Dan Akerson was in Sao Paulo, Brazil at the auto show and I asked him about the Presidential debates and the car company being mentioned. He harumphed! Car companies, he said, only a couple have been mentioned. I knew he was talking about GM and Chrysler, but he wouldn't comment any further.
The rest of this is what I remember and my opinion
The reality was, there was no financing. Ford had refinanced everything they owned, including the blue oval, before the economic freefall. They didn't need a loan, but they stood there in front of Congress asking Congress to give the others a bailout/loan. Why? Because the auto suppliers would have failed if GM and Chrysler had failed.
I've spent a lot of time with auto suppliers lately and the big ones are still in business. Some of the little ones are no longer around. If you don't have someone to buy a car seat from how are you going to make a car?
We saw that when Japan had their catastrophe. Black cars were on the endangered list because there were only a couple places that made the pigment for certain black cars.
But the bigger question is what would have happened to General Motors if there were not a bailout/loan to them. China owns 51% of General Motors in China. Do you think China would have let them go bankrupt, or do you think they would have purchased the assets of GM-US?
As our car companies (and all companies) go more global the United States has to understand that other countries are a lot more protective of their companies, and the dometically produced product by local voters/consumers, and 0ther countries will protect said companies.