1. Under which, if any, of the following conditions would you favor federal assistance to help the domestic automobile industry (you can check none, one more than one, or all items): 

Do you have any comments on this topic that you would like to share? 

I would give the auto industry priority over financial institutions because they make something ‘tangible;’ i.e. automobiles. 

The premise of your question is wrong. Bankruptcy is the only just and the only beneficial option. 

Why am I not surprised a liberal Obama supporter doesn't offer "demand union concessions" as one of the options? The average "line worker" makes $73 per hour bolting doors, and during a layoff makes 95 percent of his salary. Let the big three find a way out of this mess without government assistance. The thought of Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd -- largely responsible for the current banking crisis -- telling ANYONE how to run a business is laughable. 

I wouldn't offer the big 3 a bailout. Period. 

If current top management of the automobile companies make no more than six times the salary of the average “line worker” on an assembly plant. 

I don't support aid under any circumstances. Their only hope for survival is for a bankruptcy plan which would allow them to keep operating under Chapter 11, which means they could have relief from their debt, renegotiate more reasonable terms with labor unions, and emerge from bankruptcy as a sleeker, more efficient company. With a bailout, they have to pay all debt, including government interest, and they would just lose more $$. Lots of Companies go bankrupt (United Airlines is one example) and they keep most of their employees and emerge a stronger company. 

If current top management is replaced. 

I would not support the bailout at all. The auto industry has to be allowed to fail otherwise it violates the whole principle of capitalism. The auto industry is failing due to bad management plus I don't want to be paying for this for the next 400 years. 

Because the domestic automobile industry is so large and simply can’t afford for it to fail., With the condition that the companies present workable plans to make their cars more fuel efficient and “green.”, With the condition that the companies give government good reason to believe that their products will be better able to compete with foreign automobiles., If current top management is replaced., If current top management of the automobile companies make no more than six times the salary of the average “line worker” on an assembly plant. 

All of these are good reasons to assist the auto industry make a transition from stupidity to green-ness, in both the ecological and financial senses. The last is mistaken, however: an ordinary worker out of work from the financial industry is just as out of work as someone laid off from autowork. A bailout at this point should be primarily about maintaining employment. Otherwise, it's cheaper for the government to buy all the stock and own the auto makers. As part of any bailout the government should get a capital stake in those companies that can be sold when they return to profitability. Top management should be replaced gradually to make as smooth a transition as possible. 

Because the domestic automobile industry is so large and simply can’t afford for it to fail. 

Failure at this time would be devastating to our economy. Some reduction will be necessary to ensure they will be viable for the near term. I'm not convinced that a green car can come from the current structure. Maybe we need a "Manhattan Project" (a consortium of the best minds with adequate funds). It sure would be a boost to the economy to be the world leader in green power technology, and other economical products that may result.