President Bush Says GM And Chrysler Should Have Been Allowed To Fail "But Circumstances Got In The Way"

Headline contradictory much?

The source headline read.

"Bush on auto bailouts: 'I'd do it again'"

I love when I agree with you, Joe :)

It was good policy. The consequences of immediate bankruptcy would have been worse than government intervention.

240,000 jobs at the big three would have had to be axed, 980,000 would have to be axed at related industries, and 1,700,000 at other businesses. It would lead to $400 Billion decline in incomes over 3 years.

Welfare programs would have had to step and spend more money while taking in much less revenue.

The bailouts were expensive, but the alternatives were far more costly. It was a good policy decision. I think ideology clouds a lot of peoples judgement who think the free market fairy will just come in, save the day and make everything better.

Had the big three gone into bankruptcy, it is unlikely they (or their new owners) would have been able to secure financing because of the way the credit markets were at the time. Government had to be the lender of last resort.

Stop trying to make sense and explain things, you're on an AutoSpies forum ;)

The board at Ford had enough brains to realize what was going on and brought in new blood. A bold move that is obvious now, but GM still hasn't figured out.

First, Ford was already on a good path of recovery that did not require the kind of assistance that GM and ChryCo needed. Second, they did receive some gov't help as many in the industry did, just not on the scale of the 2 bankrupt companies. Not every bank got the same amount of assistance either. Some were healthier or just luckier. Doesn't mean they are somehow morally better, just as someone who never needs unemployment insurance is no better than someone who has required it. They are just different.

Ford would have gone under without GM and Chrysler being bailed out. A lot of their suppliers would have gone out of business. Never mind the fact that more economic issues would decrease demand for cars.

In fact some foreign transplants like BMW and Toyota received government financial assistance as well. Again what I've said many many many times on this site is this. By letting the 2 companies GM and Chrysler go bankrupt this action would have caused a domino effect throughout the entire US auto industry. Ford restructured but was carrying a lot of debt at the time. Auto suppliers supplied parts to not only the US 3 but all the foreign transplants. Ford could have gone under, US auto suppliers could have gone under, and foreign transplants would have been severly damaged. The job losses would have been catastrophic. People keep talking about this "only" affecting GM and Chrysler. Clearly this would have had a far reaching affect throughout the auto industry in the US.But the question is why do some people on this thread not place the same questions to the financial industry? Why do they feel it was OK to bail those banks out and not the auto industry? Did they not make huge mistakes?Did they not take iresponsible actions when making those subprime loans.AIG has not paid back it's loans to uncle Sam.Like the auto companies the banks made poor business decisions as well. Targeting just the auto industry is idiotic.