japanese auto plants. The average unionized worker at the Big Three earns over $130,000 a year in wages and benefits.” Where the other problem lies: “Health care costs the Big Three so much because the UAW negotiated gold-plated health benefits that include medical, hospital, surgical, and prescription drug coverage. These benefits also cover durable medical equipment (e.g., hearing aids), dental benefits, and even lasik eye surgery. For all this, GM workers and retirees must pay monthly premiums of $10 for an individual and $21 for families.These gold-plated health care benefits put the Big Three, and especially GM, at a competitive disadvantage.” http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm2135.cfm

Are they in the auto-mobile business or in the health insurance business? Last time I checked the auto-mobile industries made cars for X amount of profit. Hence the running joke that the big three are really health-providers who just happen to make cars.

From the NYT; Mitt came up with this plan:

“IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.

Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course – the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check.

First, their huge disadvantage in costs relative to foreign brands must be eliminated. That means new labor agreements to align pay and benefits to match those of workers at competitors like BMW, Honda, Nissan and Toyota. Furthermore, retiree benefits must be reduced so that the total burden per auto for domestic makers is not higher than that of foreign producers.

That extra burden is estimated to be more than $2,000 per car. Think what that means: Ford, for example, needs to cut $2,000 worth of features and quality out of its Taurus to compete with Toyota’s Avalon. Of course the Avalon feels like a better product — it has $2,000 more put into it. Considering this disadvantage, Detroit has done a remarkable job of designing and engineering its cars. But if this cost penalty persists, any bailout will only delay the inevitable.

Second, management as is must go. New faces should be recruited from unrelated industries — from companies widely respected for excellence in marketing, innovation, creativity and labor relations.

Investments must be made for the future. No more focus on quarterly earnings or the kind of short-term stock appreciation that means quick riches for executives with options. Manage with an eye on cash flow, balance sheets and long-term appreciation. Invest in truly competitive products and innovative technologies — especially fuel-saving designs — that may not arrive for years. Starving research and development is like eating the seed corn.”

4.) The logical fallacy here is assuming europe only wants american cars produced by the big three, but the reality of the situation is the free market doesn’t care “by whom in america” as long as an american company makes; small fuel efficient cars. Thus, it does not follow that they have to come specifically from the big three. Therefore, the international auto-mobile companies in America would then gain their exporting business replacing the big three. However, If the big three file chapter 11 the former won’t happen and as they restructer they can remain doing business in the european market. As for our trade deficit the only way of recovering our footing there is by declaring that the U. S. policy is to gradually reduce our trade deficit down to near zero. The goal of all countries should be equal trade. By gradually increasing the tariff on all goods imported into the United States from the following five countries Japan, Germany, China, Canada, and Mexico; Whom are responsible for 60% of our tade deficit. This will be the correct path to equal trade. Now that is a tariff with a responsible goal, a goal which is to create an international trading system based on equal trade between all nations.

ps. your site is aligned too far to the left center it out so I can read what you have to say. It’s such a pain in the arse.