They did delay taking two disbursements in the last two months but they did say they would still need some loans later. They were able to reduce the amount because of very heavy cutting in fixed and variable cost even deeper than their February restructuring plan.

I’m not concerned with the safety regulations as they actually save human lives. I am concerned with unwarranted acceleration of CAFE standards (hell, the existence of CAFE standards itself is offensive) because oil prices spiked after Hurricane Katrina, and then they were accelerated AGAIN after last year’s run up, which has proven to be a paper tiger that was unsustainable above $3.34 per gallon (which is precisely the tipping point that economists have been pointing to for years). Then you add in the continual piling on of power to the unions by states and you have the mess we’re in today. Any state the forces a company to accept a union because they are in a specific industry is corrupt and unconstitutional. But, if you fight the unions too vigorously you’ll probably discover where Jimmy Hoffa has been sleeping for over 30 years.

And yes, they have viable plans to repay the money and what sucks is that we wouldn’t even BE IN THIS POSITION if it weren’t for the aforementioned meddling in the free market by the government.

I find it quite interesting that people point to the government requiring safety gear when in reality the market has pushed for more and more safety. Mercedes and Volvo have been 10+ years ahead of the governments on safety and as those technologies have trickled down to the lowliest of cars (stability control is standard on all Honda, for example), the prices have gotten better and no federal mandate is required. People vote with their wallets. We made it over 100 years of driving without stability control being standard, but here in a few years it will be because of regulations.

Again, please point to any hard facts that can explain how either GM or Chrysler will fail to repay the loans. Worst-case-scenario is that one or both go bankrupt and the loans are repaid during liquidation. I still don’t see the argument about the taxpayer getting the shaft here.

BTW, let’s not forget that the reason the market is in shambles for all of the automakers is that the American People took out loans they could not afford and caused the collapse which has put secondary industries in the crapper and then we have the gall to complain when the collateral damage needs to be fixed.

And what value are we talking about? Do these companies have any viable plan that will result in the repayment of billions of dollars? Not likely. They will go bankrupt and the money will not be repaid in full.

this is quite different than a soldier seeking a home loan through the VA…while the nature of the loan may be similar, the circumstances are not, due to the fact these companies are at the very end of their rope and there is no alternative without causing further chaos (the “b” word)…a private citizen may seek a similar loan for a variety of purposes, but not when the situation is “either i get this loan or i die”…that is why it continues to be called a bailout, imo…

“You’re right, they have lost the opportunity cost of spending those funds on better choices, and they will lose more than just pennies”

Please, enlighten us with your source of facts. The US Government RARELY makes financial investments, thus the money that will be repaid through these loans will exceed what is paid out and be far better for the US Taxpayer. The banks that are already repaying their TARP loans are paying full interest on them, just as GM and Chrysler will have to do.

This is one of the few times that the US Government is providing VALUE to the taxpayer, not just sucking up the money and not using it to further the economy, help sustain jobs, and allow our companies to be competitive on the world stage after 30 years of constantly pulling the rug out from under them through ever-more-draconian regulations.

This is absolutely NO DIFFERENT that Bob’s Bakery seeking federal loans from the Small Business Administration. The purpose of these loans is the same: to provide capital that the business needs to need to meet short term cash flow goals and invest in the company’s future.

This is absolutely NO DIFFERENT that a college student seeking federally backed student loans. The purpose of these loans is the same: to provide capital that the entity needs to meet short term cash flow goals and invest in the entity’ future.

This is absolutely NO DIFFERENT that a young soldier seeking federally backed home loans through the VA. The purpose of these loans is the same: to provide capital that the entity needs to meet short term cash flow goals and invest in the entity’ future.

This is absolutely NO DIFFERENT that a private citizen seeking federally home loans through FHA. The purpose of these loans is the same: to provide capital that the entity needs to meet short term cash flow goals and invest in the entity’ future.

Are you seeing a pattern here? Like it or not, the US Government has been in the business of loaning money for a very, very long time.

I wish the media would quite calling these loans “bailouts.” (I’m pointing at you LLN!) It’s dishonest and misleading to people who are not aware of the full terms of these loans which usually can only be found during business hour TV shows talking about the stock of GM and Ford.