On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 12:36:45 -0800, "Dick 'Tater"
wrote:

Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 00:49:56 -0600, F. George McDuffee wrote:

On 05 Jan 2009 05:25:35 GMT, Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
snip
Given that literally billions of the tax payer and stockholder
dollars have been spent, where/what are the results, and how will
things be different if we put more money in?

The more fundamental question is, "Why should taxpayer dollars,
taken by coercion, be used to subsidize failing companies who have
shown an utter disregard for costs or market demands?"
snip
==============
The rationale/excuse is that it will cost the overall economy (and
the taxpayers) less to give the car makers the money than it would
cost if they simply go belly up.

You seem to have accepted the false assertion that going into
bankruptcy means "belly up." Bankruptcy does not mean closing their
doors, it means reorganization under different owners with the
current management thrown out.

Not in this case.
GM wouldn't have been able to raise the necessary funds as a debtor in
posession so they would just have been liquidated.
Too bad Billy Durant isn't still around.
Gerry :-)}
London, Canada