For the record I don’t want Detroit to disappear – just want them to change their game so they can excel.

I must say I’m really looking forward to these plans.

It also shows that at least some in both chambers understand that the best thing to do (at least for GM) is to provide Chapter 11 debtor-in-possession financing. Less clear is how well they understand that Chrysler is terminal and what to do with Ford if GM gets relieved of obligations through Chapter 11.

It’s extremely counterproductive thinking, but I cannot help desiring some major punitive actions against senior management. Perhaps they could spend their golden parachutes and retirements in the courts, because they clearly have some “esplaining” to do.

Alan Mulally is exempted from contempt, of course. He represents both the hope for a renewed domestic industry, and a template for the path out of the wilderness. He is also the justification for saving Detroit. Once gone, a domestic industry is unlikely to emerge again. Better managed, there is no reason why Detroit can’t be the envy of the world in a decade, no matter how personal transportation evolves in the meantime.

Again Ken, let’s hope your interpretation is widely disseminated.

Amen to that. Cars have way too much content, especially overpriced electronics. All I want is a reliable engine, brakes, and maybe some sound deadening and possibly a radio. I don’t need an entertainment center, I’m driving. As for the kids, whatever happened to “Don’t make me stop this car!”

This is all a form of subsidy and it needs to stop. We all take advantage of it to some degree, others live their lives around credit. Some companies live this way too.

Dead on about blaming Bush&Co for the delay, the only thorn in this plan is the timing. If they were looking for money by Feb20th or later this would be a different situation. They would hold hearings the end of January and cut the check.

Next up will be airlines, appliance makers, clothing industry, you name it.

Do the dealers have the right to demand that the manufacturer provide them with product if the dealer is not producing that product?

The answer to the dealer lawsuits (say a Pontiac dealer) just stop producing Pontiacs. If GM produced their products only under the Chevrolet name (almost all GM products are Badge engineered anyway) wouldn’t that be a way to eliminate Buick, Pontiac, Cadillac and GM dealers?

Working with you? Why say that? Why not be honest for a change and just say “No”?

The Plan demanded in terms of short term assurances and solutions has nothing to do with the reality of the situation for all three Detroit auto makers if they remain as going concerns outside bankruptcy. So unless all this is a jointly pre-organized con game being set up to dupe the taxpayers in December, as the money could only be given out in contradiction to the literal requirements in this letter, then the letter is in fact saying “No, we will not work with you”. Period.

I would hope that as this saga plays out in the coming weeks that the B&B keep foremost in their minds the following: As clueless as Wagoner et al appeared before the House and Senate committees, they are all paragons of business knowledge as compared to the typical congressman.

Some, such as Barney Frank, have a little more economic savvy than the rest, but when it comes to the nitty gritty of the auto business, they are clueless.

In short, please do not take seriously their critiques and criticisms of Detroit. Agenda #1 is self-aggrandizement for about 90% of these ladies and gentlemen. The fact that Pelosi is willing to involve the Federal Reserve, GAO, and others is really quite extraordinary, it seems to me, and quite out of character.

Where I lose all of this new business model stuff is when we leave the la la land of selling the jets and holding down compensation for execs,where are the real savings that these auto makers need?

We all know it is killing dealers, brands, and cutting the UAW is where these savings have to come from. In the case of Chrysler, it means killing Chrysler, and selling the couple of viable brands like jeep & minivans.

This means war at the OK corral. The dealers will certainly sue in 50 different State courts which might take all of the governments money to the big three to defend the suits (and years of time).

Secondly, the UAW has said we are not reopening our contracts to scale back terms. This means either a strike and or further litigation. Only a bankruptcy gets these Detroit companies over these two giant hurdles.

Or can Congress find a third way to accomplish this?

The high price of cars was subsidized and in fact fostered by easy credit. Easy credit resulted in house price bubbles and college tuition bubbles and car price bubbles. It enabled the huge margins carmakers enjoyed on SUVs, which cost a few hundred more to make but sold for tens of thousands more.

The credit bubble is history, and now house prices are deflating. In fact, everything is deflating, or soon will.

But carmakers think they have the power to set car prices. They do not. The market sets them.

The market is saying this is too high and you need to cut or no one will buy any. Whichever company executive is a true businessman and not a jackass will see this and will cut prices first. They have no choice, and I’m not saying it will be without consequence.

Consumers can not buy a new car a lot longer than automakers can not sell any.

What Pelosi and Frank and Dodd are trying to do is to allow automakers to keep car prices high in a doomed attempt to centrally control the market. It is part of the war on the middle class, and will continue in the new administration.

In fact, Pelosi and Reid’s congress is the fundamental authorizer of spending. It is they themselves who chose not to give money to Detroit.

Dodd was under the assumption that most of the domestic dealers had hedged their bets with an import point, but it seemed like the dealers that were there were strictly domestic only points.

Obviously Dodd was out grandstanding, but hopefully he learned something so he can ask intelligent questions at the next hearing.