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]
More by Robert Farago
Comments
Join the conversation
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.