Posted on 08/22/2008 7:11:37 PM PDT by rabscuttle385
WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., in an important shift, said on Friday he backs a plan for the federal government to provide low- interest loans to struggling U.S. auto makers.
The presumptive Republican presidential nominee said the loans are needed to help auto makers build the next generation of cars and become financially stable.
"Our auto companies are rising to the challenge of building the next generation of American cars, but are doing so in times when credit conditions cripple the funding for the facilities and technologies to take the steps to the future," McCain said in a statement.
(Excerpt) Read more at money.cnn.com ...
He said he was in favor of loans. Now, I am from Virginia. Here in VA if we borrow money, which called a loan, we are required to pay it back.
It’s not a handout, right? Or is the smear more important than letting small details in get in the way?
I well remember that loan, and Chrysler still deserves to die. How will our auto manufacturers ever learn to plan for the future and make their businesses more efficient if taxpayers bail them out? I’m speaking as someone who owns Ford stock and will likely benefit from this.
What would happen if we just let them fail? Would auto manufacturing disappear from N. America? No, it would not. Other manufacturers would buy up the remaining assets, and we’d likely get better autos in the long run.
BTW, have you looked at the amount of debt these auto makers already have? Using your line of thinking, maybe we should just open up a line of permanent credit for them so they can operate in the red forever like Amtrak.
What’s wrong with private forms of financing. After all, they should have no problem getting the loans if they’re a safe bet, right?
And it stinks that the politicians get to do it with OUR money!
Who the hell is going to bail out the tax payer when paying the bill comes due?
It sure won’t be the U.S. Government.The Government is broke.
Let the industry continue to restructure - along the lines of Honda - Nissan - Subaru - Mercedes-Benz - BMW - Hyundai and other relatively recent car manufacturers in the United States. They start out without the legacy burdens of bad union agreements, outdated physical infrastructures and management methods, and none of the environmental liabilities. If you subsidize or support an aging and non-competitive industry - all you’ll get is more of it for a longer time, you will not avoid the inevitable reckoning.
McCain continues to underwhelm with his economics knowledge and judgment. John - rule #1 is Government should not pick technology or business winners.
Yes and yes. I'm not big on government bail-outs, but it was well worth it, and those who bought Chrysler stock at $6 made a big pile.
I am not necessarily in favor of it, but other than the pathological dislike for McCain, I don’t why people are whining and gnashing of teeth over this. Reagan did it, and no one complained.
I think this is just someone finding an excuse for a hate McCain party.
Someone someday is going to realize that DC got us into this and that DC can’t get us out.We ain’t that stupid,,,are we?
Good point, and Chrysler still falters. They either have what it takes or not. If not, let ‘em die. Chrysler employees and assets won’t just disappear. They’ll go into more productive endeavors.
Let Cindy loan them the money. LOL
Hahaha, we finally agree on something.
“Then I guess Reagan was a socialist too. Here are some loans Reagan approved in 1982.”
Ahhh. A red herring.
I don’t recall Ronald Reagan running a campaign in 1980 that pledged to support loan guarantees. It’s been a long time, but I was there and was active in the campaign. I just don’t recall bailouts being an issue.
Once a President gets into office, he is often stuck with a lot of baloney that Congress sends his way. Ronald Reagan, like all Presidents, was forced to pick and choose his battles.
It looks like Sen. McCain has already decided that he won’t raise a finger when in comes to corporate bailouts.
Well written. If the automakers are a good bet, they'll have no problem getting private financing. But, truth be told, they are probably bad debt, so no one wants to loan them the billions more they need to correct their inefficient companies. And, why would they bother to try and become efficient when they can count on taxpayers to cover their bets? Like you said, we only delay the inevitable. Oh, they'll definitely survive with a nearly unlimited line of low interest credit from the government. What business couldn't survive with that? However, what business is going to do the painful and necessary steps to fix itself with that sort of government hammock under it?
Isn’t “picking and choosing” another phrase for compromising?
Time Magazine October 1980
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,951519-4,00.html
“As his own campaign progresses, Reagan seems to be undergoing another conversion. His rhetoric has become more muted, his tone less bellicose. On domestic affairs he has changed his mind about the federal bailout of Chrysler and loan guarantees for New York City (he is now for both) and disavows any thought of asking for repeal of the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act. Such moderation of views, aides insist, is consistent with his record as Governor of California from 1967 to 1974. In Sacramento he once went along with a tax change after proclaiming himself embedded “in concrete” against it. He sometimes brings that up voluntarily these days, and says, “Well, my feet aren’t in concrete” on this or that issue.”
“Reagan did it, and no one complained.”
I did. And I was told to shut up and be a good republican.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
There is a huge difference between being pushed into a corner and voluntarily bending over for the Left.
In McCain's case, it's almost always the latter.
welfare for the unions.
Ok - lets just set up the Federal Government to be the backing organization for ALL businesses... You make bad business decisions and you lose money - in the red - and are about to fold, just call your “Sugar Daddy” Uncle Sam and his subjects (taxpayers) will bail you out...
While I fully comprehend the scale of the problem if US Automakers fold - many thousands of people (hundreds of thousand with all of the “big three” and related suppliers). But where is the responsibility? It all really started when the Japanese companies came over and proceeded to kick the Big Three’s butts. Then along comes bailout #1 for Chrysler (and yes, I have been told that they paid back that money to the Fed...).
Yet, instead of really learning from their mistakes, they continue, seemingly oblivious to their own demise. Poor designs, poor quality, and general poor business practices (including continuing to give away the farm to Union thugs).
By the time the US makers decided to try to improve quality - they were too far behind in the game.
And these corporations are STILL making bad decisions - like having too many autos within even the same name plate that directly compete against each other in the same class, not to mention repeated platforms across all brands...
The credit problem has only made the whole situation come to a head. The problem has been there all along. Add to that the part of the credit problem that they generated themselves...rolling negative equity into bigger and bigger notes - one vehicles that don’t keep their value in the first place.
And on and on...
Where does the bleeding of consumers end?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.