As you may recall, "too big to fail" not only included banks in the U.S. but also auto manufacturers who elected to pay retired employees benefits far beyond any sustainable measure (hear that Europe?). In the process, they came a hair's width away from going belly up. (Scratch that, one more or less did go belly up but we managed to stall it for awhile and the other went through "structured bankruptcy" which I think means belly up). Of the big three [Ford, GMC/Chevy and Chrysler], only Ford rejected government bail-outs (which are now dubbed "stimulus") despite government pushes for Ford to accept "some" money so the bailout would be more palatable to the American public. Ford resisted and is now doing pretty well. What about GM and Chrysler? Well, as you recall Chrysler was recently sold to Fiat and in the process, you dear taxpayer, lost around $1.4 Billion. That's a lot of money. Well, as it turns out, you actually lost a whole lot more during the auto bailouts of GM and Chrysler than originally reported. In reality, you lost a reported $14 BILLION. The government has hailed this as a major accomplishment since these losses are "less than originally expected." Is that the measure of good, a multi-billion dollar loss?
In the end, Chrysler was sold off anyway and hasn't exactly saved jobs now has it? (Actually, the real unemployment figures are much higher).
So tell me, why was it "necessary" and "good" that we gave two failing companies billions of dollars for their own errors? Sending them into bankruptcy (normal bankruptcy) would have accomplished the same thing except without $14 billion in taxpayer money going down the drain. What did we get out of the deal? The Chevy Volt? (which doesn't really get the mileage GM said it would, costs more than it ought to and is not being purchased by the American public?)
Gee thanks. I think I'd rather have the new F-22 Raptors that were cancelled by POTUS instead (that program only cost about $3.5 Billion per year).