64% of Americans - don't see the big picture :blink:

[Tigermike 4,300]

64% Oppose Any More Loans for GM and Chrysler

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

General Motors and Chrysler are back this week seeking $22 billion more in federal help, but 64% of U.S. voters are opposed to providing any additional taxpayer-backed loans for the embattled automakers.

Twenty-four percent (24%) support more loans for GM and Chrysler, and 11% are undecided in a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

Forty-four percent (44%) say it is better for the U.S. economy to let companies like General Motors fail than for the federal government to provide subsidies that will keep them in business. Thirty-three percent (33%) say subsidies are the better way to go, and 23% are not sure.

In December, just 40% thought it was better to let the auto companies fail.

(Want a free daily e-mail update? Sign up now. If it's in the news, it's in our polls.)

While GM plans to start paying back the government loans totaling nearly $30 billion by 2012, 57% say the government is not likely to get the money back. Only 41% think the loans are even somewhat likely to be re-paid, a figure that includes 12% saying it’s Very Likely.

Sixty percent (60%) of Democrats say it’s likely the taxpayer-backed loans to the auto companies eventually will be paid off. Only 27% of Republicans and 34% of unaffiliated voters agree.

The loan requests - and the major restructuring plans both companies are required to produce by March 31 - must be approved by President Obama’s new Cabinet-level Presidential Task Force on Autos. But just 13% of voters think the automakers will run better if they are run by the federal government.

Seventy-one percent (71%) believe federal government oversight will make them run worse. These numbers are up slightly from a survey in early December.

Not that Americans have much confidence in corporate chief executive officers. The favorability ratings for CEOs has now hit rock bottom, below even members of Congress.

After Congress failed to agree on an auto industry bailout package in the face of strong public opposition, President Bush in early December authorized loans for the two automakers in exchange for radical retooling of their businesses. Chrysler has borrowed $4 billion and is seeking an additional $5 billion. GM has already borrowed $13.4 billion to stay in business and is seeking as much as $17 billion more. Ford has not sought any government help.

Americans are much more critical of the Big Three automakers than they were two years ago, particularly the two companies that have sought government aid. But 41% still believe the U.S. automobile industry is very important to the financial stability of the overall economy.

Seventy-seven percent (77%) of Republicans and 68% of voters not affiliated with either major party oppose additional loans to GM and Chrysler, as do 50% of Democrats. The United Auto Workers are a key union ally of the Democratic Party.

But half of Democrats (49%) think it is better for the federal government to subsidize the automakers rather than let them fail. Most Republicans (58%) and unaffiliated voters (52%) say letting the companies go under is better for the economy.

Among investors, 49% say failure is the better economic option, while 28% support more government assistance to the companies.

The Rasmussen Investor Index, which measures daily confidence, is still hovering in record low territory.

Eighty-two percent (82%) of GOP voters, 78% of unaffiliateds and 56% of Democrats say the automakers will not run better under government control. Investors overwhelmingly agree.

Even 74% of government workers say the companies are better off not being run by the government.

Please sign up for the Rasmussen Reports daily e-mail update (it’s free)… let us keep you up to date with the latest public opinion news.

See survey questions and toplines. Crosstabs are available to Premium Members only.

link

[autigeremt 7,551]

But we are a center-left country now!!! Are you sure it's not 64% in favor of a government led auto company???

[arnaldoabru 11]

Any suggestions on what to do?

[Tigermike 4,300]

Any suggestions on what to do?

Cut expenses? Build a better car, truck, van?

No, no, no they have a plan, "Let's just keep their hands out and let the dims keep throwing money at us."

[arnaldoabru 11]

Any suggestions on what to do?

Cut expenses? Build a better car, truck, van?

No, no, no they have a plan, "Let's just keep their hands out and let the dims keep throwing money at us."

So you are in favor of bailing the automakers out.

[Tigermike 4,300]

Any suggestions on what to do?

Cut expenses? Build a better car, truck, van?

No, no, no they have a plan, "Let's just keep their hands out and let the dims keep throwing money at us."

So you are in favor of bailing the automakers out.

Where have you ever seen me say that?

[rexbo 104]

Any suggestions on what to do?

Get Government out of the way and let capitalism work. Do you want to decide what you drive, or would you rather some bureaucrat decide? It comes down to that...

[arnaldoabru 11]

Any suggestions on what to do?

Get Government out of the way and let capitalism work. Do you want to decide what you drive, or would you rather some bureaucrat decide? It comes down to that...

So you are in favor of letting the American car makers go under.

[jared52 4,358]

Any suggestions on what to do?

Get Government out of the way and let capitalism work. Do you want to decide what you drive, or would you rather some bureaucrat decide? It comes down to that...

So you are in favor of letting the American car makers go under.

I honestly don't think they would go under. Because there is the government safety net under them, they aren't willing to make the hard choices, such as telling UAW to take a hike or get real with their expectations. If the government said, "No more, you are on your own," then the "Big 3" would either go under or make the necessary adjustments to stay in business, but it would be their decision. I hear the immediate outcry, "What about all those jobs?" It would certainly have a ripple effect if the automakers went under. Not only the factories where the cars are made, but all the suppliers and industries who are part of the automobile industry would be affected. But how long will the taxpayers have to keep these companies afloat? Isn't the issue about selling vehicles? Why couldn't the government actually do something to benefit the people who are keeping the automakers in business? Not just tax incentives to buy new cars (which will depreciate more than the tax benefit once the car hits the road), but substantial discounts on a purchased vehicle. Unfortunately, that doesn't buy votes and ultimately all politicians are only concerned with one thing, getting reelected. UAW casts a lot of votes and if the current crop of lawmakers let the auto industry go belly up, they wouldn't see another term. They aren't concerned about other people losing their job, just about them losing their own.

Yep, with politicians, I paint with a very broad brush.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1039849853&play=1#

[BamaGrad03 0]

Any suggestions on what to do?

Get Government out of the way and let capitalism work. Do you want to decide what you drive, or would you rather some bureaucrat decide? It comes down to that...

So you are in favor of letting the American car makers go under.

I am ABSOLUTELY in favor of letting them go under...unless the UAW is willing to make concessions. Offering lifetime premium salaries and health benefits to retirees is a FAILED business model.

What pisses me off to no end is that the Americans who expect fiscal responsibility are the ones who are "letting the automakers fail." That pisses me off. It's NOT the fat cat retirees who have this sweetheart deal. It's not the UAW who's UNWILLING to compromise.

Bottom line: they can't afford the deal they have. Instead of getting a new, more fiscally responsible deal, they come to America with their hand out...digging in their heels. And if you don't write them a blank check, then YOU are the bad guy.

They don't want to make concessions? Let em fail. I'll buy Japanese.

[lukeduke 8]

Two people have it right....it ain't the companies, it's the UAW killing them. I'm sorry, but the people working in those factories are extremely overpaid for what they do. Get the UAW out of the equation, cut wages by 20%. If the workers can't make it on that, good luck to you and I hope you can do better elsewhere with a high school diploma.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

I believe management is overpaid too, as are the CEOs. All of them need concessions not just th blue collar workers. I believe bankruptcy is the only way they will get what they need to become competitive again.

[DKW 86 8,235]

Bankruptcy fixes almost all of this over night. That is why for the the next four years we are going to bailout and bailout and bailout Detroit because of the political need to keep the UAW on the side of the Administration.

The joke here is that Obushma is selling "responsibility" while at the the same time NOT ALLOWING THOSE THAT HAVE FAILED TO TAKE RESONSIBILITY. Just maddening. And the sheeple just wander around the field like nothing is happening...

[BamaGrad03 0]

I believe management is overpaid too, as are the CEOs. All of them need concessions not just th blue collar workers. I believe bankruptcy is the only way they will get what they need to become competitive again.

Yeah top brass may be overpaid. But paying one guy 25 million (and it being too much) vs the 106 BILLION they are going to be in the hole over the next 5 years to pay the retirees, is a big gap.

arnaldoabru, why haven't you weighed in lately?

[autigeremt 7,551]

He will......but it will not add much to the discussion.

[arnaldoabru 11]

I believe management is overpaid too, as are the CEOs. All of them need concessions not just th blue collar workers. I believe bankruptcy is the only way they will get what they need to become competitive again.

Yeah top brass may be overpaid. But paying one guy 25 million (and it being too much) vs the 106 BILLION they are going to be in the hole over the next 5 years to pay the retirees, is a big gap.

arnaldoabru, why haven't you weighed in lately?

I really don't know. I would like to see something on the number of jobs lost. Besides the actual workers and suppliers, don't forget all the dealers in the country and their employees. Also the UPS guys and truck drivers who deliver all the stuff. Don't forget, also the businesses around these plants. I think the numbers are probably pretty staggering.

I would also like to see something on the actual pay/ cost to car, of the union guys. Not some figure from some of those right wing blogs or Conservative Institutes.

I've said all along the oil companies need to be bailing out the automakers. They were the ones in bed with them fighting all the better fuel economy regulations trying to be enacted.

[BamaGrad03 0]

I really don't know. I would like to see something on the number of jobs lost. Besides the actual workers and suppliers, don't forget all the dealers in the country and their employees. Also the UPS guys and truck drivers who deliver all the stuff. Don't forget, also the businesses around these plants. I think the numbers are probably pretty staggering.

I would also like to see something on the actual pay/ cost to car, of the union guys. Not some figure from some of those right wing blogs or Conservative Institutes.

I've said all along the oil companies need to be bailing out the automakers. They were the ones in bed with them fighting all the better fuel economy regulations trying to be enacted.

But you keep ignoring the UAW contract. You keep ignoring the fact that the ONLY concession they are willing to make is to cut 47,000 jobs over 2 years. Not, lowering their $76/hr pay (which they don't even dispute), not making concessions with the retiree benefits.

Again, THEY are unwilling to fix a broken business model. So why are WE the ones who are shouldered with the label of "letting them fail." The UPS workers and the suppliers need to lean on the UAW to fix their broken contract.

Would it suck if GM went under? Sure. But SOMEONE has to pick up the slack. Some auto company will have to make more cars. You can't reward a failed business model with more money...especially when the company says they'll need even MORE money over the next few years.

[DKW 86 8,235]

I believe management is overpaid too, as are the CEOs. All of them need concessions not just th blue collar workers. I believe bankruptcy is the only way they will get what they need to become competitive again.

Yeah top brass may be overpaid. But paying one guy 25 million (and it being too much) vs the 106 BILLION they are going to be in the hole over the next 5 years to pay the retirees, is a big gap.

arnaldoabru, why haven't you weighed in lately?

I really don't know. I would like to see something on the number of jobs lost. Besides the actual workers and suppliers, don't forget all the dealers in the country and their employees. Also the UPS guys and truck drivers who deliver all the stuff. Don't forget, also the businesses around these plants. I think the numbers are probably pretty staggering.

I would also like to see something on the actual pay/ cost to car, of the union guys. Not some figure from some of those right wing blogs or Conservative Institutes.

I've said all along the oil companies need to be bailing out the automakers. They were the ones in bed with them fighting all the better fuel economy regulations trying to be enacted.

http://money.cnn.com/2007/01/26/news/compa...rtune/index.htm

Cost issues

A big reason is the cost of labor. As analyzed by Harbour-Felax, labor costs the Detroit Three substantially more per vehicle than it does the Japanese.

Health care is the biggest chunk. GM (Charts), for instance spends $1,635 per vehicle on health care for active and retired workers in the U.S. Toyota (Charts) pays nothing for retired workers - it has very few - and only $215 for active ones.

Other labor costs add to the bill. Contract issues like work rules, line relief and holiday pay amount to $630 per vehicle - costs that the Japanese don't have. And paying UAW members for not working when plants are shut costs another $350 per vehicle.

$3015.00 per car

Here's one example of how knotty Detroit's labor problem can be:

If an assembly plant with 3,000 workers has no dealer orders, it has two options. One is to close the plant for a week and not build any cars. Then the company still has to give the idled workers 95 percent of their take-home pay plus all benefits for not working. So a one-week shutdown costs $7.7 million or $1,545 for each vehicle it didn't make.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_does_la...build_a_new_car

However, the domestic automakers pay $1,200 to $1,500 per car just for health care, a huge competitive difference that has to be addressed, said Laurie Harbour-Felax, managing director at Stout Risius Ross Inc., a financial and strategic advisory company.

"We'll never be able to compete in the same situation with the Japanese because they don't have the same issues," said Harbour-Felax, who wrote a study that found a $2,400 profit gap per vehicle between the Detroit Three and the Japanese automakers.

Auto parts maker Delphi reaches labor deal

About half the gap can be attributed to the labor cost difference, she said.

Retiree costs are one reason Ford, Chrysler and GM lost a combined $15 billion last year. Although Ford and GM recently turned profits, they're still losing money in North America.

The Detroit Three have a combined unfunded retiree health care obligation of about $90.5 billion, a staggering number that must be carried on their books and paid over the life of their employees. With far fewer retirees, the Japanese companies have much lower payments.

[Strychnine 1,812]

But you keep ignoring the UAW contract. You keep ignoring the fact that the ONLY concession they are willing to make is to cut 47,000 jobs over 2 years. Not, lowering their $76/hr pay (which they don't even dispute), not making concessions with the retiree benefits.

One needs a decent bit of seniority to see $76/hr hauling pax around on a commercial jet. Not saying that it would not be great if everyone could make at least $76/hr, but I would not put anyone that works an auto production line on par with an airline pilot.