Rethinking the Auto Bailout


     I certainly agree with all who were against the bank bailout, as the banks work hand in hand with the Fed to create inflation and rob us of our money, but the auto industry is not in the same boat as the banking industry.

          In practice I am in favor of a Federal bailout of the American Auto industry though I would approach it from a different angle. What I am in favor of is not a bailout, but retribution. I can only imagine how much the Federal government has taken from the big three car makers in the form of taxes since he inception of the coorporate income tax, and I don't have a problem with theif giving his victim back his rightull belongings, infact I believe Justice demands it!

        The federal government should repay to the car makers their tax money from the last several years or even decades, agree not to tax them anymore, stop the regulations they have on the Auto industry, prohibit state regulation of the industry and their labor restrictions, and stop inflating the money supply both by the Fed and the fractional reserve banking system.

      I shared the first point of my plan with a statist coworker and he said that would be fine except that as soon as Ford and GM got their tax money back, other people would want their money back, and if the car companies were exempted from paying taxes, everyone else would want the same treatment. He went on and on and I was never able to layout the rest of my plan, but this in and of itself is a good first step, and the retort he gave as a reason not to do it, I hold as a great reason to do it.

       To see the tax money as one's own money, and not the government's is a great first step, and we have an oppurtunity to do it here.




jdavidb said:

Unfortunately the Federal Government cannot repay this theft.  The money has been consumed and destroyed.  Repayment would have to be made by stealing from more people; thus it would be unjust.  My future grandchildren didn't steal from the auto companies in 1977.

In addition, there is no "government"; just individuals doing wrong things.  Justice would be for the responsible people to repay their portion of the wrong.  You could never track all of that down.  How much guilt belongs to each of the last seven Presidents?  How much to each Congressman of the last thirty Congresses?  How much to each voter?

And who are the victims?  The auto companies?  The stockholders?  The auto industry employees?  Multiply that by all the points in time affected, as it would be an ever-shifting group.

My religion proclaims "Let him who stole steal no longer; but rather let him labor, performing with his own hands what is good, in order that he may have something to share with him who has need." (Ephesians 4:28)  I think this is in recognition of the fact that a thief very often may not be able to give back what he stole.  If he has it, then yes, he should give it back.  If not, he cannot fix the wrong he did; he should do the best he can.

The thief cannot give back, here.  The federal government is bankrupt.  It should declare bankruptcy and immediately have its assets liquidated.

Finally, the type of justice you are talking about has to be sought in a court, not by legislative fiat.  If a court (a real court, not a state court) can piece together a case to show some certifiable debt and award a judgment against the government, it could be paid out of those assets in the manner standard for bankruptcies.

# December 15, 2008 5:11 PM

CatLover said:

You should read this post at "The Truth About Cars"




"About 1982, I was talking to a GM rep. He said they expected a 30 percent major failure rate in that model year. I said, 'You mean, if I have 1000 cars, 300 will need an engine or transmission?' He said yes, and I believed him. They knew they had huge quality problems, but viewed them as a cost of doing business."

"Then came the mid-80's. Talk about losing your way! We had transmissions that would not shift; when you take them apart, you couldn't find any viable failure. The reps told of being in restaurants wearing the GM lapel pin and asked if they worked for General Motors. They'd respond that they worked for General Mills."

# December 17, 2008 2:00 PM

Michael S said:

I second what jdavidb said and If the big 3 gets their tax money back then I want my back taxes back too including what I paid into social un-security

# December 19, 2008 10:37 AM

radu said:

this is the strangest argument i've heard to legitimize a bailout. in this way, you could justify every measure of protectionism. for example, tariffs are good as they compensate the protected industries for having been previously taxed. dear friend, you have lost the fundamental logical relation, which is causation.

# January 15, 2009 2:23 AM