Arguments for and against the bail out of the big 3 automakers

Last night the argument about the bail out for the big 3 automakers hit our living room. A heated discussion between my husband and myself started during the NBC Nightly News.

I am against loaning them any money and he is for it. We ended our discussion with the plain fact that we both had valid reasons for our positions but we still disagree with each other on the bail out. Below I have listed both his and my reasons for and against:

Me (against):

• The automakers have not produced any better MPG vehicles than they did 20 years ago.
  
• They have not made any new innovations in smaller lighter engines or even thought about using something other than steel.
• Their lack of customer care after the purchase often sucks and the government usually has to step in to order recalls.
• They have not stopped their assembly lines and retooled to meet the customers demands for more fuel efficient cars but keep turning out more heavy SUVs and trucks.
  
• They are still spending millions of dollars on advertising to push trucks and large cars to the public.
• They could save millions by putting a halt on all advertising until they have reorganized their business plans - and quit making gas guzzlers until there is a shortage of them and they are in demand again.
• If the big 3 go under or close to it then other more innovative car companies will take their place. They maybe foreign or domestic but they will probably be based on new technology.
• I have a funny feeling that the oil companies and the automakers are somehow in bed with each other which is not good for any of us.
  

Hubby (for):

• If the big 3 don't get a loan them it will put many people on the unemployment line.
• If the big 3 go under then it might throw us into a massive depression.

There you have our little discussion in a nutshell.