Harry P.

Yup.

So... at what point do you draw the line? At what point does a company pass the "You deserve a bailout" threshold? Who decides? And how? Skip, it's just a bad idea. I see your argument, but the real world is a messy place. We better knock this off, though... too close to "politics."

No damage here, but man, did we get soaked! But on the positive side, my lawn has never looked better!

OK... I just had to delete a bazillion posts. What on earth does the Hobby Lobby Supreme Court ruling have to do with "What did you get today?" Everyone has an opinion on the case. If I could, I'd write several paragraphs on my thoughts about it... but religion and politics... the very basis of the case... aren't allowed here.

All I'm saying is that once you set that precedent... then who decides who deserves help and who doesn't? Based on what criteria? Whose criteria? How is it even possible to make that decision fairly? It's not. If "A" gets a bailout, why doesn't "B?" If "B" does too, what about "C?" And "D?" Where does it end??? That's why, IMO, it would have been better to not open that door in the first place.

What's the name of the company?

That's what I've been saying the whole time!

No, I guess not...

Yes, GM going belly up would have affected a lot of people. Same if any large corporation goes out of business, and plenty have... but that's how a free market system works. You either sink or swim based on your own merits and ability to compete. You either believe in a free-market system, or you don't. Once you begin to pick "winners and losers," you've opened Pandora's box. Who is "worthy" of a bailout? Whose jobs are worth saving, and whose do you let disappear? Are the jobs of people who work at "Failing Large Corporation A" more important than the jobs of people who work at "Failing Small Company B?" Aren't the families of the workers at "FSC B" as important as those of the workers at "FLC A?" See how messy it gets when the government starts picking winners and losers?

You're mixing up average with median Here are 11 fictional home prices. $100,000 $101,000 $102,000 $103,000 $104,000 $105,000 $106,000 $107,000 $650,000 $1,000,000 $3,000,000 The median price of these 11 homes is $105,000. Five homes were lower priced and five homes were higher priced. The average price of these 11 homes is $498,000. That's what you get if you add up all those prices and divide by 11.

Brett... even the most die-hard "non box reader" would be hard pressed to miss this: And you're telling me that addition to the box would't be a good idea?

http://www.customclinic.com/?page_id=37

And yet more embarrassing news for GM from today's NY Times... The four other recalls announced on Monday (June 30) are for a range of problems, but one safety issue in particular, with the Chevrolet Trailblazer, had festered for years. More than 188,000, including the Trailblazer, have a defect that can cause door or window failures, as well as fires. In February 2012, safety regulators opened an investigation into Trailblazers, based on 12 consumer complaints, several of which involved fires. By June 11 of that year, the safety agency had gathered more than 240 related complaints, and 677 related warranty claims had been filed internally at G.M. At first, the automaker issued a "special coverage" notice, but, after talks with regulators, converted the program in August 2012 into a regional recall of vehicles from “salt belt” states. Owners of cars from 21 states received a recall notice that described a “defect” that could cause a sudden fire: “It is advised that you park the vehicle outdoors until it has been remedied.” Owners in the remaining (29) states received a notice with softer language, and there was no mention of a defect or a warning to park outside. Instead, it said, “Do not take your vehicle to your G.M. dealer as a result of this letter unless you believe that your vehicle has the condition as described above.” By the following June, after talking with regulators, G.M. decided to recall the cars in all states. And since then, it has learned of 10 “fires or melting incidents” that occurred after the fix was made, so Monday’s recall was issued. The case caught the attention of federal regulators. In an email to G.M., Frank S. Borris II, its top defect investigator, wrote that regulators did not understand the basis upon which the company had decided to do a regional recall. There is a perception in terms of regional recalls, Mr. Borris wrote, that “G.M. is one of, if not the worst offender.”

And that figure is based on what? I, for one, don't believe it for a second.

Did you read comment 182?

GM trying to hide a known defect for years is an issue. The trial lawyer industry is a different issue. Sure, lawyers play a big part in GM's current problems, but they only got involved after people began dying due to GM's actions. You can say that trial lawyers are taking advantage of a potentially lucrative situation... but you can't blame them for the situation. GM created that.

All the details are in the latest issue of the magazine.

Exactly! That's a selling point! You're getting enough extra parts to build the thing one of two different ways. Why they don't point that out on the box is senseless. Like I said earlier, making it obvious that the kit contains extra "goodies" might actually sell a few more units than otherwise... and in any case, it certainly won't hurt sales. Very bad decision making by the manufacturer if you ask me.

People wouldn't be "confused" with leftover parts if they would have made it obvious on the box that the kit does, in fact, include extra parts! Why couldn't they have put a little "burst" on the box that says "Kit includes parts to build either a drag or stock version" or "Kit can be built two different ways–Drag or stock" or something like that?

I'm just saying that if one wants to be taken seriously by them, the message shouldn't be filled with so many obvious mistakes. You don't need to be an English major.

When I said "not the best way to be taken seriously," I was referring to the email sent to AMT... not to your post. I was agreeing with you!

I was going to say the same exact thing. The message is filled with typos and grammar/punctuation mistakes (more than 9, BTW). Not the best way to be taken seriously...

More background on the faulty ignition switch, which started this whole GM fiasco, excerpted from NBC News (June 15, 2014)... The GM engineer who approved production of a faulty ignition switch implicated in at least 13 deaths was the only person within the company who knew prior to 2013 that the part did not meet manufacturing specifications, according to an internal report. The engineer spent so much time dealing with the part’s technical issues that he referred to it in a 2002 memo as “the switch from hell,” according to the report. The internal report, prepared by former federal prosecutor Anton Valukas, faulted numerous GM employees for failing to “understand or solve the problem,” but it singled out Ray DeGiorgio, the engineer in charge of the faulty ignition switch, for particularly harsh criticism. DeGiorgio, it said, approved the part for production in 2002 despite knowing that it did not meet technical specifications and had failed “rotational torque” tests. It said DeGiorgio told investigators that he approved production of the switch because no performance issues were brought to his attention during its development and “he had no awareness that the below-specification torque would have an impact on the safe operation of the car.” In some cases, the problem resulted in ignition switches accidentally being turned from “run” to the “accessory” or “off” position while a car was being driven, shutting down power brakes, power steering and airbags. GM’s own figures have linked ignition problems to 13 deaths. GM CEO Mary Barra told employees at a town hall meeting that 15 GM employees had been fired and five others disciplined as a result of the review. She did not identify the fired employees, but sources within the company told NBC News that DeGiorgio, program engineering manager Gary Altman, and safety lawyer William Kemp were among them. Barra also said that the internal review found no evidence of a cover-up. Rather, she said, it found a pattern of “misconduct or incompetence” that prevented company officials from linking the faulty ignition switch sooner to deadly crashes that occurred when the cars suddenly stalled on the road. DeGiorgio has previously been in the spotlight in the wake of the recall, particularly when Barra was questioned about his role in the mishandling of the ignition switch problem during congressional hearings in April. But the GM report for the first time clarifies the key role he played in approving the faulty part, and how his actions may inadvertently have prevented other GM experts from connecting the dots. The report indicated that rotational torque problems with a prototype of the ignition switch were first noted by a GM engineer two years earlier than previous reported. It said that design release engineer Calvin Wolf told investigators that a “very early” prototype of the ignition switch under development for use in the Saturn Ion had failed tests for “rotational torque values” in 1999 and that he and representatives of the part’s manufacturer, Eaton, had discussed possible fixes for the problem. But Wolf said he was transferred to a different job in another department soon after the meeting and never heard anything more about the issue. DeGiorgio, who succeeded Wolf as the lead engineer on the ignition switch, approved production of the part and also later recommended that it be used in a new GM model, the Chevy Cobalt, the report said. Officials with Delphi, which bought Eaton’s switch division in 2001, told congressional staff in March that GM signed off on what’s known as a Production Part Approval Process, or PPAP, document in February 2002 for the switch “even though sample testing of the ignition switch was below the original specifications set by GM.” The company has declined to otherwise comment on the matter. The report noted that another significant but different problem with the ignition switch – occurrences of it not cranking or starting vehicles in cold weather – may have preoccupied DeGiorgio and other engineers and delayed them from addressing reports of the “moving stall” problem. The report cited a 2002 email where DeGiorgio instructed a GM supplier, Delphi, not to immediately change the faulty ignition switch because doing so “would compromise the electrical performance of the switch.” Still, the email stated that changes might be necessary before the ignition switch could be used in the Cobalt, which was scheduled for launch in 2004. The e-mail was signed, “Ray (tired of the switch from hell) DeGiorgio.” The report noted that GM engineers working on the Chevy Cobalt also played a role in the ignition switch problem going undetected, saying they “failed to understand what others at GM already knew: when the ignition switch was inadvertently turned to ‘off’ or the accessory position – by design -- the airbags would not deploy." As a result of that misunderstanding, it said the engineers categorized the ignition switch problem as a “convenience” issue rather one of safety. Consequently, instead of implementing a solution to the problem, they “debated partial solutions, short-term fixes, and cost,” it said. It was DeGiorgio who eventually ordered a design change to the switch in 2006 – the use of a slightly longer version of component known as a “detent plunger” -- aimed at preventing the switch from inadvertently being turned off. But he didn’t instruct the manufacturer to change the part number, which could have led GM to notify existing car owners of the defective switch. An engineer working for an attorney representing the parents of a Georgia woman who died in the crash of a Chevrolet Cobalt found that GM had changed two internal ignition parts to make them bigger. The changes would make a key less likely to slip from the “on” to “accessory” position in the ignition while a vehicle was in motion. Those actions, the report said, "prevented investigators for years from learning what had actually taken place." DeGiorgio testified last year in a wrongful death lawsuit in Georgia that he didn’t remember ordering the change and was, in fact, unaware that it had been made. GM’s report noted that “even today … DeGiorgio claims not to remember doing so.” While DeGiorgio was intimately familiar with the shortcomings of the ignition switch, he said last year when he testified at the wrongful death hearing in Georgia that he never believed they would affect the safety of the vehicles they were installed in, noting that he had given his son a 2007 Cobalt. “There’s no way I would have done that … had I any reservations,” he said.

Chris Isaak and Stevie Nicks doing a killer version of Neil Diamond's "Solitary Man"... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mrkai_o0uiU

A memory like that is priceless, John.