Bailout Watch 491: 76% of Americans Say No to More Motown Bailouts

by Robert Farago

Published: April 10th, 2009

bailout watch 491 76 of americans say no to more motown bailouts

I had a long conversation with Marcy Wheeler, the woman behind the JPMorgan Chase boycott. As I reported yesterday, the action’s designed to force the bailout-fed bank to take a ChryCo debt cramdown to “keep 300,000 workers employed” and “protect America’s industrial base.” Unlike the organization supporting her cause, Ms. Wheeler really knows her onions, from Cerberus’ perfidy to the importance of the FIAT deal to gas prices and the argument for a “soft landing.” Wheeler made as good a case for federal intervention in the US auto industry as I’ve ever heard (even though she insisted that shit-canning GM’s CEO didn’t constitute federal intervention in the US auto industry). CNN reveals that the majority of Americans aren’t buying ANY of it (assuming of course someone’s selling it). “Three out of four Americans would rather see General Motors and Chrysler face bankruptcy than watch the government pour yet another round of bailout cash into the big U.S. automakers.” Uh-oh.

A seventy-six percent majority against more Motown bailout bucks is what you call a conclusive result. It remains to be seen if the taxpayer protecting zealots at the Presidential Task Force on Automobiles consider themselves smarter than the people who pay their salaries. I’m thinking . . . yes. We’re providing debtor-in-possession financing. Not a bailout. What? Those $22.8 billion loans that disappeared? Soft landing, mate. Well worth it.

As far as bankruptcy’s effect on sales, CNN decided to play silly buggers with their methodology—and still managed to winkle-out some interesting results. They asked half of the sample group if they’d buy a car from a [non-specified] bankrupt automaker.

“Almost half of those asked—47%—said they were ‘not likely at all’ to do so, and only 12% said they were ‘very likely’ to buy from a bankrupt company.” Wow! It’s not mentioned, but I make that 41 percent of those surveyed would buy from a bankrupt automaker. And that’s absent any mention of GM and ChryCo’s old friend: fire sale prices.

Or Uncle Sam’s new warranty! When CNN’s pollsters (Salaam Bombay!) threw that one at the other half of the group—demonstrating the effectiveness of President Obama’s press conference on the subject—the number took a turn for the better. “Among those respondents, the ‘very likely’ to buy response rate doubled, to 24%, while the ‘not likely at all’ response declined to 27%.”

Again, no mention of the sudden majority (51 percent) who said sure, WTF, why not? Or price considerations.

Anyway, it seems that Chrysler and GM’s window of opportunity for selling cars in bankruptcy has not yet closed. But the portal for public support for more bailout bucks has. I wonder what Mary makes of that. [thanks to Happy_Endings for the link]

Robert Farago

More by Robert Farago

Comments

Join the conversation

2 of 47 comments

Pch101 on Apr 12, 2009
The burden of proof is on you. The burden of proof for Corker's assertions falls onto Corker. Since you've opted to defend him, this also falls upon you. That's how logical argument is supposed to work -- you say it, you prove it. He has provided no proof whatsoever. His statement is obviously motivated by his political career, not any facts, as he has failed to provide any facts. I realize that you are committed to your cause, and are eager to find reasons to attack a left-wing bogeyman at every turn. But since you and Corker want to allege a political conspiracy, it is your job to prove what you claim. This is your allegation, so the weight of it is on you to support it. Instead, you've punted. That's a sign of weakness and surrender. Since you have no substantive argument, you want to create a distraction and talk around your inability to offer supportive data or facts, pretending that you have no responsibility to support your points, even though it was your camp that was the first to point fingers. Supporting your position would entail you showing that the business case calls for keeping Spring Hill operating. Anyone who knows about the plant would question that assertion. Corker specifically claims that the Spring Hill plant is a superior choice for business reasons, so it is up to him to support that business case. If he can't -- and obviously, he can't -- then his point is unfounded. The only reason to defend such hollow cliches is if you're too partisan to discern fact from fiction. If the situation were identical, but for the fact that he was on the opposing team, you'd give him no quarter. Again, in retrospect, the Wisconsin Jewish Democrats in the Senate should have followed your example, crying oppression when it was obvious that GM's reason for shutting the plant was also for business reasons. Since their party receives a fraction of the auto industry's lobbying dollars, that argument would have been more compelling than Corker's. Fortunately, they had good sense not to claim discrimination where none was present. It's a shame Corker isn't so sensible.

Like Reply
Landcrusher on Apr 12, 2009

No, sorry, I am not trying to prove Corker's point, I am merely defending him from the charge of hypocrisy. Your statements as to why what he said is hypocritical have failed. You said, you can't prove it. DONE "I realize that you are committed to your cause, and are eager to find reasons to attack a left-wing bogeyman at every turn. But since you and Corker want to allege a political conspiracy, it is your job to prove what you claim. This is your allegation, so the weight of it is on you to support it. " That's laughable. It would be like the pot calling the kettle black, but this kettle isn't black and the proof is on this very page (see above where I wrote: "If you want to accuse him of being wrong about the business case, that’s quite reasonable. It is also reasonable to accuse him of “implying wolf” on the red state, blue state thing.") I have been quite reasonable, but you keep pushing for hypocrisy which isn't there. I have made no claim of conspiracy and even said it is not wrong of you to call Corker out on implying it without proof. But nooooo, you can't accept that I was right, you have to pretend I am unreasonable. Perhaps it's to justify your demagoguery? "Supporting your position would entail you showing that the business case calls for keeping Spring Hill operating. Anyone who knows about the plant would question that assertion." I defeated this argument, you now ignore my points, and simply repeat your own assertion. Repeating a straw man won't improve it's relevance. "Corker specifically claims that the Spring Hill plant is a superior choice for business reasons, so it is up to him to support that business case. If he can’t — and obviously, he can’t — then his point is unfounded." This is still a straw man. It has no relevance. And also, if it's so obvious a decision, why wasn't it made before now? "The only reason to defend such hollow cliches is if you’re too partisan to discern fact from fiction. If the situation were identical, but for the fact that he was on the opposing team, you’d give him no quarter." That's just insulting. You are now accusing ME of hypocrisy. Your stock is falling. I would be happy to point out when even Schumer is being wrongfully accused of hypocrisy, and I think that guy does more to hurt this country on a daily basis than most of our international antagonists. You should apologize for the implication. Were I in your shoes, I would agree Corker's statement wasn't really hypocritical, but it was certainly wrong, partisan, and unfairly accused something for which he has no proof. However, I am more reasonable than you, apparently. Lastly, I have no idea what the Wisconsin tie in is about, but I am sure that it is irrelevant. Certainly, the religion of their Senators is irrelevant, yet you keep bringing it up. If you want to claim someone is an anti-semite, or is part of a zionist conspiracy, then come out and say it.

Like Reply

Recent Comments

Pig_Iron If it's not hurting anyone, what's the problem? We have a lot bigger problems to deal with like the failure to prosecute the 5-29 insurrectionists. ✌
MaintenanceCosts This is already illegal for several reasons. Is this a new redundant law, or is this just an announcement that the police are actually going to be enforcing the law as is?(Also, most lifts at all 4 corners are illegal too, although it's almost never enforced.)
Jkross22 I get Lexus much more now, especially this era. This seems to be the sweet spot for reserved styling, comfort and reliability. No turbos, integrated screen, hard buttons and knobs, good to great stereos, great seats. Still have some pangs of desire for the GS-F for all of the above reasons and V8 sounds, but this is the smarter choice.
Canam23 I had a 2014 GS350 that I bought with 30K miles and the certified unlimited four year warranty. After four and a half years I had 150K miles on it and sold it to Carmax when I moved to France a little over two years ago. As you can see I ran up a lot of work miles in that time and the Lexus was always quick, comfortable and solid, no issues at all. It was driving pretty much the same as new when I let it go and, and, this is why it's a Lexus, the interior still looked new. I bought it for 30K and sold it for 16K making it the most economical car I've ever owned. I really miss it, if you have to drive a lot, as I did in my job, it is the perfect car. Some may argue the Camry or Accord would foot that bill, but I say nay nay, you really want the comfort and rear wheel drive of the Lexus. Keep it forever Corey, you won't regret it.
SCE to AUX "...if there’s enough demand"If they are only offered as electric to begin with, how will Stellantis gauge demand - unhappy customers demonstrating at the dealers with torches and pitchforks?What a great way to add cost and reduce competitiveness, by making a propulsion-agnostic platform with a hundred built-in compromises.