If I were a betting man I would guess that Bush will buckle, and that next year's senate and house will be much more likely to give labor what it wants. Kicking the can down the road and all that.

Obama, the man that was willing to scrap federal oversight of the Teamsters for their endorsement, is not the type of politician that is going to back the UAW down either.  

From the freep (emphasis added)..."I think we are going to be all right because I do believe that, for all of his faults, this president is going to step in," Granholm said. "But all of our efforts must be turned towards the White House today."

Then, the UAW for thinking they can continuously fund only Democratic candidates and wonder why Republican Senators would want to use this opportunity for a payback.

For the 31 Republican Senators and 3 Democratic Senators who would risk the nation's last remaining manufacturing base to engage in gotcha politics...perhaps they should realize that they never fare well in that game, which is part of the reason there will only be 42 Republicans left in the Senate come next year.

I think the loan would have made a difference and bought them some time, to accept the reality, that they are losing market share fast, going bankrupt and need to make severe changes, if they are concerned with the future of the industry and there jobs, they would've taken the pay cuts like the CEO's agreed to do.

There is a two tier system, the old wages and the new hire wages.

I go into Big 3 plants were the new hires are making $14-$16 an hour with half the benefits. At this wage the Big 3 would be very competitive with foreign car makers.

 If some of these old timers were concerned with the future of these companies, they would have been willing to take wages similar to what the new hires make. The idea is not something new, there are guys currently working at big 3 plants  makin half of what the old timers make.

The choice was clear, keep the industry alive and well, and running good and around for future generations. Or insist on keeping wages and benefits that are not sustainable and drive the companies into the ground.

What needs to be changed:

1. a union must only be allowed to represent employees at one company.

2. free association must be protected by law.

3. unions (and companies) must be forbidden from participating in the political process.

Bankruptcy wouldn't close the doors, it would simply protect them as they restructure.  Bankruptcy is a tool, not a funeral.  Besides, car czar's and government handouts are un-American!

Something had to be done in this scenario and "closing the book" on this was just proof that the Repubs simply can't get the things that matter to Michigan or this country done.  It's not just Democratic values or philosophy that is a problem anymore.  There is simply too much ideology and not enough action based on reality left in government.

This is the business equivalent of druggie's intervention--and yet big labor is not willing to declare itself an addict.  This plan, or any other for that matter, will not work without labor being on board, and the union is already saying it will not consider change until after the current contract expires.  How many more bailouts will be necessary before then to keep  companies afloat that burn billions per month?  

And Cerberus, though loaded with plenty of cash and hugely profitable overall, will not even bail out its own company!  They know Chrysler is going down in flames.  They are, however, very willing to see if they can cover some of their own losses by taking in a huge infusion of Mom and Pop cash.

If it is not worth it for the unions to change, and not worth it for Cerberus, and not even worth it to government to change lending, environmental or energy policies to help the Big 3, why should the taxpayers do so?  

This whole situation makes me sick to my stomach.  That grand trifecta of bullying labor, blind business, and pandering government caused all of this to occur.  

And really, while we're on the topic - why should we take advice from you?  If you're going to side with "the other guys", why would I take your advice?

I for one have offered numerous alternatives to giving money to these failing companies.  The role of government IS based in principles.  And we're sticking to them, much to your detriment.  Your job is in crisis, and you want Republicans to fix it - but the only fix you find acceptable is a half-assed "bailout" that won't last them to the end of the month.

If you feel the market isn't correcting itself and shouldn't take care of itself - fine, go be a Democrat.  Even though they complained about corporate welfare for the last decade, they're now implementing the biggest form of it - and spending more money bailing out failing companies than they did failing families.

But seriously, if you're "going away" because you're disgusted with the Republican party - GO.  Just go.  I don't need to hear your sob story and the fake outrage hidden behind the fact your job is in trouble.

The Senators and Representatives may not have been in your local news, but they were on many national tv news programs and often did radio interviews.

Also, on Dec. 3, Ron G. agreed to suspend the jobs bank program.

I think the Wall St. vs. Main Street double standard will not sit well with most people.

It is offensive to demand wage concessions and salary caps from the autoworkers while no senators asked AIG or Goldman Sachs what their rank and file earn, or if their benefits were too generous. No one demanded, as a condition of financial help, that the workers of the Wall St. firms take mandatory pay cuts.

The Carter era caused THAT problem during Jimmy's energy crisis when the demand for fuel efficient cars skyrocketed. This is how we got small unsafe cars that were disposable cars. They really were.

Make no mistake - GM and Ford are definitely "Wall Street".

It only stinks to those who are going to get their $73/hour (benefits inclusive) paycut.  Most Americans would be happy to make half that.

The real message is that businesses fail, and have failed for hundreds of years.  It happens, it's natural.

Companies are announcing layoffs of thousands of people every day.  But the news is focused on bailing out the Big 3.  They lament the loss of 3 million jobs, but the Big 3 employ less than 500,000.  The suppliers that support the big three have been laying off every year for the past decade.  Where was their bailout?

When you ask me to support a bailout to protect YOUR job, I ask you - why are we protecting YOU, and not everyone else?  You stood by and did nothing when millions before you lost their jobs.  But your "manufacturing job" is special somehow?

Some businesses can make money and some businesses can't.  When you look at the field of automakers, why can a company building as many cars as GM turn a profit?  Obviously there's money to be made, despite all of the "government meddling".  Hell, the UAW has organized a half dozen Toyota plants already.

There are business processes to handle this - and it is available to everyone.  Bankruptcy.  If the company isn't solvent enough to make it through bankruptcy it wouldn't be able to pay off any "federal loans".

There are other business processes to handle this.  Taking out loans from commercial banks.  But this just isn't feasible - perhaps because the banks know the inevitable is coming; those 3 million jobs are still on the line despite giving loans larger than the net-worth of the company.  

And finally, just like Lehmann and Morgan Stanley were bought up in bankruptcy, someone will buy up a Ford or GM.  There were several buyers interested in Chrysler last year, and now the price is a steal.

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/white-house-breathes-new-life/story.aspx?guid=%7B081CBE42%2D3D 1B%2D4884%2DB83F%2D2790DF2BB542%7D&dist=TNMostRead

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/16514

"Corker demanded large concessions as well from bondholders to reduce the debt levels on GM."

I think Corker was being more than fair in asking, concessions from labor, executive pay, bond holders.

Unfortunately if everyone were to take your advice and just "go away" whenever they have disgust with the Republican party, it's only a matter of time before you're not going to have anyone left behind you.

How can you not be frustrated with the double standard here?  Repubs sign-on to a 700 billion dollar bill having no clue whether or not it's needed or what affect it will actually have and then smack Detroit down just to prove a point on principles after they've already thrown them out the window?

Give me a break...  that's just gibberish!

Regardless of the all emotional sentiment, if this money is given to the auto makers without significant changes in government energy and environmental policy (which is will not give) from labor (which it is saying is unfair to give and has refused to give thus far) and major changes in the structure of these companies (which it may not be able to make fast enough) these supposed loans are not a loan or even a bail out, but money down the drain.

How can you not be frustrated with the double standard here?  Repubs sign-on to a 700 billion dollar bill having no clue whether or not it's needed or what affect it will actually have and then smack Detroit down just to prove a point on principles after they've already thrown them out the window?

Republicans weren't the ones who setup the televised "trials" dragging the Big Three over the coals.  That was the Democrats.  The Democrats also drew up the 700 billion bailout.

I never supported the $700 billion bailout, and I don't need to make excuses for those who did.

And I don't support this bailout.  Where do we stop next?  What industry do we say no to?  Already cities and states and other industries are begging for bailouts, using the same failed logic - "we did it for those guys, so why not us?".

Give me a break...  that's just gibberish!

What's gibberish is thinking that the government can continue to borrow money from the Chinese to make these stupid bailouts - and somehow pay them back in the future.

My loyalties to my hometown supersede that of any party.

And the last bit of "GIBBERISH" is that the bill stunk.  They all said they needed $34 billion.  What does it truly matter if the $15bn bill passed?  They're going under - but hey, at least someone "did something", right?  Not all activity is productive.

The situation stinks, and I fear many will view it as an assault on the "working class."

Exactly. I have absolutely no love for the UAW whatsoever, but let's get real.  Where were the wage concessions for the financial industry?  Do you see the head of Citibank getting excoriated in front of Congress like the Big 3 did?  If the no-bonus-for-anyone-making-$250,000-a-year-or-more language is in the auto bailout, then it should be in TARP as well.  The FEds refuse to identify who has received $2 Trillion in TARP (read: yours and my tax-funded)dollars.  REFUSE. How can we as a party demand this transparency and these concessions of the Big 3 and not the Big Banks?

Obama and the Democrats VOTED FOR THE WALL ST BAILOUTS. The majority of the people who voted against the bailout were Republicans...get a clue. Stop the bullshine!!!!!

The Democrats have the control of the Congress. THE ONLY REASON that the bailout of the auto industry didn't pass was that the DEMOCRATS failed to bring home the bacon to the socialist Big 3.

Stop the misinformation crap, and tell the truth.

What I posted is not bullsh*t.  You had better believe that the democrats and the UAW will be trotting out footage of the Senate Republicans killing this bailout during midterm elections.  They will use it over and over and over. It will be a PR nightmare.

Clearly you do not understand what I am saying. Please, if this is bullshine like you claim it is, show me the TARP regulations that cut investment bankers pay.  Where is that reduced to the equivalent of what the autoworkers are being asked to accept?  Where are the bonus caps on the banking industry? WHere is the oversight?  Tell me how Joe Average on the street is going to interpret this any other way than Republicans only care about rich guys and don't give a flying fig about them.  

Please tell me what I have said that is not true. Oversight for TARP is sorely lacking.  There are no pay cuts for bankers, no income limits, no bonus caps. The Fed refuses to disclose to whom they have distributed $2 Trillion.  Those, Mr. Burley, are facts - irritating little things that they are. And the Democrats will make hay out of them at every opportunity.  

Since the majority of the Republicans (when you count the House) voted against the Wall St bailout, it will be quite easy for them to oppose the bailout. I don't think Republicans should be demanding concessions. They should flat out oppose the auto companies' bailout, just like they opposed Wall Street's bailout.

It was the Democrats that overwhelmingly supported the Wall Street bailout, joining the RINO President, George W. Bush. Even now, the Democrats have a majority in BOTH Houses, and were not able to "bring home the bacon" to big business in the form of corporate welfare, which I oppose.

You are probably right about one thing - the Democrats will misrepresent the truth about how the GOP voted (of course not all GOP members, since many of them are fascists like our president), and moronic union thugs will vote Democrat (the UAW will flat out lie in their publication).

The vote was 52 to 35, with 10 Republicans voting "Yea." 4 Democrats voted "Nay," and 4 did not vote. One Democrat seat, from Illinois, is not occupied. Whose fault is that? Even so, 52+8=60.