2002 Mitsubishi Galant with 202,000 miles. Lasted 30 miles on empty (fuel light on)...didn't want to test it any further

Ron. H, and et al.,It was taken with Paul's permission from those who were voted in to repnseert him. Yes, the system sucks, but most of the world is trying to copy us regardless of that.I don't know how more specific I can be. GM owes the Treasury $42.8 billion dollars for the investment they made in them. GM paid off the $6.8 billion loan five years early even if you don't like how they did it. Many people refinance their house to pay off the same lender. Is this really any different?The company is valued somewhere about $70 billion (60.8% that the U.S. owns = $42.56 billion). Larry Summers is sort of known for speaking his mind whether you agree with that him or not (see other posts on this blog about that). Feel free to find another source. I will take a look at what you post. We have about 68,500 active and salary workers and 500,000 retired GM/UAW members and 200,000 GM salary members. If you assume the PBGC is on the hook for the pensions, you are the PBGC, and none of the assets were transferred to that fund, that would cost you $16.8 billion the first year assuming a pension at $2,000/month for 700,000 people (use your own figures if you like). Now, factor in the $200 or $300 per week the active workers are paying in taxes instead of $500 or so they would withdraw in unemployment and other benefits with a job loss in a down market that cannot be quickly replaced--that's an $800-per-week reason to keep the UAW/GM employee working that's $2.8 billion per year. Now you can add another $2.8 billion per-year or so in wages spent as a consumer. I will leave off the 9 to 12 times’ multiplier effect that an auto manufacturing wage dollar passes through before it gets back to the Treasury. If you don't like my assumptions, that's fine, but you need to supply some of your own.I get that you guys are pissed, but I don't see anything from you guys on this world-class economics’ blog that does not belong on the "Rant and Rave" section of Craig's list. Let's remove the emotional baggage, get a calculator, sharpen a pencil, and crunch some numbers economic style. I assume that is what President Bush did to keep Chrysler and GM afloat. He certainly did not do it because he liked GM or the UAW. So, two U.S. Presidents, the Congress, the Treasury, the foreign car makers, and the courts all decided it was a better alternative to try to save Chrysler and GM than liquidate and you folks who can't seem to supply any data don't? Your turn: Let’s see your analyses.

Paul, business densoiics are not made using your type of "make the population happy" analysis. They are made on hard facts such as 1/2 million GM retirees bankrupting the PBCG. Using actual dollar amounts, the loans and investment in GM appear to be better than the do-nothing alternative that could have been taken. Only time will tell. You offer nothing that shows otherwise. Five of the top ten cars on the original post are union made. That's the same as last year. Toyota is not thought of as quality by quite a few people after their fiasco. It's lonely at the top. We've got some good iron coming out, so don't count us out yet.Hey, I get you do not like the UAW or GM, but you aren't giving me anything I could not walk into any bar in the country and get from some drunk sitting on a stool. I thought this was an economic's blog. Let's see some.We are fortunate in the U.S. We are all pretty much spoiled and insulated from the real world.