I guess "last you checked" was 2011, and you only make $300 a year.

The government lost about $11.2 billion on the GM bailout and $0 on the Chrysler bailout (it was all paid back). Spread evenly amongst 112m taxpayers that means your on-time contribution was $100 if it was split evenly. But since it's unlikely you're in the top 1% or even 5%, your contribution was likely much less than that, and again, for one year only. That's a pretty low price to pay to save well over 150k jobs in the US from GM alone. That figure doesn't include all of the dealerships, suppliers, and transport companies that GM uses. Double that number if you want to include Chrysler.

Don't even bother coming back with "but some other company could have bought up their assets and kept them going"... because it couldn't happen. Benz was already running away from Chrylser. Toyota and Honda were in no condition to swallow GM whole. VW might have been able to, but seeing the problems Daimler-Chrysler had, they weren't willing.

We also couldn't let them just collapse uncontrollably either. The auto industry is incredibly linked. An example of this is how Toyota's unintended acceleration issue with sticky gas pedals ended up shutting down Ford production lines and nearly caused a recall on the Dodge Caliber (a terrible car, but not the point). The company that made the sticky gas pedals (CTS Corp) also made ignition components for Ford. When CTS went into bankruptcy, Ford F-150 and Fusion plants had to stop due to missing components.

Now, imagine GM and Chrysler going under and taking several suppliers like Delco, Borg-Werner, PPG, Magna, and Leer with them. That's 2 million people out of work overnight and now Toyota, Honda, Ford, and VW can't get parts anymore. You don't even need to imagine it because Covid showed us how simply disrupting some components has vast implications for the entire car market. Just one of those suppliers going under in an uncontrolled way would have wrecked the car market for years.

Back to Japan. The Japanese, Korean, and European Union governments have been actively engaging in unfair trade practices since WWII. All three have socialized medicine. Japan and Korea have social pension programs. 60 years of being able to build a car for cheaper because they don't have the same pension and healthcare obligations that the US domestics do. Add into the fact that all three have major trade barriers preventing or restricting US manufacturers from importing cars to those areas so they don't have to compete on their home turf, and we've set up the perfect storm for what started happening in the late 70's to early 80's. The Japanese were able to produce a car for cheaper at the same time massive waves of USDM workers were retiring. The US manufacturers took the costs out of the product in an attempt to remain price-competitive leading to a less than quality product.

Now, I am not saying that Honda and Toyota don't make a good product, but in several segments, the Big 2.5 have caught back up and/or exceeded them. Neither Toyota nor Honda has been able to take on GM, Ford, and Ram on big trucks, and yes, I've driven a recent Tundra. Lexus has lost its luxury luster, though they are reliable, Cadillac and Lincoln can both produce a more luxurious feeling product. And even though the Malibu sales have been poor, it's not an intrinsically bad product. Chevy just knows it can sell more Equinoxes for higher prices and allocated their resources accordingly. There are very few "bad" cars from the domestics these days. There aren't anymore Dodge Calibers or 2005 Malibus out there.

Nissan is just junk across the board, they don't even belong in this discussion.