agreed

This is going to trickle down to other industries. What's to stop GM from making a case that the new federal mandates for vehicle efficiency will have a severe negative effect on the company's bottom line? Next up: Airlines. All those security measures making you feel safe? Well, as it turns out, they happen to put a spike in operating costs. So does the increased cost of fuel. Look for the sagging airlines to line-up on the Hill, right after the Fed hands another $50-75b to the auto makers. Just to be an asshole, when faced with real failure in terms of profit margins & pension guarantees, I think the US automakers would start making more cars that people want to drive. But that's me.

That addition would bring the annual tab of these handouts to over $350b, or ~$1,200 per capita (90 for AIG, 200 for Fred-Fannie, 30 for Bear Stearns). Of course that is the price if we had the cash now. We don't. As point of comparison, Iraq is estimated to cost about twice that, spread out over roughly six-seven years.

One can argue that they would rather have their cash, and their kid(s)' cash, go to American families that got squeezed by Wall Street, rather than subsidize illegal wars. To that I would point out that none of the bail-out cash goes directly to the investor. It goes back to the Street, where they haven't learned a thing.

I don't see any anti-handout protestors lining up inside the beltway.

agreed