One interesting side product of all these campaign controversies is that they have enabled public awareness of a variety of issues in ways that the Administration’s messaging operation never seemed to master. For instance, the birth control flare-up has forced recognition that, as part of the Affordable Care Act, women have the right to universal access to free birth control coverage, either through the health insurance they get with an employer or on the individual market. That’s important information for the public to have to assess the public policy choices available to them in elections.
Another example concerns the auto rescue. Because the Republican primary has landed in Michigan, and because Mitt Romney has, in his bumbling way, tried to criticize the Obama Administration for not performing the managed bankruptcy he favored in the exact way that he wanted, the Administration, and particularly the re-election campaign, have been forced to defend their actions. That has manifested itself in television spots and talking points that remind the public that, oh by the way, the Administration rescued the auto industry and it saved a lot of jobs and those companies are thriving now.
And as a result, because information actually got to the public, they have responded by supporting the measure for the first time since it occurred.
According to Pew’s latest survey (conducted February 8-12 and 16-20 with a margin of error of ±3%), 56 percent of the American public now believes the auto bailouts were mostly a good thing for the economy. Just 38 percent disagrees, a huge shift from October, 2009 when 54 percent thought the bailouts were mostly bad for the economy and 37 percent thought they were good.
But while there’s been a big turnaround in support for rescuing the auto industry, the Wall Street bailout remains unpopular, with just 39 percent of Americans saying they believe it was a good thing. Both Mitt Romney and President Obama supported TARP, but the key difference is that while Romney only approved of bank bailouts, President Obama also supported the auto bailout. Romney attempted to explain his position during last night’s debate, but didn’t do himself any favors, ultimately saying that it was more important to save the banking industry than the auto manufacturing industry.
I’ll set aside the merits of saving the banking industry, which doesn’t look good for anyone. But the larger point is that the election campaign finally has brought these successes into the public consciousness. And they have responded accordingly. Nobody said that these couldn’t have been brought up long ago as examples of government doing something right.




13 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
This article just highlights the ignorance of the American public and how propaganda is very effective. Ford,GM,Chrysler are just like Toyota, Hyundai, and Honda. Huge multinational corporations whose products are sold worldwide and have no patriotic ties to any given nation. The title of this article should read: “Americans are becoming satisfied with the multinational corporations they pay to bailout so that they can continue to operate in their own country.”
Right, the auto bailout where Obama threatened bond holders, intimidating them into giving up their legal rights in bankruptcy. The same bailout that gave GM to the unions.
This was the biggest example of crony capitalism ever.
“According to Pew’s latest survey (conducted February 8-12 and 16-20 with a margin of error of ±3%), 56 percent of the American public now believes the auto bailouts were mostly a good thing for the economy.
——–
funny, NONE of the dastardly, despicable, black-hearted bastards (TM) that make up today’s republican party seem to feel that way.
Wonder why??????
In more ways than you know. Take this line for example
Most think that “coverage with no co-pays” means free. No, it means pre-paid (as part of the yearly premium). Insurance companies don’t give away anything for free.
free means no out of pocket in this case
and as for cost in the premium, the cost is actually negative – there is a reduction in costs because of the fewer births.
As to whether a lower birth rate is a good idea, you will have to talk to the lassies.
The bond holders had no asset to claim – it was a Youngstown situation and all that senior debt would have claimed assets that could not have been sold.
The largest, most senior claims (the union contractual health contribution has the priority of wages – and wages are always first in a bankruptcy – at least that is how I read the law) were satisfied by the ownership change and debt load change
Makes one wonder how popular a jobs program rebuilding infrastructure like the WPA would be.
Probably very popular.
Too bad we got a President that wants to be Reagan rather than FDR.
>>I’ll set aside the merits of saving the banking industry, which doesn’t look good for anyone.
But was essential for everyone.
The old commercial banking side of the post Glass-Steagall merged banks performed 3 vital functions:
1: They supplied the day to day credit that all businesses need to operate. 2: they ran the payment systems. And 3: they provided trade finance for all our imports and exports.
All three functions continue to be performed by the merged commercial and investment. (It was the investment side that created the huge problems.)
If the credit and payment and trade finance systems had experienced the sort of disruption which would have been caused had even one major player failed (much less several), our economy very likely would have ground to halt. Literally.
Many folks would have lost access to their credit cards and debit cards to buy stuff. Cash on hand to buy essentials with would quickly disappear.
Grocery stores and gas stations and lumber yards and department stores wouldn’t be able to pay their suppliers for product – both because many would have lost their credit lines, and because the payments systems would have been, at best, crippled.
And with trade finance eviscerated by a round of bank failures, imports and exports would have pretty much died.
YEah, it sucks to see the investment bankers giving us the finger — but the reality of a full banking system crash would have literally been deadly.
(I worked as major bank attorney from the 70s to 90s dealing with, among other things, all three of those systems. And yeah, I know better than most how screwed up banks are – I am not an apologist for them – but from my experience I have a pretty good idea of how ugly things would have gotten very quickly.)
Wrong. The question was whether the auto bailouts were mostly good for the economy or not. Not whether they were popular.
A similar question was posed for the financial bailouts and it was stated differently. It asked whether the bailout was right or wrong. You could argue that a bank bailout was mostly good for the economy despite being vastly unpopular.
A gallup poll shows most americans are still against the bailout of the auto industry.
Think.
No, out of pocket to you means I don’t have to pay later.
Out of pocket really means pay up front. If your employeer pays 100% of your insurance premium, it’s a function of your pay. If you pay some portion of your healthcare, as I do, you pay up front, out of pocket. It’s the same as auto or home owner insurance. If they tell you there’s no “deductible” for a claim, it’s because you pay enough in up front to cover it. But they tell you everything else is “free”.
Or the insurance industry is being nice. You decide.
Again, think.
Let’s say in the past insurance companies paid for no birth control, but paid for all claimed births. We can assume women who didn’t want to birth a baby in the past, would pay for their own birth control, rather than decide that, “Well, might as well have the kid, it’ free. This will make 17, but at lease the insurance is paying for it.”
So insurance paid for all the births that they were going to pay for, and there probably won’t be any fewer. Now they have to pay for birth control, plus births – more costs. There will be no fewer births, there will just be more expense passed through the insurance industry.
They love it. Cost plus. Tell the insurance industry there’s a mandate that insurance has to cover pills and procedures for men’s farts too. They’d love it at cost plus. Or as you say, “free.”
Ever hear of Youngstown v. Sawyer, Shooter? Papau just referenced that — let’s see how fast you can Google it and then try to find something in your collection of Limbaugh and Hannity talking points to counter it.
By the way, aren’t you the guy about whose comments Jane recently noticed something funny?
Guess what — the auto bailout is what saved our bacon.
Amazing how many Republican trolls all seem to show up here at the same time, as if on cue.