Massive deficit and still counting: more money for car companies

More money required soon for GM to keep operating.

General Motors Corp., nearing a federally imposed deadline to present a restructuring plan, will offer the government two costly alternatives: commit billions more in bailout money to fund the company's operations, or provide financial backing as part of a bankruptcy filing, said people familiar with GM's thinking.

The competing choices, which highlight GM's rapidly deteriorating operations, present a dilemma for Congress and the Obama administration. If they refuse to provide additional aid to GM on top of the $13.4 billion already committed they risk seeing an industrial icon fall into bankruptcy.

Some experts and members of Congress say bankruptcy reorganization is the surest way for GM to cut costs and become viable. But it could be a politically unpalatable development during a recession that already has thrown millions of workers out of jobs.

Treasury Department officials believe GM needs at least $5 billion more in U.S. loans to keep operating beyond the first quarter, said people familiar with the situation. . . .

Labels: ,


Blogger Martin G. Schalz said...

Would it not be easier to just get the credit market to finance vehicles again? Did not our fearless leaders throw our money at the banks?

No loans, no car sales.

No car sales, no work for the Big three.

No car sales = layoffs!!!

Hello! Earth to Congress and BHO!!! Get a clue!


2/14/2009 9:24 PM  
Blogger Ryan Smith said...

It is hard to find anything legitimate about this professor's research when he aligns himself with a political party (the Republicans) that believes the world is 6,000 years old, that man walked around with dinosaurs, and that pumping millions of pounds of carbon into the atmosphere doesn't matter.

I would seriously question and be critical of any kind of research produced by a professor who supports the research his political party advocates, supports, and approves of.

2/15/2009 2:32 AM  
Blogger TooMuchTime said...

PS - do you really think that all Republicans believe that the world is 6,000 years old and that humans were alive at the time of the dinosaurs?

I could claim that all democrats are socialists, hate the United States, and are the real racists in this country. But that's not true. You know it and I know it. Socialism crosses political boundaries, hating this country is a pastime for many people around the world (not just democrats), and racism is not locked into one political party or even one race. So lets stop with the liberal talking points.

As for your belief that human-created CO2 is the cause of global warming, I suggest you read this speech by Michael Crichton. Why would I believe what Dr. Crichton has to say? Because he believes in the scientific method, as opposed to accepting concensus from politicians like Al Gore. Read his biography for his qualifications.

The speech deals with complexity theory. That is, complex systems (like the atmosphere) cannot be managed because, by definition, they are too complex. You cannot understand all possible interactions. It is strange that liberal environmental consensus-advocates believe in complexity theory when species interaction (the endangered species act) is the topic, but disregard complexity theory completely when global warming it the topic. Minimizing one component (CO2) may not have the desired effect of reducing the temperature. Actually, reducing CO2 will most likely have a very deleterious effect on the atmosphere. Read the speech and you will see what managing Yellowstone Park has done.

I also suggest you read another of Dr. Crichton's speeches; this one dealing with why we should be skeptical about global warming.

Remember, real scientists don't believe in consensus. They question the orthodoxy and that leads to knowledge. Accepting Al Gore's consensus on global warming is closing off debate and stifling any chance of learning. Science questions, politics reaches consensus.

2/15/2009 8:33 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home