I think this is one subject that crosses political boundries. Republicans and Democrats think this bailout is BS, yet our leaders continue to push it through and spend our money. McCain was not better than Obama and Obama is no better than Bush. Democrats realize how important the unions are to their elections and suck from that tit till it is dry. Up Lou Dobbs!!!
I am confused. Why would any executives want the government to "help" them when that help entails firing them all? Answer: They wouldn't and wouldn't support such a plan. Why would any board members sign off on any plan where they would be removed AND all stockholder equity is wiped out, when the main legal duty of the board is to protect the stockholders? Answer: They wouldn't and wouldn't support such a plan. Why would any union want a plan where the "help" is to rip up their hard won contracts? Nevermind that their stranglehold on U.S. autoplants and subsequent excessive (above market) compensation and productivity sapping work rules are part of the problem. Answer: They wouldn't and wouldn't support such a plan. How is the Friedman plan better for these (and other) parties than bankruptcy would be? Answer: It doesn't seem like it would be. And if GM (as run by or aided by the Feds) gets to rip up contracts with unions, suppliers, dealers, executives, etc. that it doesn't like and doesn't want to honor any longer, how is that fair to the businesses that don't get that amazing and extremely beneficial power, and what does that kind action do to the legal system?
Do they? Or are you just making yet another, blanket statement trying to make it like you are right. If most people actually did the research on the matter, I am pretty sure those of us who actually have home mortgages, whether we have been responsible with them or not, would be for the bailout. The reason? If those companies go under, that will leave most americans with mortgages uninsured, which is technically, illegal. That would mean folks would have to go out and arrange for new insurance for their current loans, which would probably be raised through the roof with the current financial debacle. So make blanket statements if you want. Every person has a different level of involvement, and difficulties if the bail out does not go through. If you don't own a house, you probably don't give a shit. But if you do, and have a loan, and have done your research, you probably would back what they are doing.
Wow, you're way off the mark. No matter how many firms go down due to the freezing of the credit market, your mortgage is a done deal. No one can take it away from you and it doesn't magically become uninsured. If you stop paying it, you will be removed from your home, however.
If the company that is providing the insurance is gone, it is uninsured. Note, I did not say their mortgage is gone, I said they would have to find a new mortgage insurer to maintain legality. Just as when you have a mortgage, and if you are paying the mortgage insurance yourself, and if you quit paying, the bank can find a provider, arrange for mortgage insurance, and charge you whatever they arranged to pay. That is a fact. So am I still off the mark?
I work in the aviation industry and some of my co-workers were wondering why aren't the airlines being bailed out like everything else? It's really BS what the govt is doing, by choosing who to save and who to let go bankrupt.
Yes. You're way off the mark. Learn more about the process and then we can talk. It's not my responsibility to teach you about the mechanics of the mortgage market.
I do have a mortgage, and probably bigger than yours. I realize Uncle Barak isn't going to bail me out. I run a manufacturing company and I guarantee no one is bailing my company out if we have problems. Instead, Bush is trying to sell me out buy opening up a free trade agreement with Columbia in order to finance a bailout of Detroit.
