So, whatever we decide upon for the number of jobs at risk, we need to cut that number by almost half when positing the number to be saved with a bail out.

We need to also remember that any number suggested as total jobs in the economy related to the automotive industry will include a very large number of jobs that are not at risk, including some jobs that would be made more secure by the failure of the Detroit Three and jobs only tangentially related: automotive rental agencies (not at risk), automotive repair shops (more secure), automotive t-shirt designers (only tangentially related).

Bad proofreading.

I don't deserve a bail out either.

But the fact is, the "Big Three" "American" auto makers, with the culpability of the United Auto Workers, have made have failed; throwing a lot of money at them will not change that.

I'm all for "increased energy efficiency," but we don't need to rescue those three to get that. There already are fuel-efficient cars in the market place and I expect we'll see more, with or without a bailout; so any government-imposed mandates in that regard would be more about making the industry product more competitive than burning less fuel. You have to question the business acument of any corporate culture that requires a mandate (and a government handout) to be persuaded to make a product that is competitive, as opposed to a good fit for the current assembly line.

And if the idea is simply to keep 10 percent of the workforce employed, I'm not at all sure making cars and trucks under the direction of that particular set of executives under those particular labor agreements is (a) the most productive use of their time or (b) the best value for the money. There must be something more useful we could have them do.

And if we're the ones who are paying them, we're the ones who should be deciding what that is.

And it doesn't have to be making cars.

Still, while I don't agree, I concede you make some a good point and I appreciate your thoughtful response.

Here's your post where you're claiming to be all "balanced" and "irresistable" and the advert randomly puked at the bottom of it has a picture of Bill O'Reilly and poses the question, "Is Fox News Fair and Balanced?"

What a cute coincidence!

Oh, and please note, an author who explains to his reader that "my post was not 'muddled'" betrays his total misunderstanding of the fundamentals of how written communication works. You write. Your audience reads. If your audience can't make out what you're trying to say, you failed. Not your audience. It's muddled.

The audience is why you're here ... unless you're just wanking, which often appears to be the case.

That is why I generally skip your posts but enjoy reading the comments (when they're enabled). This crowd eats your lunch. And then you come back all defensive and self-righteous and (in this new twist) "balanced." What a hoot.

Keep coming back.