Should major corporations in the USA be allowed to fail, or should the government bail them out?

Question:

Lets assume that the corporation does business all over the world, and is a major competitor in it's respective market. However, due to high labor costs, including the cost of health insurance, and some poor management decisions, the company is projected to go under within 24 months unless it can receive aid from the government. Should the government help it, or let it fail?

Answer:
That's a difficult question.
My first knee jerk reaction in a free market system is to let the corporation prosper or fail on its own merit - or lack of merit.

But then there's the domino effect - do we have to consider the numerous companies and subcontractors that will fail if the large corporation goes under?

And which choice is simply economically more intelligent - to let the corporation fail with a large unemployment drain and several smaller supplier companies going down with the ship, or bail the corporation out with a zero or low interest loan?

There's obviously a lot to consider here - if a corporation is to be bailed out with my tax money, I would be very upset if the CEO and higher management people continued earning mega bucks for their overall poor performance. Perhaps an outside consultant team could be put temporarily in charge to determine if the corporation can be profitable or if it's just best to let it die a natural death.
Essentially, I guess I feel that, again, in a free market place, if private and commercial lending entities see it as too large a risk (at any reasonable interest rate) to loan the necessary funds for a bail out - I feel the same way when it's my money involved.

Let it fail. Government has no business interfering with the natural selection in capitalism.

This coming from a conservative.

Johnny Reb Is this your story?
※※※ http://www.osoq.com/funstuff/extra/extra...

Should major corporations in the USA be allowed to fail, or should the government bail them out?

Hot Topic