Comments on: GMAC Asking for a Third Bailout From Taxpayers

By: C1tiz3n

C1tiz3n — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:16:54 +0000

You state, in your title; “GMAC is asking…”. Judging from the responses – the public would be highly unlikely to allow the money to continue to flow. I guess the fix is in.

By: C1tiz3n

C1tiz3n — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:16:00 +0000

You state, in your title; “GMAC is asking…”. Judging from the responses – the public would be highly unlikely to allow the money to continue to flow. I guess the fix is in.

By: aion kinah items

aion kinah items — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 07:56:19 +0000

I still believe that we should have let them all go under. There are many smaller companies that are doing the right things that could pick up the slack if these companies went under.If they haven't been able to get it together with the other 2 bailouts, they should not be allowed to get a third.

By: bobbill

bobbill — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 15:32:37 +0000

Obama will put money into the black hole to save his union. I may be wrong but didn't they receive something like $80 billion??? This concept of to big to fail totally is wrong ,they should have never put money in banks or car companies. The money the banks paid back should go to reduce the dept ,but the money is going to cap and trade. In Sacramento they are starting to install ( smart meters and plug ins for electric cars ) in every house and business in California ,they got $ 175 million grant to do this so you can see where this is going.( Sacramento Bee )

By: Kyle

Kyle — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:38:33 +0000

I agree with Single Guy, they have had their chance now they need to suck it up and deal with it. If we continue to support failure people aren't going to change the way they do business to prevent these problems in the future. We let these guys fail and I am sure people are going to try harder to make sure they can support themselves.

By: Single Guy Money

Single Guy Money — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 00:35:27 +0000

NO MORE BAILOUTS!!! If they haven't been able to get it together with the other 2 bailouts, they should not be allowed to get a third.

Like you said, no more throwing good money after bad.

By: Flexo

Flexo — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 22:08:23 +0000

I addressed that in the article… in short, not much.

By: Damilola

Damilola — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 22:06:31 +0000

I stumbled on this blog article through twitter and the headline grabbed my attention. If I remember correctly, GMAC operates Ally bank correct? What does this mean for people who have those bank accounts?

By: Katharine

Katharine — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 14:43:11 +0000

Do you know of any good articles about what to do if the institution holding your mortgage fails? GMAC holds mine…

By: John L.

John L. — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 14:42:11 +0000

Let ‘em fail. Whatever happened to the Capitalist ideals that we supposedly held so dear and yet have turned our backs on? Bailing these guys out helps us in the short-term but ultimately harms us in the long-run because it only encourages these business “leaders” to keep making the same mistakes with very, very limited “punishment” (i.e.: they still hang on to their jobs or — if replaced — simply move on to the next sucker [aka company or government post]).

This whole turn of events is absolutely ridiculous.

By: Greg

Greg — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 14:01:38 +0000

We’ve had over a 100 bank “failures” this year. In most of the other cases the FDIC stepped in to bring a healthy bank to the table to take over a failed institution. The bad assets are addressed and the healthy portfolio is managed without a hitch. Why shouldn’t the same happen with GMAC?

The only other concern is that all this started with concern over collapse of the financial system because of banks that were “too big to fail”. In the end, many of the healthier “too big to fail” organizations have taken over others only to become bigger. Are we not setting ourselves up for more trouble?

GMAC, like Ma Bell, should be broken up and sold to several smaller institutions that have proven track records.

By: Todd Ener

Todd Ener — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 12:32:22 +0000

As with all the others, I still believe that we should have let them all go under. There are many smaller companies that are doing the right things that could pick up the slack if these companies went under. Corporate greed, CEO pay scales, poor decisions based solely upon how much money can I possibly make without a care in the world attitude and without a care about customers and employees, that is what brought this about. These upper level executives knew what they were doing, let them fail and let the ones who are doing the right things pick up the pieces.

We have to think long term and doing the right things and doing things right the first time.

Todd