As Congress debates legislation to help struggling automakers, many Americans say they are uneasy with the plan, arguing that while it may save jobs, it would reward companies for pursuing bad business practices. Some even question whether automakers will be viable, even with support.

“They need to restructure. If they get bailed out they are not going to do it,” said Eric Smith, a paint contractor interviewed in Chamblee, Georgia, on the outskirts of Atlanta.

U.S. automakers say federal aid is vital to their survival, and there could be devastating ramifications for the broader economy if the sector is not stabilized.

“This is an issue of the whole auto industry, if that becomes under severe pressure, the impact on the whole U.S. economy will be devastating,” GM Chief Executive Rick Wagoner said in an appearance on a NBC-affiliated television station in Detroit.

Retired Gen. Wesley Clark says that a rescue of U.S. automakers is important both economically and for national security. In a New York Times opinion piece, Clark wrote that the U.S. auto industry has played an important role in successive military campaigns, from World War II to today, and its ability to continue to develop new technologies is imperative for national security.

Some are calling for executive shake-ups if it would ensure congressional backing for a bailout. “If it was the difference between getting this kind of support or not, obviously the management should consider resigning,” Carl Levin, a staunch industry ally, said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

As Democrats finalize a rescue plan, the question remains: should U.S. automakers be bailed out?

(Pictured above: G. Richard Wagoner (R), chairman and CEO of General Motors, testifies next to Robert Nardelli (2nd R), chairman and CEO of Chrysler, Alan Mulally (2nd L), President and CEO of Ford Motor Company, and Ron Gettelfinger (L), President of the United Auto Workers union, before the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs in a hearing on “Examining the State of the Domestic Automobile Industry,” on Capitol Hill in Washington, November 18, 2008.  REUTERS/Molly Riley)

Do you have an idea for The Great Debate? Please send your submissions to debate@thomsonreuters.com.

World leaders vowed to work together in overhauling the global financial system as they headed to Washington for a summit on wresting the global economy from recession and avoiding future meltdowns.

Far from the confines of Washington, Reuters readers launched into a lively debate, sparked by Reuters columnists and experts, on what this means for the global financial crisis.

One of the more lively discussions arose from a column theorizing the financial crisis is the greatest threat to international security. Paul Rogers, Professor of Peace Studies at Bradford University and Global Security Consultant to Oxford Research Group argues:

Unless global responses are made to the current economic crisis, the biggest threat to international security will be the impoverishment of hundreds of millions of people, leading to radical and violent social movements that will be met with force, resulting in still greater conflict.

Reader Jonathan Cole contends:

When the “me” impulse overcomes the “we” impulse to the point that it creates a dysfunctional, unjust concentration of wealth and comfort in the hands of a minority, while consigning the rest to poverty, bad health, and early death, it is only a matter of time before the anger bubbles up from the masses.

Reader James Harris counters:

Maybe it is time for better thinking and not these emotional reactions, that are ultimately an innate desire for finger pointing at U.S. Leadership in causing the financial crisis.

While reader Michael Anderson comments:

I think it would be very beneficial if we had leadership which could promote a mindset whereby we didn’t think of it as us versus them. When underdeveloped nations begin sharing in the wealth to a larger degree we all win.

“Move over America! Make space Europe!”

Reuters columnist Paul Taylor writes that this summit of 20 nations sets a precedent for a new international order. Emerging economies such as China, India, Brazil, South Africa and Mexico are invited to share responsibility for the economic fate of the planet with the established Group of Eight industrialized nations.

No longer mere appendages invited for lunch at the end of the annual G8 summit, the rising powers are in demand because they have either mountains of cash, vital natural resources, fast-growing economies or regional security responsibilities.

Reader RC comments:

India constitutes around 17% of the world population whereas the whole of Europe constitutes only around 5% of the world population. Europe have 3 permanent UN security council members with veto power, which India does not have. What kind of democratic world is this?

“Risk-taking is the engine of economic innovation”

Diana Furchtgott-Roth, former chief economist at the U.S. Department of Labor puts forth the argument that the U.S. won’t stomach a new Bretton Woods. She writes:

Whatever the wisdom of more far-reaching international financial regulations, many Americans don’t want binding rules administered by a bureaucracy unaccountable to the public. They prefer to do the job themselves. They want sovereignty over their own affairs, and are suspicious of international organizations.

What are your thoughts on the issues world leaders face as they tackle the financial crisis?