Changes

::It takes 60 votes to pass major legislation through the Senate--the Democrats have 51 votes now, (and will have 58 or so starting in Jabuary). The Bush administration said it would oppose a bailout, meaning a veto, and the GOP in the Senate has been strongly opposed. That's how things are blocked. Geo's insults (calling a very well researchedarticle "garbage") ruin his credibility in the matter. GM itself says it is on the verge of bankruptcy, and its board is now evaluating different bankruptcy strategies. for some evidence see [http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/11/13/business/13bankruptcy.php "GM's troubles stir question of bankruptcy protection vs. a bailout"]. "Democrats propose taking $25bn (£17bn) from the $700bn Wall Street bailout to fund carmakers. Barack Obama made the case for government aid in an interview... Republicans largely oppose any bailout, with Richard Shelby, the ranking member of the Senate banking committee, saying that the government would be throwing good money after bad. "It would only be postponing the inevitable," Shelby said." [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/gm-workers-plead-for-emergency-bailout-1021811.html quoted] And this from Fox News: "Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson told Congress on Tuesday [Nov 18] that the administration remains firmly opposed to dipping into the government's $700 billion financial bailout fund for a $25 billion rescue package for Detroit's Big Three automakers, no matter how badly they need the help." [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/11/18/paulson-rejects-bailout-money-automakers-senate-considers-legislation/ Fox news report] [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 21:51, 1 December 2008 (EST)

::It takes 60 votes to pass major legislation through the Senate--the Democrats have 51 votes now, (and will have 58 or so starting in Jabuary). The Bush administration said it would oppose a bailout, meaning a veto, and the GOP in the Senate has been strongly opposed. That's how things are blocked. Geo's insults (calling a very well researchedarticle "garbage") ruin his credibility in the matter. GM itself says it is on the verge of bankruptcy, and its board is now evaluating different bankruptcy strategies. for some evidence see [http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/11/13/business/13bankruptcy.php "GM's troubles stir question of bankruptcy protection vs. a bailout"]. "Democrats propose taking $25bn (£17bn) from the $700bn Wall Street bailout to fund carmakers. Barack Obama made the case for government aid in an interview... Republicans largely oppose any bailout, with Richard Shelby, the ranking member of the Senate banking committee, saying that the government would be throwing good money after bad. "It would only be postponing the inevitable," Shelby said." [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/gm-workers-plead-for-emergency-bailout-1021811.html quoted] And this from Fox News: "Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson told Congress on Tuesday [Nov 18] that the administration remains firmly opposed to dipping into the government's $700 billion financial bailout fund for a $25 billion rescue package for Detroit's Big Three automakers, no matter how badly they need the help." [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/11/18/paulson-rejects-bailout-money-automakers-senate-considers-legislation/ Fox news report] [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 21:51, 1 December 2008 (EST)

:::The President, and previous Presidents, have been known to say they oppose something without going to a veto.  It's a way of making their position known and the wording of it is usually very important.  My understanding is that the Democrats chose to not procede immediately because of their own reservations.  No one wants to be caught supporting a bill that simply requires a neverending series of bailouts for an industry that is not viable.  I'm not saying that's the case, only that the Big-3 automakers had not shown Congress how they intended to make this money resolve their difficulties to the satisfaction of Congress.  So far most of the proposal has been showing how they're burning money and need new money quickly, but not showing how they intend to stop burning money.  Congress, both Republican and Democrat, will want some form of specifics. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:29, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:::The President, and previous Presidents, have been known to say they oppose something without going to a veto.  It's a way of making their position known and the wording of it is usually very important.  My understanding is that the Democrats chose to not proceed immediately because of their own reservations.  No one wants to be caught supporting a bill that simply requires a neverending series of bailouts for an industry that is not viable.  I'm not saying that's the case, only that the Big-3 automakers had not shown Congress how they intended to make this money resolve their difficulties to the satisfaction of Congress.  So far most of the proposal has been showing how they're burning money and need new money quickly, but not showing how they intend to stop burning money.  Congress, both Republican and Democrat, will want some form of specifics. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:29, 2 December 2008 (EST)

==Overblown==

==Overblown==