strings attached

I interrupt my regularly scheduled knitting post to comment on the auto industry.

Now I generally don't approve of far flung money throwing--typically it's a waste of money. However, when an industry's sales figures are off as much as 30% (please keep in mind that the catastrophic retail sales number are projected to go down by 3%) how can the government keep insisting that it's poor design?

The last trip by the CEOs to congress was... a fiasco to say the least (I would immediately fire whoever was in the meeting that decided "hey go to Washington and don't take a single plan about how you are going to cut costs").

The thing is, most people don't see how the auto industry failing would hurt them. I have to wonder about the media coverage that doesn't emphasize the hundreds of thousands of jobs that would be lost, from the corporate offices down to the suppliers and dealers. There is more to an industry than a corporate office and union employees. As someone who has 3 family members working in the auto industry, we know how widespread the ripples can spread.

Those suggesting bankruptcy--do you have any idea how difficult it is for a company to receive financing during the proceedings? Guess what---all those lenders have disappeared, so the company would not be able to emerge from bankruptcy because there is no one to pay the bills.

If a government makes a habit of bailing out a banking industry which took advantage of lax lending standards and is in the process of dragging down the whole economy---there is more that needs to be fixed than just "give the banks some money which they won't lend because they want their balance sheets to look better."

The government has lent to the auto industry before, and they have paid back those loans with interest. Another thing, quit calling it a bailout--its a loan, with strings attached and an expectation that it will be payed back---unlike what is happening with the banks.

This whole thing has me a little tense. Can you tell?