On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 16:44:23 -0500, Keith nuttle
wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 12:15:50 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 10:20:11 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

Pelosi asked for a plan, which involves more than flying in on the
Big 3's executive jets.
As well she should. She'll need everything she can get to cover her ass
when
one or more of those companies goes south after throwing more taxpayer
billions at them.

You just got done claiming that Pelosi is attempting to justify *not*
bailing them out, and since the democrats are in control of Congress, that's
certainly possible. Now, you're claiming that she's going to authorize the
money to bail them out?? You might want to try and get your arguments in
order before you write them down.

After you look up "fantastic, you may want to look up "Gordian Knot".
It will help you to understand Dave's problem. Or at least one of his
problems. g
I believe that if you look at the news today, that there is a difference
in what pelosi and obama are proposing, which is they are not going to
bailout the auto industry but are going to give them a special
bankruptcy. In layman terms they are going to bail out the auto
industry but call it something else. A rose is a rose.

I'd prefer they let the big three land where they may, and bailout the
auto industry itself by helping some of the many startups who are
trying to develop and bring to market cars that will be the envy of
the world. Bailing out the big three simply stifles innovation, and
rewards failure. I don't really think they can be preserved in their
present form regardless. It would be nearly impossible to save them in
a strong economy.

Lets encourage some completely new blood.