Comments on: Too Small to Save: Why Did We Save GMAC?

By: GM Wants Subprime Buyers « Autobird Blog: For Automotive News and Views

GM Wants Subprime Buyers « Autobird Blog: For Automotive News and Views — Mon, 17 May 2010 19:32:01 +0000

[...] used to be big in subprime lending, but lost nearly the entire market to the GMAC debacle. When GM was knocking at death’s door, it hastily sold off its captive financial lending [...]

By: GM Weighs Return to Auto-Lending « Autobird Blog: For Automotive News and Views

Thu, 13 May 2010 12:35:09 +0000

[...] For more information check out: Too Small to Save: Why Did We Save GMAC? [...]

By: IRA

IRA — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 06:55:52 +0000

Thank you so much, there aren’t enough posts on this… keep up the good work

By: political humor games

political humor games — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 00:12:01 +0000

Are all your info right? I am not trying to be a bad guy, however I don’t observe how this makes total sense! Thanks!

By: Lonnie Nestico

Lonnie Nestico — Sun, 27 Dec 2009 18:00:17 +0000

That is some inspirational stuff. Never knew that opinions could be this varied. Thanks for all the enthusiasm to offer such helpful information here.

By: AutoBird Blog » To Small to Save: Why the Hell Did We Save GMAC? « Bank CD

AutoBird Blog » To Small to Save: Why the Hell Did We Save GMAC? « Bank CD — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 05:18:55 +0000

[...] Read this article: AutoBird Blog » To Small to Save: Why the Hell Did We Save GMAC? [...]

By: admin

admin — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 03:16:48 +0000

I read FreedomWorks and I have read that post before. GM is not GMAC, GM owns less than 10% of GMAC and is required by the government to give that stake up by the end of ~2010.

I’m sort of confused by your argument at this point? GM and Chrysler bailouts were separate from the $6 billion the Bush Admin gave GMAC in liquidity injections.

The Obama admin doesn’t have to continue to inject money into GMAC, that is the point of this post. The automotive industry will survive without the entity. GMAC (like WaMu) is not too big to fail and despite all you have said, the Obama administration is not obligated to continue to inject capital into GMAC. They could let the company go into receivership under the FDIC.

I’m not 13 months late, we’re about to bailout GMAC again by the end of this year. THIS IS A CURRENT TOPICAL EDITORIAL DESPITE YOUR OBJECTION!

By: The Truth

The Truth — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 02:45:27 +0000

[i]Okay, I’ll have to re-research that part, wasn’t the focus of this post so I’ll defer to you, but where is the part when W said Obama had to give the auto industry another $70 bln or the part were we had to give GMAC another ~$10 bln? [/i]

Hello! What did he think was going to happen? Did we all forget about Palin telling everyone Obama a Socialist?

Lets say you are Bush, they just elected the most Liberal President ever… So what do you do? Well in your last 3 months in office you Socialize all the Banks. And then you change the rules as to what a bank is and you Socialize GMAC too. Then you change the TARP rules so you can use TARP to bailout everything including the auto industry.

Then you socialize GM and Chrysler and ADD 17+ billion to the billions that you committed to in September (before the election).

Bush’s own advisers told him that GM alone would need 100 Billion in September of 2008 when he gave the OK to the first bailout of 25 Billion…

Take a read of the Right leaning Blog “FreedomWorks” in November of 2008.

“FreedomWorks Opposes $75 Billion Auto Industry Bailout…
Bailout giveaways continue on Capitol Hill as taxpayer outrage continues to grow.”

You are a 13 months too late.