>Yes, but why is it the government's role to bail them out and tell them who needs to stay and go. Jeez, this is starting to get really scary.

The words "slippery slope" may sound inappropriate here, but that's exactly it. If the Fed and the bankers were strong and big enough to blackmail the gov't into bailing them out (by money they'll borrow from the same branch they are bailing out), it's hard to say "OK, done, we won't bail out anyone else". Once you get into a position where you're extending favors to one category, before you're done with half of that category, there are dozen of others outside your doors applying makeup to look exactly the same, and practicing in front of the mirror how to shout "injustice! why them, but not me?".

The first 700 billion was the virginity lost (well, not really - remember all the bailouts before that). After that... it's not even a matter of running out of ink in the mint. It's when company's totals exceed 15 significant digits (the IEEE 8 byte float limitation - actually it's 15.5).

>>I think you're missing the point if you think that the cost of production is the only factor for the problems of GM. IMHO, fiability of GM vehicules (or lack of) and the lack of vision are the main reasons for GM problems. These are the responsibilities of the CEO, not the union.
>>
>>>What's the point of demanding the CEO to resign? Other than to throw his weight around. Union wages are a large part of the cost of producing an automobile. Oh wait if Obama demanded wage reduction he'd po too many of the people that put him in office.