Are we going to give each of the Big-3 half the amount of money they say they need? I'm not sure this is a good idea. "Survival of the fittest" is a harsh standard, but I think it might be appropriate in this situation. Why not give half measures to all three? High risk. It might work, assuming the automakers have been generous in their estimates of what they need in order ot survive. On the other hand, if they have estimated correctly or even conservatively, one or more of the loan recipients might go under, even with the bailout. Not smart. Do we need three automakers that are failing in the marketplace? How about chosing the best 1 or 2 of the 3? It would be difficult to choose the "best", but it seems possible to evaluate "best" in terms of history and plans. Then give the best what they are asking for. My recommendation would be to grant loans to Ford and perhaps GM. Chrysler has been on the rocks again and again. Time to let them stand or fall on their own. No bailout at all? I previously gave a rationale for making no automaker bailouts at all. This is the extreme form of the Darwinian economics approach, and is consistent with pure capitalism. It is also motivated by doubts that a bailout can help in a significantly positive way. See http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-149157