Why hasn't anyone questioned Mittens why he did not support the auto industry "bail out?" Could it be because, if the automakers had failed, the investment firms (Bain) could have bought them for pennies on the dollar, shipped the jobs overseas, and sold them for a huge profit?

Because he credits himself for saving the auto industry.

'Bout time the truth came out. We owe ya, Mitt.

I think Ya close Michael;

I mean GOP supports the rich exct's and their big businesses . SO to have a republican to vote against the bail out - can only mean to me that Mitt would have profit at some point some where , a backdoor or side door , even the front door.

The liquidation of the (Big Three) could be in the billions <-- Mit saw that and voted the way he did --> knowing his buddies at Bain would grease his palms.

IMO

I think you're close Carp... so very close to saying the exact same thing Michael said.

Because some folks believe that a corporation stands or falls on its decisions. Chrysler and GM should have sought bankruptcy protection and restructured themselves, like everyone else has to. Not all corporations that file bankruptcy end up liquidated.

Government bail out.. I'm sorry, taxpayer bail out is not the only solution available to a struggling corporation, no matter if some do believe it is too big to fail. And if they had failed you can believe that other car manufacturers would have stepped up operations to fill the void, including Ford. And those secondary manufacturers and suppliers (one of which I work for) would have retooled and now be supplying Fords increased demand and other vehicle manufacturers. But of course we'll never know because we chose the taxpayer protected option.

Um... the interest on those loans goes back to the taxpayers. Taxpayer bailout? No. It's called ROI.

And you're ignoring the ripple effect. Even a marked slowdown would kill off jobs and entire companies all the way down the food chain — from parts manufacturers and distributors to tool makers to the corner sandwich shops who feed those workers. And that blows a big hole in your "fill the void" theory. One or two other car makers alone would not be able to amp up their output anywhere near enough to provide a sustainable back order for those suppliers. Are you that confident that a lifetime GM or Chrysler buyer is just going to by a Ford because that's the only option available?

You also neglected the fact that the credit markets were locked down tighter than an old maid's chastity belt. No one — and I mean NO ONE — would step up and make the loan.

I'll debate your "authority" on this any day because I have clients who serve the auto industry and who were at the edge of a cliff until the loans were granted and are now way ahead of their prior numbers. I know this because the state of their business impacts the state of my business. But you go right ahead and whine about a win-win.

Course Steve you're ignoring (or forgetting to mention) that Mitt and all the GOP leadership wanted GM & Chrysler to go bust so the economy would really tank and they could blame BO for it. IT would have given them even more mileage (pun intended) in this election cycle. If one or both had gone bust - the GOTP would have also blamed BO for not doing something and questioned his leadership.. However, they ended up on the short end of the their schtick on this one (due to a caring, but shrewd BO), and are not happy !!

Well the argument does span many supporters on many sides. Take the other controversial bail out - was it right to bail out the banks? Why were some allowed to go under, but others were rescued. Go ask an OWS'er and you'll probably find many there who are adamantly against the banking bail out. Yet it happened. In both cases of bailout we are here today because some were blessed by government and others were left to the wolves. What makes it right for government to select these winners and losers, rather than leave it for the market to balance out?

We'll never really know what would have happened had the government chosen different winners or left it all to the forces at work. But regardless you probably have 3 groups of people in this:
1) We should always bail out critical corporations.
2) We should never bail out any corporations, and while it worked this time that doesn't make it the right thing to do.
3) Bailouts worked this time, so I've changed my mind and now believe bailouts are the solution.

I think you're missing a 4th group: Those who understand the concept and the consequences of too big to fail.

In the financial industry, you have thousands of corporations — some of which have become, unfortunately, too big to fail. But if a dozen or so did, there are enough others to fill that void you referred to in your previous post, and the industry as a whole, though damaged, would continue. However, in the U.S. Auto industry, there are only a few major players, and the failure of just one or two would actually bring down the entire industry.

Though C-suite performance across the car biz may have been questionable in some areas, many financial C-types were gambling (sometimes illegally) in ways that brought trouble upon themselves. And I believe that's why there was some picking of winners and losers.

That 4th group recognizes when such assistance in an investment and when it's an unlearned bonus. In other words, there's a time to make the loan, and a time to say "suck it up".