If so, then you're quite welcome to find financing for them to continue.

Liquidation of GM does not necessarily mean an end to every GM marque, of course. (Though I don't see much justification for keeping around Hummer, or the utterly redundant GMC or Pontiac, whose market shares and few unique vehicles would easily be absorbed by Chevrolet.) It just means that they won't be run by the incompetent crowd in Detroit.

And yes, it will mean a lot of short-term pain. Some of it very severe. But in the meantime, money is tight right now, and whatever there is should go into businesses that know what they're doing, not to fools like those running GM.

As an aside: I see no reason to force millions of Americans -- many of whom, frankly, are N O T car enthusiasts -- to pony up to bail out a failed business. That is the epitome of injustice.

jkp1187- I couldn't have said it better. Totally agree!

Why isn't there this much debate about where the other $675 BILLION is going?

Let us not forget that this is not a give-away. The money being requested by GM is a LOAN. Similar to what Chrysler asked for, and got in 1979. Guess what, Chrysler paid the money back early and the US made a few hundred million dollars on the deal.

GM's past business plan was not necessarily sustainable. However, they have changed this with the recent UAW agreements that go into effect in 2010. New UAW workers have a starting salary that is in line with their non-union counterparts at plants run by Toyota, Honda, et al. GM's huge legacy costs (like pensions) will be transferred over to the UAW, putting GM on a level cost playing field with their non-union competition. The current generation of GM products are not just competitive, but are in many cases class-leading (Cadillac CTS, the Lambda CUV's, Chevy Malibu, Pontiac G8, to name just a few). GM has future products like the Volt and Cruze that will offer the type of fuel economy and technology that GM needs. GM has their two-mode hybrid system that will find its way from trucks and SUV's into small CUV's and sedans in the next few years.

My point is that GM has done what it needs to do in order to be competitive. Had it not been for the double whammy of high gas prices and the world-wide economic downturn, GM would have had the money to make it through to this 2010 transformation.

GM just needs this bridge LOAN to make it there in one piece.

The alternative is a loss of as many as 3 million jobs (as the US auto industry cascades into collapse), pension obligations get transferred to the US government, unemployment benefits will add to the deficit, consumer confidence will plunge (likely causing many retailers to go out of business and/or shed jobs) and the loss of tax revenue will be huge. The total cost of all of these expenses could be as much as $1 Trillion over the next few years.

Sort of makes the $50 billion (GM will need more then the $25 Billion to make it to 2010) seem like a bargain price to pay.

Guys: I feel really divided on this. I'm angry at the execs who have no vision and a lot of arrogance. With the right people at the helm I think American cars could lead the way. They need one more chance.

I think this is bigger than the cars themselves. The only just reason for the Government to bail out these companies is because between the car companies and their suppliers, MILLIONS of American jobs would be lost, which would be a severe blow to our economy yet again. Short of that, they should die, because they're bad businessmen, and businesses run by bad leaders go under. That's capitalism for you.

I agree with leescott. As long as the companies can assure us that the money will be well utilised, and they have a plan to return to profitability and pay back the loan, I'm all for the auto bailout.

Given GM's excellence with their recent models, I'd be sad to see them out of business.
(I'm still waiting for them to produce cars that will be competitive with the Mazda 3.)

Couldn't have said it better myself, Phillip. And, where exactly is the other $675 Billion going?

Three thoughts.

First, if this loan is just a bridge loan to GM to get it through this rough patch, and it will be paid back with profits, then why doesn't somebody from the private sector give them the money? If it such a sure thing, then there should be a line of investors looking to get in on it. The fact that there isn't a line of investors looking to buy their debt suggests that it isn't such a good deal after all.

Second, it's not like it is an all or nothing proposition. If GM doesn't get the loan, they can file Chapter 11, reorganize, and come back leaner and stronger. Airlines are always filing Chapter 11 like it's going out of style, and somehow the sun keeps rising, airplanes keep flying, and the economy keeps moving.

Third, the Big 3 have fought tooth and nail against clean air, fuel efficiency, safety standards and other things which would be in the best interest of the nation, but not in their best interest. Now they come with hat in hand to the same American public asking for us to help them out? Yeah, right. This is the same Big 3 that closed down factories and assembly lines all over the US and moved those jobs to Mexico, etc.

Personally, I'd rather give the money to Honda and Toyota, because at least they are opening up factories in the US, rather than closing them down, and at least they are committed to building fuel efficient, environmentally friendly cars.

"We invented the car, dammit"

NO, WE DIDN'T. Karl Benz invented the first practical internal-combustion engine automobile in 1885.

You write for Edmunds and you got that fact wrong?

Let's forget the fact that the Obama Administration breached bankruptcy contract law while bailing out GM. Let's forget that the UAW's deal includes no reduction in pay and no reduction in working hours (not to mention being given a huge stake in ownership of the company.) Let's forget that the government is most certainly making GM business decisions that it said it wouldn't (GM buildings that were slated for closure magically opened after congresspeople talked to GM management.)

You think GM's survival is crucial to America's "self-image"? How about free enterprise, lack of government involvement, and a competitive marketplace? That is what America is all about. That resulted in America being the world's economic powerhouse.