Why is it not an act of Treason for the USA goverment to approve General Motors Bailout, and go to?

Just to pick nits: Studebaker didn't go out of business: In an effort to broaden their market base, Packard bought Studebaker in 1954 - an ill-conceived, poorly researched cased of a smaller (but healthy) company buying a larger company that lied about it's condition. Studebaker's massive losses meant the death of Packard within 2 years . . . . but allowed Studebaker to continue making cars no one wanted for a few more years. When that played out, Stude didn't go out-of-business: just stopped making cars to concentrate on profitable business lines.........it's remnants remain today although the trouble-making South Bend union workers got just what they deserved - nothing.

But closer to the theme of your question: when President Eisenhower nominated General Motors President Charles Wilson to be Secretary of Defense in 1953, he won almost unanimous approval. One of his first policies was "narrow based procurement", ie he cancelled the defense contracts that Packard, Studebaker, Hudson and many other supplier companies

depended upon, and increased purchases from GM. Why was that allowed? Methinks that many fortunes were built on that maneuver.........may they all burn in hell.

I have a better idea! Why don't we charge extremist conservatives with treason for making a mockery of our legislative process! Doesn't it damage our credibility as a powerful country? How could such childishness in GOVERNMENT do otherwise?!

Get a grip Sophie!:)

It probably is. Is it not treason that the IRS under the Obama administration is harassing Americans because of their political ideology? Is it not treason that Obama armed drug cartels? Is it not treason that you and I have killer drones over us in the sky in our own country?

The country is under tyranny by the "Democrats".