Polls suggest voters are split on any future auto bailouts

Mar 2012
50,188
33,034
New Hampshire
#1
A new American Barometer survey, conducted by the HarrisX polling company found that 31 percent of Americans say President Trump should not intervene in the decisions of private businesses when asked what action he should take on General Motor's recently announced layoffs.

"We've come along way in the last ten years from where we were then, and I think that's why you see these split results because people say 'okay, it did turn around in the auto industry. GM is alive. What should we do now?'" she continued. The survey also found that 21 percent said Trump should negotiate with Congress to help GM with financial incentives to save jobs, while 19 percent said the president should take away GM's federal subsidies and tax credits.

There is growing discontent on the left with the government giving corporations money, pointing to Amazon's recent announcement they would open headquarters in New York City and northern Virginia. "But at the same time there are members, especially on the left, who are resistant to giving more handouts to big companies," she said.

Dem pollster says public 'split' on possible future auto bailouts
 
Dec 2014
11,618
8,955
Brisbane, Qld. Australia
#2
Well, I can understand Bush's initiative to prevent widespread job losses (later increased by Obama), but there comes a point where an industry or a company is simply not viable ~ where does it end? We, in Australia have bailed out Mitsubishi three times and GM Holden continue to receive subsidies even after the closure of Australian operations. Nissan also receives many tax incentives simply to keep their operation going here.
 
Nov 2013
9,598
8,815
NY
#3
Well, I can understand Bush's initiative to prevent widespread job losses (later increased by Obama), but there comes a point where an industry or a company is simply not viable ~ where does it end? We, in Australia have bailed out Mitsubishi three times and GM Holden continue to receive subsidies even after the closure of Australian operations. Nissan also receives many tax incentives simply to keep their operation going here.
Obama's bailout of the Auto industry was well thought out, and all of them paid back the funding they received. And it did save those companies, there is no question about it.,
It also shows, it does not matter. NOw, aftere they HAVE been saved, are are making record profits.. all they do is filling their own poclkets, yet again, and killing 100s of jobs. So WHY would one want to bail them out again, if ever necessary ?
It's not that they feel the need to pay back to the society who carried them along and allowed them to even be where they are today.
 
Dec 2014
11,618
8,955
Brisbane, Qld. Australia
#4
Obama's bailout of the Auto industry was well thought out, and all of them paid back the funding they received. And it did save those companies, there is no question about it.,
It also shows, it does not matter. NOw, aftere they HAVE been saved, are are making record profits.. all they do is filling their own poclkets, yet again, and killing 100s of jobs. So WHY would one want to bail them out again, if ever necessary ?
It's not that they feel the need to pay back to the society who carried them along and allowed them to even be where they are today.

Oh, I agree. GM Holden blamed the scrapping of the TPP for their woes, but we know it was more profitable to import Opels than to build autos here, so they closed the plants. Why should they receive further subsidies simply to increase their profit margin?

Fuck Holden, I will buy Toyota who do not milk the public teet.
 
Mar 2012
50,188
33,034
New Hampshire
#5
Obama's bailout of the Auto industry was well thought out, and all of them paid back the funding they received. And it did save those companies, there is no question about it.,
It also shows, it does not matter. NOw, aftere they HAVE been saved, are are making record profits.. all they do is filling their own poclkets, yet again, and killing 100s of jobs. So WHY would one want to bail them out again, if ever necessary ?
It's not that they feel the need to pay back to the society who carried them along and allowed them to even be where they are today.
Thats just it. I think if the taxpayers bail out companies and then they make efforts to be better and not fire people while the CEO makes billions, more people wouldnt mind. But the way it is now these companies almost start to expect it. Mess up and dont worry the taxpayers will bail them out. Nobody goes to jail and the executives get fatter. Its almost like they laugh at us knowing we would probably do it again and again.
 
Likes: Blues63
Nov 2013
9,598
8,815
NY
#6
Thats just it. I think if the taxpayers bail out companies and then they make efforts to be better and not fire people while the CEO makes billions, more people wouldnt mind. But the way it is now these companies almost start to expect it. Mess up and dont worry the taxpayers will bail them out. Nobody goes to jail and the executives get fatter. Its almost like they laugh at us knowing we would probably do it again and again.
They were told in public they're too big too fail.. that's what they live off of.
 
Mar 2012
50,188
33,034
New Hampshire
#7
They were told in public they're too big too fail.. that's what they live off of.
Well they scare the heck out of the workers. We have that here in NH where a big company is threatening to leave the area if they dont get tax incentives to stay. They employ over 2000 people. Now the protests have begun where people say "give them what they want." Students and some others are saying no. Its causes a rift because nobody wants jobs gone. Its how they hold it over politicians because it looks bad to lose jobs so they say they are too big or need tax cuts etc.
 
Nov 2013
9,598
8,815
NY
#8
Well they scare the heck out of the workers. We have that here in NH where a big company is threatening to leave the area if they dont get tax incentives to stay. They employ over 2000 people. Now the protests have begun where people say "give them what they want." Students and some others are saying no. Its causes a rift because nobody wants jobs gone. Its how they hold it over politicians because it looks bad to lose jobs so they say they are too big or need tax cuts etc.
That is a problem of politicians, and politics. Imo, local politics should NOT have the power to incentivize or outbid other areas with money / tax breaks...
the only winning in that scenario is the coproation, playing different communities against each other, and squeezing ever so more advantages for themselves. Just look at amazon's latest coup in DC and NY.

Economy should play itself out. "federal" taxes, and actually "less" ability for states / regions to provide tax breaks and incentives, would prevent some of those black mail attempts and moves.
Also, the mobility of a worker today seems to be much less than in previous decades, I recall - especially here in the US - that people / families, would very often move and relocate based on their employers moves. Doesn't seem to be the case today that much anymore.
Might also have to do that a deep rooted NYer would not see him/herself being able to live in Florida, or Texas nowadays anymore… I can see that.

I once did not even engage in a job opportunity, simply because it would have been in Oregon, and I cannot see myself live in an open carry state.
 
Jul 2013
47,063
49,431
Nashville, TN
#9
We don't want to admit we are a corporate oligarchy...we created it with lax rules and regulations letting these corporations merge, and merge and merge. If we had 50 car companies one folding would not be a big deal.
 
Likes: NightSwimmer
Jun 2014
42,582
41,349
United States
#10
A new American Barometer survey, conducted by the HarrisX polling company found that 31 percent of Americans say President Trump should not intervene in the decisions of private businesses when asked what action he should take on General Motor's recently announced layoffs.

"Harris Poll" sounds familiar, but "HarrisX" is not "Harris". They are an on-line polling company that works with Rasmussen.

At any rate, this question doesn't directly concern bailouts. It's asking whether the President should intervene in GM's decision to close production facilities.