MW,

If I accept you numbers, it was still a very good policy for the nation. Look down to the ending of this post. Compare the loss of 11.2 billion, not such a huge amount by corporations and government standards. You will see that Obama action was indeed a life saver for the nation.. Millions of jobs saved..

Even the tax figures are more then 3 time the total of you losses.. Savings for our nation..

Six years after the fact, it’s easy to forget the dire plight that Chrysler and General Motors faced at the time. Decades of poor decision-making by management and labor had saddled the firms with manufacturing capacity they couldn’t use, wage and benefit obligations they couldn’t meet, and, yes, cars they couldn’t sell. Unlike Ford, which had confronted and addressed similar problems while it still had time to save itself, Chrysler and GM had postponed their reckoning until late 2008 — the very same time that the collapse of the financial and housing markets had thrown the economy into a deep recession.

They came to Washington for help and the Bush administration obliged with an emergency, short-term loan eventually worth about $23 billion — enough to last until the spring, when the newly elected Obama could make up his own mind about what to do. (Before Obama took office, his advisers had quietly urged Bush to keep the companies going, according to a memoir subsequently written by former White House adviser David Axelrod.)

With full control over the situation, and following intense debate among his aides, Obama decided to offer the car companies a deal. The government would infuse Chrysler and GM with federal dollars, but it would also take control of them — steering the firms into bankruptcy and then managing a massive restructuring of operations so that they could become profitable once again.

To justify such extraordinary measures, Obama cited the extraordinary circumstances: At a time of economic crisis, the president explained, the collapse of Chrysler and GM would likely have severe repercussions, wrecking not just two iconic American companies but also the myriad businesses — from parts suppliers to mom-and-pop restaurants near factories — that depended on the two companies. The damage could even drag down Ford, Obama warned, despite that company’s relative health.

LOSSES
The most tangible loss is money. Between Obama and Bush, the U.S. spent about $80 billion to rescue GM, Chrysler, and their auto-part suppliers. With all the government-held shares sold, Uncle Sam booked a $10.5 billion loss on its GM investment. The U.S. lost another $1.2 billion on Chrysler.

More intangibly, the U.S. lost what would have emerged from the ashes of GM, Chrysler, and perhaps Ford, which didn't take any bailout money but benefited from the stemming of market panic and closure of suppliers.

GAINS
Lew insists that "inaction could have cost the broader economy more than one million jobs, billions in lost personal savings, and significantly reduced economic production." And at least one recent study backs him up.

On Monday, the Ann Arbor, Mich., think tank the Center for Automotive Research (CAR) put out these numbers:

1.88 million: Job losses in 2009-2010 if only GM had gone under.
4.15 million: Job losses in 2009-2010 if the whole U.S. auto industry had shut down.
$39.4 billion: The hit to federal and state governments, from lost tax revenue and jobless benefit payments, if just GM went under.
$105.3 billion: The hit to federal and state governments if the whole auto industry had collapsed.

The federal government had to step in "because the entire industry was in a depression, and it could have dragged the whole country into one," says former CAR chairman David E. Cole.

In the mid-1970s, eager to make his mark in Manhattan, the 30-year-old Mr. Trump focused his attention on the failing Commodore Hotel on East 42nd Street, next to Grand Central Terminal. The owner, the bankrupt Penn Central Railroad, was keen to sell.
It did not seem like an auspicious plan. The city was in the midst of both its own fiscal crisis and a broader economic one; the neighborhood near the terminal had gotten seedy; and Mr. Trump did not have the capital for the project. He needed his father, Fred C. Trump, to guarantee a portion of the construction loan. Hyatt, which was going to run the hotel, took a 50 percent stake in exchange for guaranteeing the rest of the project.
But Mr. Trump insisted that the project was not viable without a tax break from the city.
In pressing for government approval, Mr. Trump proved to be the quintessential insider, at least through his father: The elder Mr. Trump was a major contributor to and friend of Mayor Abraham D. Beame and Gov. Hugh L. Carey, both Democrats.

“Fred was a big macher in Brooklyn,” said Martin J. McLaughlin, a lobbyist who worked for Donald Trump in the 1990s. “He had an extremely close relationship with Beame and Carey.”
Mr. Trump visited a young city official, Michael Bailkin, who devised a plan centered on a 40-year tax abatement, still the longest ever granted by the city, under which the state would own the land beneath the hotel and lease it to the partnership for $1 a year.

All together Trump has received $885 million in tax breaks on buildings he has built in New York others have had to pay for government services that he has not. Remember his biggest talent is lobbying for tax breaks

The numbers in your post "benifit of return by GM not closing " are somewhat elevated. But your position is correct. Had GM gone bankrupt, the hundreds of vendors that also supply Ford, Dodge/Chrysler and other manufacturers, their auto parts supplies would have closed down, effectively stopping every assembly line in America, as well as many world wide. Trucking would have been crushed along with thousands of supportive businesses. You would have been correct had you painted a darker picture in your reply for America had the auto industry stopped.
Approximately 2500 car dealers went out of business during the heat of the recession and that number would have trippled, costing millions more sales, administration, parts, and service jobs, and again supporting businesses in markets losing dealerships. Banks, restaurants, ect, ect

MW,

If I accept you numbers, it was still a very good policy for the nation. Look down to the ending of this post. Compare the loss of 11.2 billion, not such a huge amount by corporations and government standards. You will see that Obama action was indeed a life saver for the nation.. Millions of jobs saved..

Even the tax figures are more then 3 time the total of you losses.. Savings for our nation..

Six years after the fact, it’s easy to forget the dire plight that Chrysler and General Motors faced at the time. Decades of poor decision-making by management and labor had saddled the firms with manufacturing capacity they couldn’t use, wage and benefit obligations they couldn’t meet, and, yes, cars they couldn’t sell. Unlike Ford, which had confronted and addressed similar problems while it still had time to save itself, Chrysler and GM had postponed their reckoning until late 2008 — the very same time that the collapse of the financial and housing markets had thrown the economy into a deep recession.

They came to Washington for help and the Bush administration obliged with an emergency, short-term loan eventually worth about $23 billion — enough to last until the spring, when the newly elected Obama could make up his own mind about what to do. (Before Obama took office, his advisers had quietly urged Bush to keep the companies going, according to a memoir subsequently written by former White House adviser David Axelrod.)

With full control over the situation, and following intense debate among his aides, Obama decided to offer the car companies a deal. The government would infuse Chrysler and GM with federal dollars, but it would also take control of them — steering the firms into bankruptcy and then managing a massive restructuring of operations so that they could become profitable once again.

To justify such extraordinary measures, Obama cited the extraordinary circumstances: At a time of economic crisis, the president explained, the collapse of Chrysler and GM would likely have severe repercussions, wrecking not just two iconic American companies but also the myriad businesses — from parts suppliers to mom-and-pop restaurants near factories — that depended on the two companies. The damage could even drag down Ford, Obama warned, despite that company’s relative health.

LOSSES
The most tangible loss is money. Between Obama and Bush, the U.S. spent about $80 billion to rescue GM, Chrysler, and their auto-part suppliers. With all the government-held shares sold, Uncle Sam booked a $10.5 billion loss on its GM investment. The U.S. lost another $1.2 billion on Chrysler.

More intangibly, the U.S. lost what would have emerged from the ashes of GM, Chrysler, and perhaps Ford, which didn't take any bailout money but benefited from the stemming of market panic and closure of suppliers.

GAINS
Lew insists that "inaction could have cost the broader economy more than one million jobs, billions in lost personal savings, and significantly reduced economic production." And at least one recent study backs him up.

On Monday, the Ann Arbor, Mich., think tank the Center for Automotive Research (CAR) put out these numbers:

1.88 million: Job losses in 2009-2010 if only GM had gone under.
4.15 million: Job losses in 2009-2010 if the whole U.S. auto industry had shut down.
$39.4 billion: The hit to federal and state governments, from lost tax revenue and jobless benefit payments, if just GM went under.
$105.3 billion: The hit to federal and state governments if the whole auto industry had collapsed.

The federal government had to step in "because the entire industry was in a depression, and it could have dragged the whole country into one," says former CAR chairman David E. Cole.