Rasmussen Poll: 17% of Americans Support GM Boycott
June 5th, 2009 10:17 PM Share
According to a recent Rasmussen poll, 26 percent of those surveyed support the GM bailout. Yes, but 53 percent describe the bailout as a “bad idea,” and of that majority of respondents, 30 percent of those support a boycott. The idea of boycotting a government-owned GM was most popular among men and middle-income respondents. Also, 51 percent responded that they are “more likely” to purchase a Ford because the automaker has not received government funding. If popular sentiment is so set against GM and the bailout now, imagine what it will be like after a few years of government ownership. Especially if this anti-bailout attitude is affecting sales along the way. Fills one with hope, doesn’t it?
Published June 5th, 2009 4:38 PM
Join the conversation
4 of 74 comments
You've still not provided examples of unions having a beneficial effect upon employers, and thus upon jobs. And if you can't understand the riposte to your assertion that offshoring would occur notwithstanding unions, by citing examples of jobs NOT offshored but established in the United States, well so be it. Economics speaks of the law of comparative advantage. If costs are sufficiently lower to offset shipping costs, then operations will eventually gravitate toward the lower cost / more efficient area. Unions raise costs - not just wages, but the parasitic drag of dealing with grievances, strikes, slowdowns, contract protect slacker mentalities, etc. So over the long term unionized companies become increasingly uncompetitive, and eventually must resort to bankruptcy or relocation away from U.S. labor laws / unions. I'm signing off this thread. Tired of it. Go keep drinking your union Kool-Aid, it'll help keep you cool as you stand in the unemployment line.
Most but not all of you are hipocrites and here is why: 1: Most banks have taken Gov't money, did you move to one that did not take Gov't money. 2: Many of you have bought foreign vehicles, though they may be produced here, do you realize that only enough money stays here to pay the so called bills and the rest goes back to the home land. 3: You don't like socialism (I don't either) but that foreign car you bought, Toyota, BMW, KIA, Honda, etc.. Those companies receive support from their socialist gov'ts on a yearly basis. You are still buying their vehicles. 4: Many of the every day items you use and buy are manufactured in a company that is in a socialist or worse yet communist country that provides supposrt to that manufacturer on a Yearly basis. You are hipocrites. The correct thing to do is buy as many GM & Chrysler Vehicles as possible and see if Comrade Obama and Geithner are true to there words and sell the preferred stock as they say they will. That is the true test if you really don't like Comrade Obama. I can say these things as I am a GM Salaried retiree that has some idea of how the economy and the auto industry work. One thing to keep in mind. There are approximately 1,200,000 total GM retirees (salaried and hourly), I am sure you do not want any of us living off the dole (welfare)of the gov't. What I see here is griping by people who are jealous of what the auto workers have. Granted there are bad apples, which is what the communist press will only tell you about, but most of the people are hard working individuals just like most of you are I am sure and you would be lying if you said that you did not have any bad apples in places of employment. I would like to see any of you do what the men and women in the assembly plants have to do at the rate of approximately 60 vehicles an hour going down the assembly line. One last thing, believe it or not and you can check your history if you are so inclined or intelligent enough, if it were not for the gains that the automotive and yes steel industries achieved in the 20th century you would not even have half of what you have today. Think about that for awhile and check your historical facts. What these two industries received typically was copied to a certain extent that they could afford in other areas so that they could compete for employees.