Let's keep in mind that when you say government, you are really talking about me, a taxpayer, and when you are talking about government money, you are really talking about my money, paid via taxes. The government produces no goods or services, they merely collect money from us to pay for things we need and want, like defense, highways, and, yes, pork in too many cases. Point is that when the gov't is running low on money, it can't simply print more. I know that seems like a logical answer, but as anyone who has studied Economics 101 will tell you, that just ain't gonna happen, homie. All that can be done is to cut spending or raise taxes. Republicans like the first option, Democrats lean on the latter.
The Chrysler bailout wasn't solely about money. It had a lot to do with the fact that America as a whole did not want to see a near-monopoly in domestic car manufacturing. AMC had left the scene years ago, and if Chrysler bit the dust, that would have left just Ford and GM. These two are so close to one another as it is that it is very hard to tell one from the other anyway. Bottom line--having three compebreastors is better than two, and we can all admit that, while Chrysler may not be the best car in the world, they are certainly more innovative that Ford and GM combined. The Prowler, the Viper, the PT Cruiser, 300M, etc. are definite examples of forward thinking in the domestic market, and sales reflect that.
The government probably did back the bailout for Chrysler because, well, honestly, who else could have? It was either that or no more Chrysler. In hindsight, it was a good move and the market benefited by having now more choices in domestic cars. Not only that, but prices are kept lower due to the extra compebreastion. Another point to consider was the huge tax base revenue that would have been lost if Chrysler went under. The government was not unaware of the large tax base created by Chrysler and the huge revenues generated by taxpaying employees, either.
From my perspective, being a car enthusiast, I like compebreastion. I like choices. I love lower prices because of compebreastion. I am not a domestic vehicle purchaser, although I did buy a Lincoln Navigator for my dogs, but as long as they are out there competing with all the other cars, I figure that is a good thing for me.
As far as risk? There is always a risk. You can reduce it, but you cannot eliminate it. This isn't a perfect world. There was never a guarantee that buyers would buy Chryslers, but fortunately they did. Now, from what I can see driving on the roads, it appears that Chrysler is at least as well off as Ford and Chevy, or close to it. And, speaking as a taxpayer, we didn't have to pony up any money. Chrysler did make it all back and made good on the loan, so at the end of the day, everything turned out alright.
