The "bail out", which I know is pejorative, or if you prefer, the peoples' assistance to corporations and financial institutions in trouble, has not been handled well. That I guess is an understatement. But, let me tell you what I think. We the people have not been given enough information to determine whether saving GM is less objectionable that allowing it to fail. I don't know if anyone has knowledge of which is the lesser of the two evils. Either option costs the people money. But, which is less, and what are the other implications? Does anyone know this?
I'm willing to support the judgment of more knowledgeable people than I that financial assistance is the better way to go. However, I would want three conditions:
1. Accountability and openness
2. Expectations of revolutionary change and innovation (with measurements)
3. No reward for greed and other bad behavior, or the people who have created the problem