[jbcrzn]

I agree that the loans of the early 80's were different in the structure/control of the agreement. I would also argue that Chrysler would have survived without the loan, be it a longer recovery process.

I also agree with the czar behavior toward GM and Chrysler (among other companies) from the administration shows an amount of government control and a willingness to appease the public outcries, similar to the private plane debacle earlier. So, from a function, administrative perspective, I agree, but from a practical standpoint, reallocated stolen money is the same, whether provided for daily operations, purchasing power, or future product development. I was merely posing the question as to what is the line from which the company does not return? For many (many that I know personally), they either have or have had their last GM or Chrysler product and will be purchasing a Ford, a Japanese, or a Korean manufacturer. The other argument that I have reviewed cites the reason for Chrysler's current situation more with previous owners, not Chrysler itself. Whether one blames Chrysler's operation or the owners, I certainly understand the cause against them and do struggle with how much of an impact that will make on my future purchases.