Bailout GM??

I've been hearing a lot of talk about this, I was wondering what everyone else thought or had heard about it. Their are people who are suggesting we use bailout money for automakers. Paulson suggested that there is no way he would use the money that way, but what if he did? Would it be a good thing? Ford, GM, Chrysler, they are all struggling, but let's not forget that even automakers like Toyota and Honda are feeling the pinch.

I will use General Motors as the example here. It's the simplest example out there right now. There are two options for GM. Either they can beg and plead for taxpayer money or they can simply declare bankruptcy.

The bailout would probably in the way of about $120 billion for two years. That's just a rough estimate put out there by Jon Blank, a senior industry strategist at Decision Economics. Compare that to what the government has already poured into AIG and it isn't a bad number for two years. It would help keep people in their jobs, from factory workers to parts suppliers. All of these workers keep their jobs and keep buying items from retailers, retailers get to keep more people on and these people are able to buy more groceries and so on. The idea of keeping people employed is a good argument for the bailout, but is it just prolonging the inevitable with GM?
It would be very beneficial in keeping the company afloat, but would not necessarily make it competitive. GM has been failing in that respect for quite some time now. We would need a way to ensure that GM would change its strategy by the time they were turned loose. We should probably turn the bums out that have been driving the company into the dirt. They should be completely cut loose, no benefits packages, no severance pay, don't let them benefit from their failure. It's not the average worker's fault the company is failing, so they shouldn't suffer. If need be, take some money away from the CEOs that have been robbing their companies blind. Would you pay someone millions of dollars to run your company into the ground? Sorry, I got a bit ranty there.

This wouldn't be the first automaker bailout, Chrysler received $1.5 billion in 1979. There are a lot of similarities with Chrysler 1979 and GM 2008. Chrysler was hit hard by the oil boycotts because they had been pumping out large gas-guzzlers... sound familiar? It pushed Chrysler in a good direction, they went with more fuel efficient vehicles and gave us the minivan. It also returned a decent profit for taxpayers in the form of a $2 billion check to the US government, seven years before it was required. Would this happen now with GM? There are those that argue that Chrysler should have been allowed to fail in order to streamline Detroit's auto-industry and make it more efficient. But then we mightn't have minivans...

Option 2 - we let GM declare bankruptcy and see if it could turn itself around given a little bit of time. This would hurt the shareholders and we might see a run away from GM stock if this gets talked about too much. They would buy themselves a buffer, might have to cut some jobs (most would be able to keep their jobs from what I gather), but the company probably won't be able to set itself straight in a few months. They might still fail because the same people would be at the helm, but perhaps it would teach them a lesson. A Chapter 11 bankruptcy might not completely destroy a company, but it's definitely a humbling experience.

Personally, I think we should figure out a way to continue the companies' existence by taking money from all of those who profited by driving the company into the ground and heavily taxing fuel-inefficient vehicles that are unnecessary. That might sound socialist, but letting people make money from failing is sure as hell not capitalism.

Chrysler bailout on NPR- http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=96922222

Prof talks about GM- http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=96945344

French cars struggle too- http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=96917666

GM v. Toyota- http://www.npr.org/news/specials/gmvstoyota/

More links, dealing with Midwest- http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=96909271

E-Day 2008

Indeed it is election day, and unlike many young voters, I did not vote early. The plan has been to vote tonight at our designated polling station. My girlfriend and I are going together to cast our ballots. When we discussed who we were voting for, she for Obama, me for McCain, the question of our votes cancelling came up. Why would we even bother leaving the house? If I vote one way and she votes the other, then it's like we didn't vote at all right? Then I brought up the fact that there a lot of other people on the ballot.

This isn't just a presidential election.

No way right? So, I took the time to go over the other candidates that will appear on the ballot with my girlfriend. Granted my view in these cases might be a bit biased. I like Tom Harkin a lot for instance, so I might have endorsed him a little more than his opponent. The point that I made to my girlfriend is that, despite the furor over the presidential campaign, other offices should be considered. I wonder how many people go into the booth vote for president, then just randomly check boxes. I wish I would have thought of this sooner than the day of the election, but what can you do?

Here in Iowa we send five representatives to the House. I currently live in district 3, albeit very damned close to district 4. If you ever want a lesson in gerrymandering, look at your house districts. The race isn't what you would call a close, hard-fought battle, but it bears looking at. Leonard Boswell (D) is the incumbent. He is running against Kim Schmett (R) who is running on a solid background. It's basically a choice between a proven leader and someone who has been tested in other areas. Luckily, neither one of them seem a bad choice. Boswell is 74 though (Schmett is a spritely 55) and this might mean it's time for change. We even have a third party candidate running, Frank Forrestal under the SWP ticket. That's right, a true socialist. None of this Obama-crap. While Forrestal doesn't have much of a chance, he's on there and he's raising issues. And, if people vote by blind guessing after they vote for president, he might stand a chance.

http://www.boswellforcongress.com
http://www.KimSchmett.com
I couldn't find a good website for Forrestal, so feel free to use http://www.dogpile.com/ to look him up.

I also live in State House District 59. This is an interesting race between Chris Hagenow (R) and Jerry Sullivan (D). Again, both candidates have strong backgrounds. Sullivan is a former broker and senior financial service representative at Prinicipal Financial. Hagenow has his law degree from the University of Iowa (Go Hawks!) Sullivan is focusing on bringing new businesses to Iowa, something this state could use. Hagenow focuses on spending issues, something Iowa is generally very pragmatic about.

http://www.chrishagenow.com
http://jerrysullivanforstaterep.org

The State Senate isn't really a contest. Seriously, only the one choice. So, make sure you don't mess that one up on the ballot...

The Race for US Senate, or How Tom Harking Stole My Heart. Tom Harkin (D) is the incumbent, being challenged by Christopher Reed (R). I've grown up watching Harkin do amazing things for Iowa, so my opinion is biased. I have great respect for both candidates and wish Reed the best, as long as he doesn't beat Harkin. He's not really a bad guy, but he's running on the basic Republican platform (note, this is not necessarily what I think of when I think of conservatism). I can't even debate this, Harkin needs to win again, and it looks like he will.

http://www.tomharkin.com
http://www.Christopherreed2008.com

For more news on these guys or to figure out who is running in your district, check out http://www.desmoinesregister.com/section/iowaelection08. Not the best coverage in the world, but it works.

So, learn a little before you vote. Knowing Obama is a pretty speaker and McCain is a creepy old man doesn't make you knowledgeable. Don't just vote a party line. Please don't just vote randomly, that's how we get socialists... If you can't do it for this election, there will be another big one in two years. Just keep your head up and your eyes and ears open.

PS - I might have been upset when I last posted...

Moment to vent

I have discovered of late that there are two types of people on social networking websites. The first I like. They are the mothers who post cookie recipes, that turn out to be amazing. They also discuss topics like, how do I make this casserole better? or good Halloween ideas. That's why I haven't pulled off of the website entirely and gone back to good old fashion dead-tree and postage.

The other kind of person on these sites, the more common of the two I might say, can be dubbed the "ranting douchebag that doesn't lend any credence to the conversation and should probably have just read the post and walked away but thought they would be a douchebag instead." Or, for my typing's sake, db. They don't make any sense. When they leave a post, it's just an angry rant. Or they use highly flawed information. These are the kind of people that made recess suck when you were little. They start fights because they like to fight, not because they enjoy discussing relevant issues.

Which begs the question... DO ANY OF YOU F**KING GROWNUPS LIKE TO HAVE GROWNUP F**KING DISCUSSIONS??? No one on gather.com does. I know that. I have tried to post twice, once about Israel and the Saudi Peace plan, once about the similarities between Kosovo and Ireland. Both times some jackass would enter the discussion with a comment like "I would never compare Ireland and Kosovo, there [sic] two different countries." And I am left to wonder why that is relevant to what I am asking, and are they utterly and completely mental?

Or, the post starts off angry, then I clarify my point. Then the other poster creates kind of an "oh I get it now." Instead of continuing the discussion, the other posters leave because there isn't going to be a fight. Rather than have an intelligent discussion, these people just want to leave posts using idiot phrases and words too big for their little brains to comprehend correctly.

I apologize for the rant, but gather.com sucks for anything but recipes, which it kicks ass for. Get this, I learned how to make peanut butter fudge! NFW right?