One of the other facts is that if some of the Big Three (most likely GM) were to fail, the Germans, Japanese, and Koreans would pick up the slack as they are continuing to build more factories here in the U.S. Now having said this, I hope and pray this doesn't happen, because the Big Three support American based suppliers far more than these other companies do. The truth is I think that they will bounce back if they do this now and begin the process.
The one proposal where the Government would gain partial control of them would destroy the company. If I actually have to explain why on this, then that would explain a lot of why we are in the rut we are in (the Government messes up anything and everything they have control of). They would only produce economy cars and the fact is those are not profitable. On top of this, can you imagine the corruption that would come out of this? It would make blunders like the Pinto, Corvair, Firestone Wilderness blowouts, and any other popular blunder seem like nothing. We should keep the Government as far away from the auto industry.
While I conceptually agree with you guys about adapting or dying, but if we had said that to Chrysler 30 years ago and not given them a loan then, we very well wouldn't be driving the amazing car we have today. Sure, they have produced a lot, well, a real lot of crap, but Chrysler was on to something in their design process in the 90's, and then Daimler came in and totally blew them up. GM was all the mess it was, giving us the Aztec and it's brethren, stupid Saturn ideas, and axing Olds, which really had become your grandfather's car company and nothing else (ohh so sad for the days of 442s). Ford, who would have believed that making everything oval (grills, back windows, dash, radio's, etc) in shape was a good idea.
So yeah, that got what was coming in many respects, but today's US car companies are giving us better vehicles. And stick with a name and refine it over and over. Why did Ford kill the Taurus off. Look at the Japanese, Camry, Civic, Corolla, Accord. Keep perfecting the model and people think you are perfecting the brand.
I love cars. Surely can't work on one nor can I fix much being an electronics and IT Operations guy, but I love them all the same. I admit to liking some of the other brands, but owning them, that is another thing. Have owned Chryler products all my driving life (oops, Dodge Colts are Mitsu's)but will always be a MOPAR guy, if nothing more because they did things different.
So, to sum it up, I for one support a loan with a plan. No bailout, but a loan, one which I look to Chrysler to use wisely and bring us more great and innovative cars and trucks!
The thing you have to remember about this is they now expect that from us and they will continue to do that until we put our foot down. On top of that, look at the field back then and now. The Big Three still had a very strong hold on the car market yet, now the number and strength of the competition is amazing. The other thing was cars like the K-line were profitable, now they are not profitable. GM's best selling models are the Impala, Cobalt, and Silverado, and they were each on the top ten list, yet they are going broke anyhow. The problem is they need to fix their cost structure.
Chrysler is the only one who didn't deserve what has happened to them. They were doing perfectly fine then Daimler drove their fangs into them and sucked out their blood. GM and Ford have come a long way, but one of their problems is despite being on a sinking ship they decided they needed to go on a path full of icebergs and make more and more models in unproven markets when it was obvious that the demand was going down. GM & Ford should have started to cut back on their models. They do not need so many darn overlapping CUVs & SUVs.
The time to fix the Taurus was back in 2000. They should have downsized it to the Fusion's size. They should have went back to the previous formula. You are right about continuing to use the same name. One of the biggest problems Ford has run into is that people do not recognize the name and a picture of the car doesn't develop in their minds when they hear the name. The only time when a name should be discontinued is if it becomes tarnished permanently. I think there was a stronger case to lose the Explorer name than the Taurus. Dull, boring, and cheap can be fixed by adding a performance model (SHO) that is competitively priced if not a trend setter in performance (in other words what the 1989-1995 not what the 1996-1999 SHO was), having superior seats in the next generation, and adding more spice to the styling. Dangerous is a much bigger obstacle to overcome.
I understand your view of things. If they could come up with the right plan (one with the Government not getting too involved), and it being a loan that is paid back, I might reconsider my stance.