[68fastback]

Wow, tough audience here

I think they just need to know what business assumptions they can plan on -- i.e. yes/no/how-much -- you just can't run a business without knowing that and Ford would be a fool to not participate given how interlocked the supplier base is. Ford is only asking for what they would have obtained from the banking industry if it wasn't broken right now. Also, if GM/Chrys get direct assistance it would put Ford at a disadvantage: it's all-three or nothing, imo. The three also agreed that, to the extent they accept gov-loan money, they'd agree to grant a Congressional oversight committee (as I predicted Congress would realize they need) the same powers of a bankruptsy court to reorganize their businesses if they fail to perform -- all three agreed to that.

How would this be any different than bailing out a bank with the agreement that money would get allocated to traditional asset-collateralized loans to the big three. As I see it the only diference is that the bank would get a markup on the money -- a gift they are not worthy of, imo. So why not have the government just bypass the banks and provide the assistance directly but under the same terms/penalties as in a functioning banking system.

I also liked the pressure that is being put on the UAW leadership ...they have some $2B in their coffers over $1B of which is specifically for the next strike! Congress asked their chief a$$hole if he's be willing to kick that money (just the $1B part) to reduce labor costs ...dodging and weaving BS words and he would not be pinned down (it's the memebers' money -- fair enough) but it seemed clear that being able to cripple their members employers is more important than their members having employers.

I tell ya, I really do respect the notion that, as a general rule, taxpayer money should never be used for this, but this isn't the airlines where the product is consumed in a hours ...these are durable goods with warranties (without which few will buy) and I don't see, on balance, there is any sensible choice except to help. Clearly just one opinion but I don't see that the breakage and it's ripple-thru can be justified on principle alone in this specific case. The automakers drive 4% of the US GDP which is 4x the cost of worst-case cost (more than the $34B) assistance and assuming the money isn't paid back (which I predict will *not* occur for Ford). I see it more as a direct injection of liquidity availability without traditional banking overhead.

I wish there was a realistic way to pick and choose who survives on this one. Chrysler is seemingly toast anyway. GM is the problem, imo. They're almost as bad off as Chrysler but are the 800lb gorilla. Without their spending, Ford's supply chain is toast.

I think the oversight committee with bankruptsy-court powers is key. Because I think it will be GM that dips into the well first and, if they don't hit their targets, will be getting paired-down, voluntarily or not. They need to sell Saturn (whcih has become a joke), and prolly dump Pontiac at a minimum too. If they don't they'll liely default and the court or Congressional committee will do it for them ...and probably with a far duller knife.

It's a tough call either way ...will be interesting to see how the incompetant political whores Congress vote.