67% Oppose Bailout Plan for General Motors

May 31st, 2009 By: Michael van der Galien | Tags: , , , , , ,

67% oppose bailing out GMRasmussen reports that 67% of the American oppose a plan to bailout General Motors.

The embattled automaker has serious issues – it has fought off bankruptcy for decades. Every time it got into trouble, it called on Washington to bail it out, and Washington complied. President Obama and Democrats in Congress now plan to do the same thing.

But Americans have had enough. They are no longer willing to pay for companies that have solely themselves to blame for their problems.

Only 21% of voters nationwide support a plan for the government to bail out General Motors as part of a structured bankruptcy plan to keep the troubled auto giant in business.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 67% are opposed to a plan that would provide GM with $50 billion in funding and give the government a 70% ownership interest in the company.

If the choice, then, is between bankruptcy and a bailout:

Even when presented with the stark choice between providing government funding or letting GM go out of business, only 32% of voters support the bailout. Most voters (56%) say it would be better to let GM go out of business.

This only means one thing: Republicans should oppose any possible future bailouts, including one for GM, as passionately as they can. They’ve got the majority of the American people on their side on this one. Use popular opinion to force Democrats to play defense.

If Republicans want to make a comeback in Congress 1.5 years from now, they have to convince Americans that they are more than “Democrat lite,” that Americans have to vote Republican if they want to restore some sense of fiscal responsibility in Washington.

Opposing bailouts are the easiest way for Republicans to do so. They must use this opportunity.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • NewsVine
  • TailRank
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. Suzanne Gorenfeld
    May 31st, 2009 at 20:23
    Reply | Quote | #1

    Both democrats and republicans are responsible for putting our democracy back into the Middle Ages: Bailing out corporate ne’er-do-wells is a piece of feudalism. In feudal law, government gave
    favored people or groups rights not given the generality of the public. In this instance,
    big campaign contributors receive their quid pro quo money, while people who pay their taxes and work for a living, get their jobs, houses, life savings, and retirement pensions, thieved by the sasme class of people.

  2. Guest
    May 31st, 2009 at 23:29
    Reply | Quote | #2

    “They are no longer willing to pay for companies that have solely themselves to blame for their problems.”

    What a ridiculous non-sense. And the credit-crunch, result of 8 years of GOP leadership is not responsible for the current crisis of the car-industry???? People just turn on your TV-sets, radios or browse business news on the web!

  3. Jason Arvak
    May 31st, 2009 at 23:48
    Reply | Quote | #3

    The credit crisis and other financial woes have roots going back much further than 8 years and include policy actions championed by BOTH parties. For example, Republicans blocked regulation of exotic financial trading and Democrats championed mandates that forced lending to people who were clearly unable to repay.

    In my opinion, only those that prioritize ideological hatred over dealing with real world problems try to make partisan hay out of this issue. Shame on you, “Guest”. Honestly, you BDS types need to stop living in the luxurious past where every cloudy day could be blamed on evil Republicans and start dealing with the complexity of the problems we face NOW. In the alternative, you BDS types need to keep your obsessions to yourselves and stop polluting the broader discourse with your emotional dysfunction.

  4. marc
    June 1st, 2009 at 05:28
    Reply | Quote | #4

    GM is fundamentally untenable as a corporation precisely because its cost structure is bloated by the agreements it made with far-left union groups decades ago. It should be no surprise that it’s been surpassed by nimbler competitors and is threatened by an economic downturn – the result was inevitable.

  5. Rudi666
    June 1st, 2009 at 09:02
    Reply | Quote | #5

    Pensions and health care for retirees is far left. If someone worked for GM for 40 years, GM isn’t responsible for contractual guarantees to retires? Politicians allowed the auto companies to defund and raid the pension funds. The transplants workers are too young for these retirement benefits. But the native workers back home have similar benefits…

    When did the US government bailout GM in the past?

  6. Debt-Professor.com
    June 2nd, 2009 at 10:32
    Reply | Quote | #6

    Where do we draw the line?
    Why are we pouring money into poorly run companies?
    Why in the world does Uncle Sam have a 70% interest in GM?

    Let them go Bankrupt.

    This is America, someone will see the opportunity, come in and build cars that people want, and sell them for a profit.

    Kind of hard to do that when your competition has unlimited cash from the unwilling American tax payer. What happened to having a level playing field?

    Let them go.

Comments are closed.

PoliGazette Comments Policy

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements. Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email only.