Six in 10 oppose auto bailout, poll shows

CNN

I wonder if the government will bother listening to what the public wants.

Hey, America: Detroit's automakers are asking for a loan



www.freep.com...

I wonder if the public will look at the bigger picture here.



[edit on 12.3.2008 by ItsTheQuestion]

[edit on 12.3.2008 by ItsTheQuestion]

Since the populace leans towards oppose, we can assume it'll happen since we've apparently switched to a UNrepresentative democracy.

Let's just all support the opposite of what we want- that'll throw Washington a curve ball. If we all rallied behind the Terror War Bush would probably bring all the troops home tomorrow.

I don't think it will make any difference what America wants, and here's why:

Polls showed that most American's opposed the $700 billion banker bailout and Congress voted to push it through anyways. It was a Democratic majority that voted "Yea" on the bailout. Americans got pissed and swore vengeance, vowing not to re-elect any Congressman or woman that voted yes on the bailout.

Then the election happened and what does America do? They elected a Democratic majority to both the House and Senate. There was already a Democratic majority, but the election showed a further Democratic majority taking power - clearly indicating that American voters have short attention spans.

Congress will push this through because Pelosi is gunning for it and because America never holds Congressmen and women responsible for their votes. The last election proved it.

I wonder what the 3 million Americans who earn a living through the American auto industry want?

reply to post by sos37

---

Er... yes and no. You see, while many House Republicans led a last minute insurrection to defeat the first bailout, a vast majority of Senate Republicans agreed to it than did the ratio of Democrats against it.

But also, keep in mind, that what happened after news of the bailout bill's defeat? The MSM flooded people's circuits with stories of their 401ks and the Dow dropped cataclysmically.

Public opinion changed slightly; the Republicans were then meant to look like the bad guys once again. It was always meant to happen that way. And they're going to do it again with the bailout.

I predict that if they are going to use that tactic again, then GM will probably go belly up in the next two weeks and the government will immediately sign an even larger check over to reorganize their assets and give bridge loans to Ford and Chrysler.

It's very psychological. You have to somewhat cave to the public until they're conditioned to think that their gut responses are wrong. Once enough of these bailouts have happened, it will be easy street from there.

[edit on 4-12-2008 by SpencerJ]

[edit on 4-12-2008 by SpencerJ]

You mean the same folks who are a big part of why the BIG three are in the trouble they are today? You bet they still want their comfortable, six figure jobs; benefits, pensions, profit sharing, and vast amounts of time off (personal, sick, vacation, and re-tooling). However, this overhead is a major factor in the creation of the current automotive failure. If you are having to put most of your profits back into overhead, you have to cut corners somewhere to make any profit, and they have done that through sacrificing the quality of their product while simultaneously increasing the cost. This type of overhead has made them unviable as an entity capable of building a competitive product for a reasonable amount. If we give them more money none of this will change, now will it?

You think that the employees are going to come in, and do a better job for less money the Monday morning after a bailout goes through, or you think that they will be short-timing it while expecting the inevitable? I have seen this coming down the pike, since way back when I worked for them, and its part of the reason I have never bought their products. Once a company reaches a tipping point where the overhead generated by greed overcomes their ability to build a cost effective product, they are done for. The auto manufactures here have depended on charging high dollars for poorly build equipment for too long, and they depend on the failure of that equipment to generate fast turnover in both parts, and new car sales. That is why many foreign cars can exceed 300,000 miles, and an American one is lucky to make it to 150,000 miles. Even the American made After-Market Products that I have put on my foreign car last a quarter as long as the foreign parts do.

Retooling is not going to fix this, reorganizing is not going to fix this, trimming the fat is the only way to save these companies. Trimming the fat, is the one thing that they are reluctant to do, as exampled in the now famous “Private Jet” incident. There is a feeling of entitlement among many of these employees, and they will simply not give that up to allow the company to become viable again.

[edit on 12/4/2008 by defcon5]

And the 4 of 10 who are for the bailout are people who are going to benefit directly or indirectly. Indirectly if they are family and close friends of the ones benefitting directly.



[edit on 4-12-2008 by jam321]

[edit on 10-12-2008 by warrenb]

reply to post by warrenb

---

Fist off the auto industry AT LEAST is not asking for a handout but a LOAN.

Secondly it looks like if they do get the LOAN they are after it is going to force on them some major restructuring.

The idea of a USA auto industry that is forced to DO BETTER seems like a good idea to me.

The idea of ensuring that the USA is capable of maintaining SOME industry, god help us any industry, seems like a good idea.

Millions more unemployed? That seems like a BAD idea to me.

And frankly I do not buy that 6 out of 10 Americans do not want the auto industry to get the help they need.

Think of more than just the people DIRECTLY employed by GM, Ford, Chrysler.
Think of the thousands of little companies that supply parts and/or subassemblies to them. Think of the steel industry that sells tons of steel to them...think of the rail industry that transports coal, steel, and finished autos all over the country...think of the people employed at the auto dealerships.
This is more than just helping the "big three". If the auto industry failed, you would instantly plunge the economy into a tailspin (moreso than it already is). Not to mention the loss of industrial capacity which needs to be retained as a national security issue (in time of war you can't count on building all your vehicles in Japan).

I'm certainly against government intervention in private industry, but this is (to me) an exception; and it would be a LOAN as ooposed to free money, as others have pointed out.

[edit on 10-12-2008 by md11forever]

Let's get some facts on the table.
First of all, a good part of the reason that the "big 3" are in trouble is BECAUSE of the AUW, and their outrageous demands over the years. Detroit cannot possibly compete with auto companies that are getting the job done with a burden cost of $53 an hour, while the AUW-big 3 has a labor burden cost of $73 per hour. Even with the new contract, GM's labor costs will still be over $9 an hour higher than companies like Toyota, who pays American workers to buiidl their cars here in America.

Second, allowing the Big 3, or even one of them, to file Chapter 11, does NOT mean that they have to go out of existence. In fact, allowing them to file for bankruptcy will FORCE them to streamline, and make the changes that they need. This is nothing more than WELFARE for the auto companies, and if the bill is approved, will allow them to continue the practices that made them fail in the first place.

Third, the bill is really nothing more than a PAYOFF to the unions, to whom the Democratic party are beholden to.

The people that are for the bailout do not understand that in a free enterprise, companies that perform poorly, should either CHANGE or FAIL. Congress, with the auto bailout, will permit them to forego change, but in the long run, the companies will fail anyway.

Fourth, for those that say this is a LOAN- you obviously know nothing about the Housing crisis. We are in a crisis because people DEFAULTED on those loans, and DID NOT PAY THEM BACK. Giving a loan to the failing Detroit companies is in fact, throwing good money on bad, because the companies will fail anyway, and will DEFAULT on their LOANS. The US taxpayer will be stuck holding the bag again.

Fifth, loss of 3 million jobs is an exaggeration. First of all, other companies will pick up much of the labor, at non-union rates, because cars still have to be built, since we are so dependent as a nation on the car. Companies like Toyota and others that have managed their finances better will pick up much of the unemployed.

Sixth, in the early 1900's, when Ford and the assembly line made automobiles a preferred form of transportation over the horse and buggy, our government wisely did not BAIL OUT the Buggy and Buggy whip manufacturers, because they lost their marketplace, through no fault of the government. The smart Buggy and buggy whip companies switched to making autos or auto parts, while the stubborn ones kept making things that no one wanted any more.

Simple economics. People get jobs, and lose jobs. Companies form, and companies fail. The government should not stop that natural chain of events from happening. In the longrun, it only makes things worse.

reply to post by warrenb

---

I'm not attacking you or anything—I oppose the bailout as well—but I think it's funny that when the government does something that the majority wants that you don't want, it means the populace is ignorant, and when the government does something that goes against the majority it's because they're fascist thugs.

ROFLMAO!!!! Are you serious????

Heh..when that ever happens, humans would be long extinct.




Cheers!!!!

This morning, on CNBC, I saw several congressman who VOTED FOR the bailout, saying that they were FOOLED, that they were told that the bailout would loosen the credit market, which of course, it did not. Interestingly enough, most of us here on ATS that were quite involved with the debate, and with efforts to contact congressman to vote against the bill, warned that the bill had no real safeguards, there were NO executive pay ceilings, etc. as the MSM had reported that there WERE. Many of us read both bills in entirety, unlike many of the senators and congressmen that DID NOT!

Our government has become a total sham. Let's call it like it is. This is not a democracy anymore. It is run entirely by the corporations. What you and I think does not matter. They do what they want. Even the people who voted for Obama are now seeing that from his cabinet picks, there is no real change-the same hacks are back in power. Interestingly enough, there are quite a few hawks on his cabinet.

Say you heard it here......We will be in a new war within the year. I guarantee it. You can post a thread next December calling me out on this, if I'm wrong, but I don't believe that I am.

They will get the money and they have until March 31st 2009 to see if it is helping or not. If it is not then they will declare bankruptcy anyways.

Look it up

Free market system. That means "sink or swim". THAT is where innovation comes into play. Discoveries are made. It's like war, a bad thing but what comes out of them? New surgical techniques. Medications, arms obviously and different power supplies. Ie: nuclear. More obviously.

A loan at this time is a bad idea imo. Let innovation play a part in the renewal of the Big 3(unless they are totally inept). We'll get better vehicles. Different ones too. Which is needed imo. If they want a loan, get one from OPEC. They are the ones that keep pumping the gas. Symbiosis.

The House just passed the auto bailout bill, 237-170.

The reason it's called a loan now is because when it's called a bailout, you don't get the money back. It was being called a bailout, Congress is calling it a bailout...

They can't make money now, how are they going to pay back the money? The big three need to close more than several plants, fire thousands, and they would still be burdened with billions in pensions and health care costs.

There is no fixing this problem short of just filing bankruptcy, voiding contracts, and keep their costs to a minimum. All we are doing is providing an overpriced unemployment package.

BTW: I have yet find one person out of hundreds that I have talked to that think we should bail out one damn industry or financial institution. That's why it's called capitalism, you have the chance to fail just as much as to succeed.

Looks like both the banks and the auto industries got their Merry Christmas.

And now they are all saying to the rest of us.."Happy New Year".




Cheers!!!!!

[edit on 10-12-2008 by RFBurns]