Chuck Most Posted July 13, 2009 Posted July 13, 2009 Even though I am now, technically, a part-owner in GM, I will never buy one. You'd think I'd actually LIKE a product line that I own, but I sure don't! I'll stick with my FoMoCo's and Mopes, thankyouverymuch!
CAL Posted July 13, 2009 Posted July 13, 2009 I can understand your feelings, but have you considered that ancient bit of advice that goes like this (my paraphrasing): "Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. Teach him (give him the means) to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime". Isn't that really what has happened here anyway? And, BTW, when last I read, what GM and Chrysler have gotten from the government are not handouts, but loans, and by definition, a loan is expected to be repaid, with interest. If this all is successful, and I will bet that it will be, then the government (and by definition, those of us who are taxpayers) will get that money back, with interest. On balance, I see this as having all manner of potential for a win-win situation, not some nebulous government giveaway. Art I am not sure that proverb works here. How is anyone going to teach them anything that they couldn't learn in 30+ years? What part of British Leyland don't people understand. They built the worst cars ever other than the Communists. They eventually failed. And the UK auto industry never recovered from it. Reminds me of a great quote from Winston Churchill. You can always count on the Americans to do the right thing, only after they have tried EVERY thing else first. When has anything the US Government done anything that you could call succesful? I was listening to some show the other day and Expert 1 says now you got to get the public to want to buy GM Car. Expert 2 says, no you don't you just have to sell a ###### load of cars. MORONS
old-hermit Posted July 13, 2009 Posted July 13, 2009 When has anything the US Government done anything that you could call succesful? We went to the moon and back !!!!!!!!! 'course that was 40 years ago.
CAL Posted July 13, 2009 Posted July 13, 2009 We went to the moon and back !!!!!!!!! 'course that was 40 years ago. I rest my case, and a lot of good came out of that besides just going to the moon and back. No no no, I know, don't worry we're Americans damit and we can make 1+1 = 3 where the rest of the resonable people in the world still only come up with 2.
old-hermit Posted July 13, 2009 Posted July 13, 2009 I rest my case, and a lot of good came out of that besides just going to the moon and back. Hey, we got Tang & Velcro !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Chuck Most Posted July 13, 2009 Posted July 13, 2009 What part of British Leyland don't people understand. Never has one little sentence summed up GMs straits so well! Come on, they are American British Leyland! Although- Top Gear did prove that BL did build A good car... a brown '78 Austin Princess piloted by James 'Captain Slow' May!
cosmiccadillac Posted July 13, 2009 Posted July 13, 2009 Yes but the deficit has been breaking records for about the past 5 to 6 years. When the Obama administration entered office what did they really have to work with? Certainly not the surplus that Clinton left behind. There had already been hundreds of billions of dollars of bailouts handed out. Yes, handed out, not loaned. An unjustifialbe war in the middle east that is a money vacuum for the U.S. taxpayers. So basically what I'm saying Harry is if I hand you my debit card with -$200 in it, how can I get mad when it's in your possesion and the overdraft fees kicked in and now its -$236? Wasn't your fault was it? Absolutely not. Seems like a good analogy of what the current administration has gotten stuck with. So I'm sorry if automobiles seem trivial to me when every day young men and women are killed and mamed for a war with no reason. Send the troops back home we'll save a lot of money that way too. Yes, but he broke ALL the records for our whole history, COMBINED. Yes, it would be his fault. Thats where respect for other people's money comes into play. This is something that SHOULD be common sense, but unfortunately isnt any more... I don't defend or approve of the war, nor am I against it. We the people have been lied to time and time again by our government and the mainstream media (which might as well be 1 entity), and I don't think very many people at all know exactly why we are over there. In an ideal world, I don't believe in war, BUT we do not live in an ideal world by ANY means.
CAL Posted July 13, 2009 Posted July 13, 2009 (edited) Yes but the deficit has been breaking records for about the past 5 to 6 years. When the Obama administration entered office what did they really have to work with? Certainly not the surplus that Clinton left behind. There had already been hundreds of billions of dollars of bailouts handed out. Yes, handed out, not loaned. An unjustifialbe war in the middle east that is a money vacuum for the U.S. taxpayers. So basically what I'm saying Harry is if I hand you my debit card with -$200 in it, how can I get mad when it's in your possesion and the overdraft fees kicked in and now its -$236? Wasn't your fault was it? Absolutely not. Seems like a good analogy of what the current administration has gotten stuck with. So I'm sorry if automobiles seem trivial to me when every day young men and women are killed and mamed for a war with no reason. Send the troops back home we'll save a lot of money that way too. The problem is they charged up $2 million on your $200 CC and handed it back. Now how do you feel about it? You'd be like, "Oh ######, now what-da I do?" And while Clinton did leave with a surplus most all road lead back to him. Edited July 13, 2009 by CAL
Harry P. Posted July 13, 2009 Author Posted July 13, 2009 Here's the part that kills me: Candidate (and later President) Obama complains that his administration inherited a big deficit from the Bush administration. And that was a bad thing. True enough. So how does the Obama administration deal with the large deficit they inherited, this bad thing the Bush administration saddled them with?? They make it hugely BIGGER!!!! But now, suddenly a huge deficit is a good thing!!! To recap: Bush grows the deficit. BAD thing. Obama grows the deficit even more. Now it's a GOOD thing. You can't have a more blatant double standard than that...
CAL Posted July 13, 2009 Posted July 13, 2009 (edited) Here's the part that kills me: Candidate (and later President) Obama complains that his administration inherited a big deficit from the Bush administration. And that was a bad thing. True enough. So how does the Obama administration deal with the large deficit they inherited, this bad thing the Bush administration saddled them with?? They make it hugely BIGGER!!!! But now, suddenly a huge deficit is a good thing!!! To recap: Bush grows the deficit. BAD thing. Obama grows the deficit even more. Now it's a GOOD thing. You can't have a more blatant double standard than that... And they want to grow it bigger yet. Having only spent 7% of the trillions they already got their are some now saying it wasn't enough and are calling for more. (another $700 TRILLION). Yeah, so much for Hope and Change... we just got more of the same only on a grander scale. Obama has essentially adopted Bush policies on virtually everything and put them into hyperdrive. The few things where he's opposed to Bush he has been idle on. Edited July 13, 2009 by CAL
Modelmartin Posted July 14, 2009 Posted July 14, 2009 Wow ! This thread has been really civil and well-mannered. Is Jairus on Vacation? I ask you all this...... could the Government do worse than the Pontiac Aztek??? I rest my case.
James Flowers Posted July 14, 2009 Posted July 14, 2009 You can take your choice, Democrats , Republicans, CEO"S or anyone else in charge, put them in a bag shake them up and what you get is a load of xxxxxxxx ! They all lie, cheat and steal anything anywhere they can. If you think they care about you ?You are dead wrong .
Harry P. Posted July 14, 2009 Author Posted July 14, 2009 You can take your choice, Democrats , Republicans, CEO"S or anyone else in charge, put them in a bag shake them up and what you get is a load of xxxxxxxx ! They all lie, cheat and steal anything anywhere they can. If you think they care about you ?You are dead wrong . Unfortunately, you're exactly right. Maybe not all of them, but the vast majority... On a sort of related note: Now that GM has restructured, is the Volt still on schedule to be produced?
CAL Posted July 14, 2009 Posted July 14, 2009 Unfortunately, you're exactly right. Maybe not all of them, but the vast majority... On a sort of related note: Now that GM has restructured, is the Volt still on schedule to be produced? That is what they are saying, but why bother who's going to want one?
Rob Hall Posted July 14, 2009 Posted July 14, 2009 Unfortunately, you're exactly right. Maybe not all of them, but the vast majority... On a sort of related note: Now that GM has restructured, is the Volt still on schedule to be produced? Supposedly, late next year for MY '11. Along with the Cruze (Cobalt replacement), and eventually the Orlando, Viva (Aveo replacement), and Spark are coming in the next year or two. I'm not into small FWD cars, so none of those appeal to me, but I find the rumor that the G8 will be rebadged as a Caprice more interesting...
Harry P. Posted July 14, 2009 Author Posted July 14, 2009 That is what they are saying, but why bother who's going to want one? I was just wondering how much input the government now has as far as upcoming products... since they obviously have a lot of input into executive hiring and firing... even more than the company board! I figured maybe the feds might have killed the Volt program.
Rob Hall Posted July 14, 2009 Posted July 14, 2009 I was just wondering how much input the government now has as far as upcoming products... since they obviously have a lot of input into executive hiring and firing... even more than the company board! I figured maybe the feds might have killed the Volt program. It's probably their most important program, so I don't think it will get killed. The Volt is GM's chance to have something green to compete with the Prius and Insight..
Harold Posted July 15, 2009 Posted July 15, 2009 It took President Roosevelt bushel baskets full of money, myriad government programs and several years before the economy started to recover from the '29 crash. History repeats itself yet again. What bothers me, though, is that these people who rail about the trillion dollar cost of a national health care system don't bat an eye when it comes to trhe trillion dollars blown on a war to nowhere, waged on spurious information. Try to find work in a state with 15% unemployment when you're over 50, and add to that a bad leg and a bad back. Had it not been for student loans and the support of family, I'd be living in a dumpster. I (and many others) live with pain as a daily thing and take it as a given that we gotta like it or lump it because care is beyond reach, yet we'll shell out gobs of green to the very financial institutions that got us into this fetid swamp in the first place.
Draggon Posted July 15, 2009 Posted July 15, 2009 The sad part of this is that there are people in our country that actually believe that having the government involved is a good idea. Now, approaching "senior" status, and having been around fer awhile, I have seen many things taken on by government and run into the ground. The city I live in, with its infinite wisdom, has built a water park for XX million dollars, opening this month. If they make $10 a head, not counting what it costs to run it, it will take 14 years to pay it off. I cant imagine how much $$ it will lose taking these things into account. I am truly concerned that the guvvamint will decide that GM is now part of a "single-payer" type auto industry and the only cars we will be allowed to buy are those hybrid mini-*#$@'s they are supposed to build. I saw a Nissan ad the other day, touting the government subsidy thing....$4500. So now the administration wants to pay us to buy foreign cars? Its as though we the taxpayers are forking out lots of $$ to cripple the free America we live in. A couple of years ago I laughed at that chinese garbage they were calling cars. I am wondering how long it will be before one of those pieces is outselling a US manufacturer.
CAL Posted July 15, 2009 Posted July 15, 2009 It's probably their most important program, so I don't think it will get killed. The Volt is GM's chance to have something green to compete with the Prius and Insight.. How in the world is a Volt ever going to compete with a Prius or Insight?
cosmiccadillac Posted July 15, 2009 Posted July 15, 2009 It's probably their most important program, so I don't think it will get killed. The Volt is GM's chance to have something green to compete with the Prius and Insight.. By "green" you mean more harmful to the environment than a Hummer. Hippie stands for hypocrite, and thats exactly what all these enviro-dorks are, and NOTHING MORE.
Modelmartin Posted July 15, 2009 Posted July 15, 2009 By "green" you mean more harmful to the environment than a Hummer. Hippie stands for hypocrite, and thats exactly what all these enviro-dorks are, and NOTHING MORE. There goes the civility! So you are calling me a Hypocrite and a Dork. That's just wonderful now, isn't it. Where are your manners? We need to put the politeness back into politics. Screw the issues! Nothing will ever get done if we don't respect each other. We don't have to agree, we just have to be civil to each other.
Harry P. Posted July 15, 2009 Author Posted July 15, 2009 Nothing will ever get done if we don't respect each other. We don't have to agree, we just have to be civil to each other. That's right folks! If we're going to talk about things that we disagree on, let's at least disagree agreeably...
Harry P. Posted July 15, 2009 Author Posted July 15, 2009 How in the world is a Volt ever going to compete with a Prius or Insight? That's why I was thinking maybe the Volt would be axed by the feds... it doesn't have the range of a Prius or Insight, yet it costs a whole lot more (I've heard projected cost estimates of $35-40,000).
Art Anderson Posted July 15, 2009 Posted July 15, 2009 Wow ! This thread has been really civil and well-mannered. Is Jairus on Vacation? I ask you all this...... could the Government do worse than the Pontiac Aztek??? I rest my case. For starters, hasn't the government already had its hands all over the design and development of cars for what, 35 years now? Sure, some of the dictats from the US Congress made and make some real sense: Things like seat belts/shoulder harnesses, air bags (how many could Senator Foghorn or Congressman Windbag inflate in a single speech?), and who among us who were driving and buying cars in the mid-70's can forget the "log beam bumpers" foisted on us by Congress in order to protect us from ourselves, and deny (hopefully) body shops from having to fix fender benders at our expense? The arbitrary move toward catalytic converters abruptly led to American cars having their fuel mileage drop from near 20mpg to sometimes less than 10, all that on the cusp of the first Arab oil boycott. Talk about our elected representatives shooting our auto industry in the foot (Oh and by the way, catalytic converters were pushed, and pushed HARD by the then governor of California, Edmund "Pat" Brown, who among other things, held a major stake in the company holding the patent on the catalytic converter). When I think of cars, and then I think of my several relatives who fly airplanes for pleasure and personal travel, I have to consider that aircraft owners and pilots, along with the companies who manufacture (or used to manufacture) them, have dealt with stringent (certainly in comparison to the auto industry) government regulations as to the design, care, maintenance and operation of those thousands of Cessnas and Pipers, not to mention the Aeronca's, Mooneys, Travelairs and Stinsons that went before them. What if our personal automobiles had to meet even a percentage of the rules and regulations regarding design, worthiness for use on the highways; what if drivers had to meet even a percentage level of the requirements for skill, obedience to traffic laws, and their own physical conditions and capabilities of those required of general aviation pilots? But, in the same breath that government at all levels tries to manage the cars we buy and drive, government also has allowed streets and roads to be built, and continue to exist that are simply dotted with hazards, from blind curves which often are cambered to the outside as opposed to being banked toward the inside, often slipshod paving, even the basic construction of them (all in the name of low bid contracting). Just this morning, I watched a semi tractor, with as long a wheelbase as I ever see in Indiana, try to make a right turn, from a 4-lane thoroughfare onto a two-lane one way uphill stretch of street, both of which were designed and constructed just 10 yrs ago, so tight in clearance that the driver wound up climbing the center island, the tandem wheels of the 53' trailer riding up and over the 8" curb at the corner, and BOTH of these routes are designated truck routes (the tractor trailer was making a delivery to the University where I work). As the design and engineering of this monsterpiece of infrastructure was done at INDOT in Indianapolis, I have to wonder just where the engineers involved got their Civil Engineering degrees--out of some cereal box? In so many ways, regardless of the cars that get designed, produced, bought and driven, no matter how sophisticated they may be, we still have a very "horse and buggy" attitude when it comes to the PRIVILEGE of being able to drive one on the public streets. Likewise, when infrastructure is being designed and built, all too often, it seems to me that what gets built is built as though it was the 1850's, done for cheap, and maintained only when politicians are embarrassed when a bridge collapses in the capital city of a state, or a major highway becomes so full of holes that constituents are ready to advance on the statehouse with lanterns and pitchforks, demanding a solution. If government were seriously concerned about the consumption of gasoline and the resulting carbon dioxide spewed into the atmosphere, would not logic dictate that government would take a serious, and much longer look at the proliferation of shopping centers, strip and covered malls that continue to be built so as to be accessible by cars only, often miles away from a large portion of shoppers who would patronize them? The same with suburban development--what sense is there in having to drive mega-miles every day, just to commute to a job, and then be coerced into buying crampact cars in orde to do that? I vividly recall that just 40 yrs ago this very summer, I was sitting in a marketing class in college (Trimester system) and hearing a lecture on how fully 50% of the jobs in the US being dependent on the automobile--then in the next breath the professor asking if it really was necessary for that to be? Where is government when any of the issues I point out here should be addressed? Hmmmm? Art
Recommended Posts