First, how bizarre this notion would be. Hell we can't even run a "not-for-profit" government how in heck are we going to expect these elected buffoons to run a company in the competitive would of automobiles?
The automakers are in line asking for a paltry $25 Billion in the form of bridge loans, to be paid back with interest. They are being asked to jump through hoops, sit on command, and to go potty on the paper unlike the bankers who are actually being thrown the money (nobody really knows how much as the sums given have been in the range of $350 Billion to $3 Trillion) with maybe having to send the taxpayer paper, in the form of Preferred Stock, at a pittance of what the sum of money given them.
There appears to be no criteria established by which banks will be entitled the money. Monday, December 1, 2008 five more banks were given money, with only one of them actually losing money in the most recent quarter. Two of the others showed lower earnings than the previous quarter, but both also just handed out substantial severance packages to their retiring president.
While the recent robbery of the taxpayer has many similarities to the Savings & Loan swindles during the Bush daddy era, no one is suggesting any wrong doing this time around. Also nobody is suggesting the government simply take over the loaning out of money, to be paid back with interest, much as they are doing with the automakers.
Is this simply an oversight? Or is it about something else? In the history of our country our banking has had its roots planted in Great Britain (Yes, the Federal Reserve Corporation, the "Fed", which has 300 shareholders who go back to the Rothschild family). To run against those roots had some dire consequences for some of our Presidents. Andrew Jackson had the government in charge of the money during his presidency. Jackson was the first sitting president to have an assassination attempt on his life.
The banks of England have made great wealth by financing wars, in many cases they financed both sides. During our Civil War, however, they were able to finance the South, but Lincoln would not go along and had the government support the finances of the North. Lincoln was assassinated.
Moving along, in the early 60's John F Kennedy drew up an Executive Order that had the government print money, the Silver Certificates. He was assassinated and one of the first things Lyndon Johnson did upon assuming the presidency was to rescind that Executive Order.
Are these three incidences coincidental, or is there something sinister at work?
Is there a reason why there is so much resistance to giving money to the automakers, who are for all practical purposes the last of the breed who really produce something in our nation? It seems as though most of the other manufacturing concerns have left our shores for lands. If we lose the auto industry will we still be considered an industrialized nation? Most of our exports are raw materials and/or services while most of our imports are manufactured consumer products. Sounds pretty third worldish doesn't it?
If a bank goes under who stands to lose? All money funnels back to the originator, with interest. In this case it is, of course, the private corporation, the Federal Reserve Bank Corporation. A major concern given for throwing this money around to those with the biggest hands is that people and small businesses cannot get loans if these banks go under. That is hogwash! In this case a couple of things could happen, other banks would merely absorb the difference, hence there would be less competition. This, or course, could lead to more expensive money higher interest rates, but then could they get much higher than the 30% now charged by banks through their credit cards? The government could become the lender upon which we would better control the outgo and the income would have interest attached. A third choice would be the general idea of what is taking place now, but with one major change. We would give the money out in the form of loans, to be paid back at the interest these banks deem "fair". "Fair" being the interest they presently charge their customers. This would most likely have the 30% being charged now lowered drastically. This lowering would then put more spendable money in the pockets of consumers. That would assure the taxpayer of receiving their money back with interest, plus would allow our economy to not reel as badly because the people would have additional money due to lowered credit card interest (assuming these banks would not want to be paying 30% interest on the money they borrowed).