"I don't believe [GM would have survived without the bailout] for one simple fact," Akerson said. "There was no risk capital at the depths of the great recession that would have been put into what was viewed as a pretty risky investment at the time."
In case Akerson saying the bailout was necessary for GM's survival isn't a direct enough statement that Romney is wrong, what about Romney's opposition to the bailout specifically?
When you step back and look at the bailout, there were two separate presidents, President Bush and President Obama, two Treasury Secretaries, two administrations, that saw the wisdom of how important this industry was to America and its economy. We comprise between, the automotive industry comprises about 3 to 3.5 percent of the total GDP of this country. So to have essentially ceded the basic infrastructure, manufacturing infrastructure of this country and this industry I think would have been a very short-sighted decision.On the one hand, the notoriously accurate and honorable Mitt Romney isn't backing down. On the other hand, you have economists in both parties, the Bush and Obama administrations, Michigan's Republican governor, and the CEO of GM saying the bailout was necessary. Gosh. Tough call.