Most of you were wrong. Do you have the class to admit it?

[mantisman51]

In several instances states have given land to the car companies and even used universities for R&D. South Carolina actually helped pay for the building of the factories. Those are direct subsidies, not tax breaks. I am seriously not trying to be a smart arse or flippant, but why is it so hard to accept a subsidy given to a foreign car company is far worse than loans to domestic companies? I dislike unions, and I think they are what was the downfall of GM and Chrysler, not poor quality-look at Toyota killing their customers and still chugging along. Now GM and Chrysler were far too slow in realizing their dependence on guzzler SUV's was going to crash and burn, but my 2007 PT Cruiser was the highest quality compact car for 3 or 4 years in a row, so the supposed quality issue is a marketing red herring. I was a Toyota tech for a lot of years and know that the quality issue was just a matter of whoever paid JD Powers and Consumer Reports the most. So what could have been the real problem with American companies? It is the crippling expense caused by 41 year old workers retiring with full health benefits and 80% pay for the Americans and the subsidies by the states and Japanese and Korean governments subsidizing the foreign competition padding their profits. Blaming the failure of American car companies on market forces is simply not true and really dishonest. One of these days we'll talk about the 88-91 Camry PW/PDL relay fire and the 2007-2009 Tundra leaf spring shackle failure forced recalls.

 

[reefraff]

What states did was give breaks, subsidies or whatever to companies that were bringing new jobs into their state. The feds on the other hand handed over a whole lot of money to prevent GM and Chrysler from going through traditional bankruptcy. Both would have survived bankruptcy. The difference is the unions would have been treated like all the other parties instead of being given large portions of both companies. Still trying to figure out how they justified that.

 

[stdreb27]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///forum/thread/385860/most-of-you-were-wrong-do-you-have-the-class-to-admit-it/20#post_3386628
People said that about Pontiac and Oldsmobile. Look where they're at...
Yeah, but for all intents and purposes, you're just loosing a name. You're not talking the GM umbrella. And look if you watched some of those negotiations, I think saturn folded because they were going to manufacture in a non-union state. At least that was the impression I got, the government walked away from decent money on the table...
Quote:
Originally Posted by mantisman51 http:///forum/thread/385860/most-of-you-were-wrong-do-you-have-the-class-to-admit-it/20#post_3386854
Google state subsidies for foreign car manufacturers. States like Tennessee, Georgia and Alabama are giving hundreds of millions in subsidies to the foreign car companies to put their plants there. They are getting direct subsidies from the states, so it is a whole lot more than not paying tariffs. I've yet to hear one Republican or conservative like Lush talk about how anti-free market the state subsidies to foreign makes is.
http://donklephant.com/2008/12/17/republicans-backed-subsidies-for-foreign-car-manufacturers/
http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2002/03/22/loc_tug-of-war_for.html
A good chunk of those dollar amounts include stuff like property tax breaks (imagine that lowering taxes encourages business). Some of it gets a little socialist like described below. And there is a valid debate surrounding the local benefits of offering tax breaks to a company and the revenues it would generate via property values, sales taxes and jobs. But when you have government regulations artificially increasing costs of manufacturing, then to get them to stay domestic you've gotta do something to help offset those costs...
Quote:
Originally Posted by mantisman51 http:///forum/thread/385860/most-of-you-were-wrong-do-you-have-the-class-to-admit-it/40#post_3386887
In several instances states have given land to the car companies and even used universities for R&D. South Carolina actually helped pay for the building of the factories. Those are direct subsidies, not tax breaks. I am seriously not trying to be a smart arse or flippant, but why is it so hard to accept a subsidy given to a foreign car company is far worse than loans to domestic companies? I dislike unions, and I think they are what was the downfall of GM and Chrysler, not poor quality-look at Toyota killing their customers and still chugging along. Now GM and Chrysler were far too slow in realizing their dependence on guzzler SUV's was going to crash and burn, but my 2007 PT Cruiser was the highest quality compact car for 3 or 4 years in a row, so the supposed quality issue is a marketing red herring. I was a Toyota tech for a lot of years and know that the quality issue was just a matter of whoever paid JD Powers and Consumer Reports the most. So what could have been the real problem with American companies? It is the crippling expense caused by 41 year old workers retiring with full health benefits and 80% pay for the Americans and the subsidies by the states and Japanese and Korean governments subsidizing the foreign competition padding their profits. Blaming the failure of American car companies on market forces is simply not true and really dishonest. One of these days we'll talk about the 88-91 Camry PW/PDL relay fire and the 2007-2009 Tundra leaf spring shackle failure forced recalls.
Toyota isn't killing their customers, after the fact, the fed's came back and said they couldn't recreate the issue. You could run around pointing at firestone's and ford exploders. Heck U-haul still won't rent you a trailer to go behind an exploder.... I don't care who you are, you can't make an end user proof car. Stuff breaks...
IMO it is a market issue, union's influence that market, look my family has had nothing but problems with domestic cars. (not trucks) The foreign cars we've had have been bullet proof. On the flip side, the ford truck's we've owned have performed wonderfully. Heck we just replaced the original tranny on a f-100 we've had in the family since 1980.
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///forum/thread/385860/most-of-you-were-wrong-do-you-have-the-class-to-admit-it/40#post_3386914
The feds on the other hand handed over a whole lot of money to prevent GM and Chrysler from going through traditional bankruptcy. Both would have survived bankruptcy. The difference is the unions would have been treated like all the other parties instead of being given large portions of both companies. Still trying to figure out how they justified that.
Precisely the whole point of those bailouts, was to protect the dem's political fund raising, and the laundering system they have in place.

 

[mantisman51]

I didn't mention the sticking peddles, just 2 of many top priority forced recalls that caused deaths of customers.

 

[crimzy]

Quote:
Originally Posted by kjr_trig http:///forum/thread/385860/most-of-you-were-wrong-do-you-have-the-class-to-admit-it/20#post_3386792
Wow, almost like the good old days...The "liberal lawyer" losing another in a line of so many arguments with Reefraff, Darth and Stdreb, just like the old days.
Huh? What? Sorry, must have dozed off for a minute... nice to see what you've all done with this matza ball I threw out there.
Hey KJR, just because you wear plaid pants and a funny hat, doesn't mean you have to be a Republican... does it???

 

[stdreb27]

Quote:
Originally Posted by crimzy http:///forum/thread/385860/most-of-you-were-wrong-do-you-have-the-class-to-admit-it/40#post_3387366
Huh? What? Sorry, must have dozed off for a minute... nice to see what you've all done with this matza ball I threw out there.
Hey KJR, just because you wear plaid pants and a funny hat, doesn't mean you have to be a Republican... does it???
So, how are you doing, did the dust settle on everything?

 

[darthtang aw]

Huh?  What?  Sorry, must have dozed off for a minute...  nice to see what you've all done with this matza ball I threw out there.
 
Hey KJR, just because you wear plaid pants and a funny hat, doesn't mean you have to be a Republican... does it???
 
 
Yep....just like crossdressing street walkers like you must be liberals......by the way, my wife wants a refund....when she asked for ten inches she wasn't referring to your toes.
Darth (support the free market) tang

 

[crimzy]

Quote:
Originally Posted by stdreb27 http:///forum/thread/385860/most-of-you-were-wrong-do-you-have-the-class-to-admit-it/40#post_3387370
So, how are you doing, did the dust settle on everything?
All is well... movin on up like JJ in Good Times...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///forum/thread/385860/most-of-you-were-wrong-do-you-have-the-class-to-admit-it/40#post_3387378
Quote:
Yep....just like crossdressing street walkers like you must be liberals......by the way, my wife wants a refund....when she asked for ten inches she wasn't referring to your toes.
Darth (support the free market) tang
She may want just ten inches but please let her know that she's got to clean the whole damn window...
So hard to find good help these days...

 

[stdreb27]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110601/ap_on_re_us/us_obama_autos_2
success is only loosing 14 billion dollars...

 

[reefraff]

Until they sell off all the stock how do they know how much they will end up losing?

 

[stdreb27]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///forum/thread/385860/most-of-you-were-wrong-do-you-have-the-class-to-admit-it/40#post_3387576
Until they sell off all the stock how do they know how much they will end up losing?
how did they know how many job's Obama's policies had saved?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/30/AR2009103001095.html

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by stdreb27 http:///forum/thread/385860/most-of-you-were-wrong-do-you-have-the-class-to-admit-it/40#post_3387579
how did they know how many job's Obama's policies had saved?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/30/AR2009103001095.html
ZACTLY! They also have millions set aside for Chrysler once Fiat brings a high mileage car to the market. Gee, gas hanging at 3.50 to 4 bux a gallon and the government has to bribe a car company to make a high mileage car? Yeah, right. Just another handout.

 

[stdreb27]

With some of the economic indicators looking a bit dicey, President Obama
Not so fast. The president snuck in the weasel words “during my presidency” in his statement. What does that mean?
According to the White House, Obama is counting only the $8.5 billion loan that he made to Chrysler, not the $4 billion that President George W. Bush extended in his last month in office. However, Obama was not a disinterested observer at the time. According to The Washington Post article on the Bush loan, the incoming president called Bush’s action a “necessary step .?.?. to help avoid a collapse of our auto industry that would have had devastating consequences for our economy and our workers.”
Under the administration’s math, the U.S. government will receive $11.2 billion back from Chrysler, far more than the $8.5 billion Obama extended.
Through this sleight-of-hand accounting, the White House can conveniently ignore Bush’s loan, but even the Treasury Department admits that U.S. taxpayers will not recoup about $1.3 billion of the entire $12.5 billion investment when all is said and done.
The White House justifies not counting the Bush money because, it says, that money was completely spent when Obama was making a tough political decision on whether to extend another loan. In other words, a decision to do nothing at the time would have resulted in the immediate loss of the $4 billion that Bush had extended.
This is chicanery. Under the president’s math, Chrysler paid back 100 percent of Obama’s loan and less than 70 percent of Bush’s loan. A more honest presentation would combine the two figures to say U.S. taxpayers got back 90 percent of what they invested. In fact, that is how the Treasury and other administration officials frequently portray it; it is just when Obama speaks that the numbers get so squishy.
The White House justifies saying that Chrysler will be in 100 percent “in private hands” because there will no longer be government ownership once Fiat completes its purchase of the U.S. stake. For the record, the United Auto Workers will own 46 percent of the company.

“All three American automakers are now adding shifts and creating jobs at the strongest rate since the 1990s.”
The White House says the data to back this claim concerning the Big Three automakers is not public information. The official Bureau of Labor Statistics data refers to the entire auto industry — including foreign auto manufacturers, auto parts manufacturers, auto parts dealers and auto dealers. If you look at the data, the 113,200 jobs added between June 2009 and May 2011 amounts to about a 5 percent increase — from a rather low base.
UPDATE, 10:45 AM: Yen Chen, automotive business statistical analyst at the Center for Automotive Research, says CAR's analysis of Big Three auto data shows this statistic is correct. The Detroit Three are expected to add 10,000 hourly and 5,000 salaried workers this year, from a base of 115,805 hourly workers and 56, 432 salaried workers. That's an increase of about eight percent in each case. More than 16,000 hourly workers were added in 1991, but from a much higher base--440,000-- and 10,000 were also added in 1995, when there were 433,000 hourly workers. Meanwhile, salaried workers have been on a steady decline since 1990 (when the big Three employed 157,000).

“GM plans to hire back all of the workers they had to lay off during the recession.”

This is another impressive-sounding but misleading figure. In the five years since 2006, General Motors announced that it would reduce its workforce by nearly 68,000 hourly and salary workers, creating a much smaller company. Those are the figures that generated the headlines.
Obama is only talking about a sliver of workers — the 9,600 workers who were laid off in the fourth quarter of 2008. About 4,100 were sent home for a few weeks. Another 5,500 were put on indefinite leave, meaning there were no jobs at the time for them. All but 1,000 have returned to work, and the rest should be back at work by year’s end, according to GM spokesman Greg A. Martin.
“In the year before I was President, this industry lost more than 400,000 jobs, and two great American companies, Chrysler and GM, stood on the brink of collapse. Now, we had a few options. We could have done what a lot of folks in Washington thought we should do — nothing.”

This is quite a straw man — that many people wanted to do nothing. It was never so black and white. The debate was over the right course to take in the bankruptcy process.
The Wall Street Journal published Monday an interesting conservative critique of the government’s intervention by David Skeel, a law professor at University of Pennsylvania. Skeel says that the revival of the auto industry “is a very encouraging development,” but “to claim that the car companies would have collapsed if the government hadn’t intervened in the way it did, and to suggest that the intervention came at very little cost, is a dangerous misreading of our recent history.”
To support the claim that “a lot of folks” wanted to do nothing, the White House referred us to statements by the House minority leader, John Boehner (R-Ohio), and Sens. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) and Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.).
We do not read Boehner’s quote that way; in this 2009 comment, he is questioning the administration’s approach while saying, “The success of our automotive industry is critical.”Shelby and Kyl in 2008 were protesting the use of taxpayer funds by Bush to delay a bankruptcy filing; they preferred immediately putting the companies through the bankruptcy process.
It will be up to historians to decide what the best solution would have been for taxpayers and the auto industry. We can understand why the president wants to portray himself as making a lonely and tough decision. But the debate was not either/or, bur rather what was the best policy to bring the automakers back to financial health.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/president-obamas-phony-accounting-on-the-auto-industry-bailout/2011/06/06/AG3nefKH_blog.html

 

[reefraff]

OPEC refused to increase production which pushed oil up like a buck fifty a barrel. It looks like the stock market is heading into a pull back which could crater the housing market, which will in turn pull down the stock market even more. I hope it doesn't happen but if it does 0bama is done. If unemployment is more than 8 percent the Republicans will be able to hammer him over the spending that was supposed to prevent that.

 

[aquaknight]

Quote:
Originally Posted by stdreb27 http:///forum/thread/385860/most-of-you-were-wrong-do-you-have-the-class-to-admit-it/40#post_3389191

“GM plans to hire back all of the workers they had to lay off during the recession.”

This is another impressive-sounding but misleading figure. In the five years since 2006, General Motors announced that it would reduce its workforce by nearly 68,000 hourly and salary workers, creating a much smaller company. Those are the figures that generated the headlines.
Obama is only talking about a sliver of workers — the 9,600 workers who were laid off in the fourth quarter of 2008. About 4,100 were sent home for a few weeks. Another 5,500 were put on indefinite leave, meaning there were no jobs at the time for them. All but 1,000 have returned to work, and the rest should be back at work by year’s end, according to GM spokesman Greg A. Martin.
Lose/lose for GM. It was no secret that GM had an excessive of brands with pretty redundant models. They did what they needed to do (I actually argue against this point, but none-the-less), and "trimmed the fat." How was GM suppose to retain all these excessive workers, producing excessive cars, when GM trimmed Hummer, Saab, Saturn, Pontiac, and even Oldsmobile?
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///forum/thread/385860/most-of-you-were-wrong-do-you-have-the-class-to-admit-it/20#post_3386837
I don't see where either company has reinvented itself. I think the addition of Fiat models will help Chrysler but I looked at Chevys new wonder pickup and the Ford and there was no comparison. Dodge wasn't even on my shopping list.
Chevy's new wonder truck? Que? The current-generation Silverado has been out since MY 2007. Meanwhile the F-150's been refreshed twice since 2007 (in 2009 and 2011). Regardless sales have favored GM. Anyone with half a brain knows that sales are split between the Silverado and Sierra. If you add them together, they typically outsell the F-150. This was certainly the case in 2010.
What I mean by reinvented; here is a list of GM models that are either completely new, or significantly updated within the last few years. One's with a * are the ones I genuinely believe are the best in their class. The rest are strongly competitive. Free feel to call out any of them.
Buick;
Enclave
LaCrosse
Regal*
Cadillac;
Escalade*
CTS
CTS-V*
SRX*
Chevrolet;
Camaro*
Corvette*
Cruze
Malibu
Volt*
Tahoe/Suburban*
Equinox*
Tranverse
Silverado

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by AquaKnight http:///forum/thread/385860/most-of-you-were-wrong-do-you-have-the-class-to-admit-it/40#post_3389357
Lose/lose for GM. It was no secret that GM had an excessive of brands with pretty redundant models. They did what they needed to do (I actually argue against this point, but none-the-less), and "trimmed the fat." How was GM suppose to retain all these excessive workers, producing excessive cars, when GM trimmed Hummer, Saab, Saturn, Pontiac, and even Oldsmobile?
Chevy's new wonder truck? Que? The current-generation Silverado has been out since MY 2007. Meanwhile the F-150's been refreshed twice since 2007 (in 2009 and 2011). Regardless sales have favored GM. Anyone with half a brain knows that sales are split between the Silverado and Sierra. If you add them together, they typically outsell the F-150. This was certainly the case in 2010.
What I mean by reinvented; here is a list of GM models that are either completely new, or significantly updated within the last few years. One's with a * are the ones I genuinely believe are the best in their class. The rest are strongly competitive. Free feel to call out any of them.
Buick;
Enclave
LaCrosse
Regal*
Cadillac;
Escalade*
CTS
CTS-V*
SRX*
Chevrolet;
Camaro*
Corvette*
Cruze
Malibu
Volt*
Tahoe/Suburban*
Equinox*
Tranverse
Silverado
Chevy made some changes to their truck since last year leading them to getting Truck of the Year, changes to the engine and frame mostly. You think Camero is best in class? LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!! Can't argue with the other but GM is still the same company it was before. Did you see where their CEO just came out an said we should raise the Federal Gas tax by 50 cents to a dollar a gallon? My wife's Saturn is the last GM product we'll ever own and not because it hasn't been a good car, it has. Got the one with the caddy engine and the Ford Tranny.

 

[aquaknight]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///forum/thread/385860/most-of-you-were-wrong-do-you-have-the-class-to-admit-it/40#post_3389430
Chevy made some changes to their truck since last year leading them to getting Truck of the Year, changes to the engine and frame mostly. You think Camaro is best in class? LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!! Can't argue with the other but GM is still the same company it was before. Did you see where their CEO just came out an said we should raise the Federal Gas tax by 50 cents to a dollar a gallon? My wife's Saturn is the last GM product we'll ever own and not because it hasn't been a good car, it has. Got the one with the caddy engine and the Ford Tranny.
Ah, that's the HD. The Heavy Duty was redesigned for 2011, minor cosmetic changes but major mechanical, and beat out the Super Duty for Truck of the Year (and the Sierra HD as well). I was more keeping to the standard half-tons, as sell way more units.... For the Camaro, without a doubt I'd pick the Camaro over the Mustang or Challenger (as far as V8 models go). Challenger is just too big/heavy and the performance figures trail the other two by too much. Camaro certainly has the exterior looks over the Mustang, and perhaps an edge in ******** as well, too much painted-silver plastic in the Mustang, though neither is award-worthy. Even with the new 5.0 in the Mustang, the Camaro SS is still faster. May not out-handle the much lighter Mustang, but it's pretty close considering the extra-heft. Many people forget that the Camaro has standard 20's on the SS, vs. the 18"s of Mustang GT. The Camaro has least harsh car I've ever been in with 20's, sort of an S-class Benzo.... For V6's on the otherhand, definitely the Mustang V6 with the perf. pack is the one to get. Though I am not really a "V6" type of person...
As far Akerson's comments on gas tax, every article also quotes Bill Ford Jr. as CEO of Ford, saying the exact same thing. But it's GM so they get bashed.... No hiding the comments are idiotic, especially when he starts getting into "Our customers should be buying more Cruzes and less Suburbans." That's just an instant facepalm. These green morons act like everyone has the exact same needs from a vehicle. Do they really think people who buy Suburbans use them strictly to commute 40mins to work everyday? Or do most of them tend to actually have a need for such a vehicle (towing a trailer and hauling people). Just towed a 15" box trailer from Orlando to here in our Suby. 75mph, not the slightest complaint the whole way. How can a Cruze do that? Can a Cruze launch a 25' Cuddy Cabin down a slippery boat ramp?
I can only figure two things, either these green lunatics think every household can afford 3-4 cars, or want us to be nothing more then drones, driving shoeboxes from point A to B, and back, as we serve the "greater good." Thinking more the latter....

 

[reefraff]

Road and track disagrees about your best in class opinion.
As far as the gas tax in like 2008 Ford's CEO said it was worth exploring an increase. Big difference between that and calling for a 50 cent to a dollar increase, especially when you pin the hopes of your company future on an electric car LOL!
What is impressive about both cars is the V6 performance. 14 flat in a quarter. That is crazy.

 

[aquaknight]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///forum/thread/385860/most-of-you-were-wrong-do-you-have-the-class-to-admit-it/40#post_3389882
Road and track disagrees about your best in class opinion.
What is impressive about both cars is the V6 performance. 14 flat in a quarter. That is crazy.
Ja, I know R&D has a different option If you look at the retard scores they give both, anyone will see why (they both receive the same scores for exterior styling? Really? Come on... The Mustang looks just as good as the Camaro???). But regardless it's honestly not like both cars are really, really close, and even if you think the Mustang is a better car, can't say that it's a landslide much better car. It's just of matter of "what's importants" to the individual judging...
To R&D, it was the crisper handling and sharper steering of the Mustang that won out. That's all well and good, except for the fact that Camaro only lapped the track 0.1 seconds slower then the Mustang. You'd just have to get rid of the Camaro's 20" wheels, and use the 18" that the Mustang had, and that'll make up that 0.1sec difference... Where's all the positives for the Camaro, including everyday ride/comfort, which in reality is what you'd be doing 99.9% of the time....
The V6 is performance is definitely impressive for the price (a V6 Audi S4, will run 12's in the quarter, but for double the price). I just think it would be really interesting to see what these companies could do with their V8's, if they really pumped all the effort they put into the V6's (500hp without having to resort to a blowner, and 20mpg? Now we're talking (about a Corvette actually now that I think about it

))
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///forum/thread/385860/most-of-you-were-wrong-do-you-have-the-class-to-admit-it/40#post_3389882
As far as the gas tax in like 2008 Ford's CEO said it was worth exploring an increase. Big difference between that and calling for a 50 cent to a dollar increase, especially when you pin the hopes of your company future on an electric car LOL!
I guess this just isn't a bright guy in terms of watching what he says. GM has had these seemingly. Former GM exec Bob Lutz is very famously quoted as "Global warming is a crock of s***." And Akerson himself said in December that "he wouldn't be caught dead in a Prius." (though it was plugging how good the Volt looks in comparison).
As far as leaving GM, yea, even GM-homers like myself will eventually have enough. To be blunt, Cadillac and the Corvette are why I'm such a homer as it us. The other domestics certainly don't offer anything close. Honda is out in right field, Toyota/Lexus is kinda there, Nissan/Infiniti is closer... Not sure I make Euro-car type money though...

 

[reefraff]

If the Ossiah hadn't given GM to the unions I suspect Caddy and Chevy would be GM, maybe Saturn too. Too bad they killed that line off. We have an Aura, the one with the Ford 6 speed and the Caddy 24 valve V6. Been a pretty good care and is quick.
I bought a 2011 F350 and I am puzzled how the Chevy HD won truck of the year over this. I'd flip a coin on looks but the Ford drive train was more user friendly and seemed to have better standard features. What really turned my away from Chevy was how thin the metal in the bed walls was. Chevy's little frame trick they showed on the "head to head" test was cute but who's going to be a big enough idiot to do that in real life? On the other hand how many times is something going to slap the side of the truck?