throw good money after bad

So we took the decision not to throw good money after bad.

But maybe they did not want to throw good money after bad.

Do you really want to throw good money after bad?

But anything more would be throwing good money after bad.

They have enough financial problems of their own without also throwing good money after bad.

Until that is changed, we will continue to throw good money after bad.

If not, you could be simply throwing good money after bad.

Thank you, but I have lost enough already, without throwing good money after bad, as the saying is.

It could be a case of throwing good money after bad.

How can it stop itself from throwing good money after bad?

Because that would mean just throwing good money after bad.

As my mother always says, there's no point in throwing good money after bad.

"You don't throw good money after bad, so why continue to pay her not to work?"

In your case, it’s hard to see how throwing good money after bad is going to help anyone here.

Putting in more is like throwing good money after bad.

It's throwing good money after bad when it takes so long to break even.

No sense throwing good money after bad, I always say, particularly when you don't got none to speak of.

America can no longer afford to throw good money after bad drug policy.

It just did not work very well, and there was no use throwing good money after bad, the secretary said.

"And why would I throw good money after bad?" you ask.

Why would an intelligent woman want to throw good money after bad?

But others will argue that is just throwing good money after bad.

These people are rich, yes, but no one likes to throw good money after bad.

Anything short of that would be "throwing good money after bad," he said.

"Trying to develop it in this market is really throwing good money after bad."