Posted: 12/4/2008 5:51:16 PM EDT
|
Norseman1 said, "For the record, I too am against the bail out.
I didn't say he was perfect. The bail out is without a doubt a double edged sword. Am I for it? Not the way the final bill was written. As you can see, TONS of industries all want their bailout now. Do I think Norm made a good decision on this? not really, to be honest. But, his excuses for voting for it are not completely w/o merit. Just that I think the good does not out weight the bad. But, to somehow assume the bailout is 100% wrong is not a realistic approach to the matter. This needs to be a whole separate thread if you want to debate it more." Someone recently said that it was a shame that the weakest arguments used in Congress were arguments from morality and arguments from constitutionality. At risk of being sucked into that unfortunate trap, I challenge anyone who demands a "common sense", carefully-crafted, policy initiative with subtle nuances to show me where the federal government is given the legal authority by We the People in the Constitution of the United States. I don't know about you, but I don't remember giving them this sort of authority. As a result, any bailout effort is illegal and anyone in Washington who supports it should be impeached, removed from office, and run out of town on a rail without delay. Please comment on this, because I've thought about this for months and have unstoppable arguments against anything that can be thrown at my claim. |
|
Quoted:
Norseman1 said, "For the record, I too am against the bail out. I didn't say he was perfect. The bail out is without a doubt a double edged sword. Am I for it? Not the way the final bill was written. As you can see, TONS of industries all want their bailout now. Do I think Norm made a good decision on this? not really, to be honest. But, his excuses for voting for it are not completely w/o merit. Just that I think the good does not out weight the bad. But, to somehow assume the bailout is 100% wrong is not a realistic approach to the matter. This needs to be a whole separate thread if you want to debate it more." Someone recently said that it was a shame that the weakest arguments used in Congress were arguments from morality and arguments from constitutionality. At risk of being sucked into that unfortunate trap, I challenge anyone who demands a "common sense", carefully-crafted, policy initiative with subtle nuances to show me where the federal government is given the legal authority by We the People in the Constitution of the United States. I don't know about you, but I don't remember giving them this sort of authority. As a result, any bailout effort is illegal and anyone in Washington who supports it should be impeached, removed from office, and run out of town on a rail without delay. Please comment on this, because I've thought about this for months and have unstoppable arguments against anything that can be thrown at my claim. Amen. Capitalism by definition does not allow for the government to pick economic winners and losers and financially support them. You can not support any government (taxpayer) funded bailout, subsidized loan, or the like, and (IMHO) call yourself a conservative or say that you believe in a capitalist system. Bubbles burst, and we are just going thru the bursting of the last bubble. |
|
I may be too narrow-sighted on this but my feelings are that when the auto industry starts selling vehicles at blow-out prices and still can't make it, let's consider helping but I don't see them doing this. Move out the high-end models and then concentrate on making barebones versions priced to sell. It reminds me of a line from The Simpsons, "We've tried nothing and we're all out of options."
Also, where was the auto industry when gas was at $4 per gallon? No one was there to bail us out least of all them. We sucked it up, drove less and prioritized where we drove and how often we did it. Maybe the auto industry should hit up their bedfellow, the petroleum industry, for a bail-out. Finally, in 1996 Chevy quit making the police 9C1 and Impala SS in favor of their Tahoe/Suburban/Pick-up line due to them being more profitable. Where'd the profits go? Is there no planning for a rainy day? Good times don't last forever and these companies should know this. Like I said, I don't know all the ins and outs so I'm probably too narrow-sighted but that's my uneducated opinion. Scott |
|
Quoted:
I may be too narrow-sighted on this but my feelings are that when the auto industry starts selling vehicles at blow-out prices and still can't make it, let's consider helping but I don't see them doing this. Move out the high-end models and then concentrate on making barebones versions priced to sell. It reminds me of a line from The Simpsons, "We've tried nothing and we're all out of options." Also, where was the auto industry when gas was at $4 per gallon? No one was there to bail us out least of all them. We sucked it up, drove less and prioritized where we drove and how often we did it. Maybe the auto industry should hit up their bedfellow, the petroleum industry, for a bail-out. Finally, in 1996 Chevy quit making the police 9C1 and Impala SS in favor of their Tahoe/Suburban/Pick-up line due to them being more profitable. Where'd the profits go? Is there no planning for a rainy day? Good times don't last forever and these companies should know this. Like I said, I don't know all the ins and outs so I'm probably too narrow-sighted but that's my uneducated opinion. Scott I don't believe that's particularly narrow-sighted at all, but the $4 a gallon is something that I think was propped up by government activity. For years, they've been finding ways to dump a bunch of extra money into the system. For this reason I think that the prosperity of the late '90's was a sham. Ditto to the runup in housing prices that have left many people holding the bag when the price of their artificially overvalued home collapsed. And they're still dumping money into the system. The only reason prices are down is because of a perception that nobody has the money to buy things. The money is out there in the system, but the people aren't taking the bait...yet. When things recover, I fear what will happen to the prices of things. This isn't over yet, not by a long shot. |
I had issues with the first version of the bailout and asked my reps to vote against it then. Imagine my horror when the second version came out, and passed because they were able to buy enough votes with about $50b in pork. I am also ashamed that Ramstad voted for it the second time, but how can you blame him. He spent many years fighting for his mental health bill and because they added that as a pork item there was no way he could vote against it 
As far as the bailouts....the precedent is set. First banks, then investment companies who change their charter to a bank to qualify, then automakers. Wonder who is next? The news last night had the White Bear art class asking for about at $25k loan under the guise that it would harm the restaurants, framing shops and neighboring businesses if they went under. I'm wondering why (like GM should be asking for loans from Big Oil) that private businesses cannot invest if it will hurt them soo much. As far as bailing out "failing homeowners"...don't get me started. Bailing out people who were already living on credit and overstretched themselves with houses that were larger than they needed, do NOT need me to subsidize their mortgage. I bought a house I could afford and chose a mortgage that was not the equivalent of rolling at the craps table (Option Arms among others). Look at the auto section of the Strib from Thursday, and you will see a 1/2ton Pickup truck from Ford with a "Base price" of $37k. Ouch. If you can't afford your mortgage, you shouldn't be driving a vehicle that expensive. Cars are too expensive and wisely people are actually refraining from buying unnecessary luxuries (what is wrong with a used vehicle?). I have to cry myself to sleep at night with the thought that the government is demanding that auto makers and auto loan companies extend credit to known poor credit risks to sell cars. Dammit...that is what got Fannie and Freddie in trouble 
I am getting really sick of people preventing people from experiencing pain. We are NOT hurting in this country yet. Until we actually experience REAL pain, we should not be bailing anyone out. Like an alky, they must realize they have a problem before anyone else can really help them. And "help" does not mean paying their mortgage to maintain their artificial standard of living, it means helping them get rid of it and getting one they can afford on their own. I would take the same stand with the bailout as I do with Welfare. It is needed in extreme circumstances and should be used to get people back on their feet. BUT, there needs to be time limits and proof that you are attempting to correct the situation and get off assistance. The Big Three's first act in front of congress exactly demonstrates this. They had no idea what they are going to do with the money, why they even need it in the first place, and how they are going to change to make due without it. Refusing to even consider Bankruptcy is a major mistake for them as well. You want a bailout, you better have a plan on how you are going to wean yourself from the gob'mnt teat. If you think a company in Ch 11 is going to make fewer people buy a car from them than simply having the company drift down the river towards the dam without a paddle is silly. Anyone see the sidebar on the front page of the Redstar today suggesting as an option to correct the projected state deficit by "grabbing" the newly voted sales tax increase for reasons other than the outdoors? Sadly, it wasn't even stated like that...just a vague "can they grab the money". 
/rant. Attempt to have a great weekend. |
|
Quoted:
Yup. Pretty much sums up my opinions as well. They're not STOPPING any potential collapse. Only delaying the inevitable, and likely worsening the severity of the looming disaster to come.  I would almost argue that the bailouts will immediately make things worse. Not only is congress currently encouraging people who don't really need cars to buy cars on credit, they are also encouraging first time homeowners to start buying houses (I know that people need to buy houses on the market but encouraging people to buy things they cannot afford is NOT a good idea). I even heard on the radio last night that some experts felt the Fed should lower mortgage rates down to 4% so those people can afford to buy them. I'm sorry, but as a current home owner now, if the difference between 4 and 6.5% make a house unaffordable, you simply cannot afford that house. You will not be able to afford the taxes, maintenance, paint, re-roof, new furnace every 20 years, etc. I'm not an economist, and my last econ class was nearly 20 years ago, but I have to believe that part of the problem right now is that interest rates are TOO LOW. Loans are risky right now, as everyone seems to be on the verge of defaulting and walking away. What sane person of sound mind would make a risky loan for a low 4 or 5% return? If interest rates were up around 8% or higher, I feel you would find far more people willing to actually loan people money (and you still have to pay taxes on that 4% interest earned, so your yield for a high risk loan will be marginally above inflation, especially after we printed soo much green this year). The Risk of giving away cash in hand simply does not give a high enough reward. ETA: The current "Credit crisis" isn't "We can't borrow money", it is that "No one is willing to lend it". The Fed, Treasury, and Congress all want to encourage more people to loan money by LOWERING interest rates....Think about that logic for a minute. Is it time for beer yet? My head hurts. |
|
On the auto companies wanting a bailout, what happened to the days when it was the same model for a few years? Ford had the same body from what, '80 to 86? then in '90-91, and 92 til 96? Now it's something different each year. Any idea what all that tooling and engineering costs?
Frankly, I miss the days of my '82 Ford with a manual transmission 
|
|
Quoted:
On the auto companies wanting a bailout, what happened to the days when it was the same model for a few years? You see what Chevy did in the '07 Silverado Trucks? They changed body styles mid model year. It's bad enough the HD truck has a different engine from 06 (more gov mandated emissions instituted end of calendar year, not model year), they have to have parts for "New body style '07" and "Old body style '07). Mid year 2005 they also changed engine tuning and the entire transmission, doubling the number of parts they need to stock. The changes were not significant enough that they couldn't wait for the next model year, but they HAD to have increased costs significantly in tooling, parts, engineering and if they even did any, testing. As for the Auto Bailouts. Go take a look at how many shop hours and tools it takes to change a tail light bulb on a 2007 Buick Lucerne and tell me if engineering like that should be rewarded? (Hint, it requires at least socket set). Compare that to a Toyota, which can be changed without tools in under 2 minutes. It is certainly a way to keep people going back to the dealer, that's for sure. I know my family is done with Chevy's after changing a taillight over thanksgiving (and both myself and my dad have them). I certainly cannot blame the rest of the country for buying a better engineered vehicle. |
|
Quoted:
I would almost argue that the bailouts will immediately make things worse. Not only is congress currently encouraging people who don't really need cars to buy cars on credit, they are also encouraging first time homeowners to start buying houses (I know that people need to buy houses on the market but encouraging people to buy things they cannot afford is NOT a good idea). I even heard on the radio last night that some experts felt the Fed should lower mortgage rates down to 4% so those people can afford to buy them. I'm sorry, but as a current home owner now, if the difference between 4 and 6.5% make a house unaffordable, you simply cannot afford that house. You will not be able to afford the taxes, maintenance, paint, re-roof, new furnace every 20 years, etc. I'm not an economist, and my last econ class was nearly 20 years ago, but I have to believe that part of the problem right now is that interest rates are TOO LOW. Loans are risky right now, as everyone seems to be on the verge of defaulting and walking away. What sane person of sound mind would make a risky loan for a low 4 or 5% return? If interest rates were up around 8% or higher, I feel you would find far more people willing to actually loan people money (and you still have to pay taxes on that 4% interest earned, so your yield for a high risk loan will be marginally above inflation, especially after we printed soo much green this year). The Risk of giving away cash in hand simply does not give a high enough reward. ETA: The current "Credit crisis" isn't "We can't borrow money", it is that "No one is willing to lend it". The Fed, Treasury, and Congress all want to encourage more people to loan money by LOWERING interest rates....Think about that logic for a minute. Is it time for beer yet? My head hurts. I hate to dispute you, but the Fed CANNOT lower mortgage rates to 4%. Only the market can. The Fed can only do things to encourage that. I am predicting that you will never see 4% mortgage rates. Secondly, there are more affordable houses out there than ever and credit qualifying programs are more conservative than they have been since 1996. I have many clients that bought homes for their families at less than $120,000. The same homes were selling 2 years ago for $220,000 or higher. That's the market at work. Plus, if someone is going to default on their mortgage, then shame on them. At this point, the decision makers are making the conservative loans only. The bottom line is trying to tell people they Can't or Shouldn't buy houses is the exact same behavior that people around here jump all over. Same as "Can't" buy more than one gun a month... |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
On the auto companies wanting a bailout, what happened to the days when it was the same model for a few years? You see what Chevy did in the '07 Silverado Trucks? They changed body styles mid model year. It's bad enough the HD truck has a different engine from 06 (more gov mandated emissions instituted end of calendar year, not model year), they have to have parts for "New body style '07" and "Old body style '07). Mid year 2005 they also changed engine tuning and the entire transmission, doubling the number of parts they need to stock. The changes were not significant enough that they couldn't wait for the next model year, but they HAD to have increased costs significantly in tooling, parts, engineering and if they even did any, testing. As for the Auto Bailouts. Go take a look at how many shop hours and tools it takes to change a tail light bulb on a 2007 Buick Lucerne and tell me if engineering like that should be rewarded? (Hint, it requires at least socket set). Compare that to a Toyota, which can be changed without tools in under 2 minutes. It is certainly a way to keep people going back to the dealer, that's for sure. I know my family is done with Chevy's after changing a taillight over thanksgiving (and both myself and my dad have them). I certainly cannot blame the rest of the country for buying a better engineered vehicle. I hear you on that... Pretty much every vehicle I've ever owned was a GM until I got my Toyota. My wife drives a '98 Ford Taurus, and to change out her headlight/blinker you have to remove 4 bolts holding it in place. 3 are accessible on top, the 4th one is only accessible from underneath with either a specialized wrench, or you have to take nearly the whole damn front bumper off to use a regular wrench or socket wrench!!! 
Who TF thought up that brilliant idea!?!? 
I just snap off a rubber seal on my Camry's light, unhook a small metal clip, and pull the light out! Pop a new one in, clip it down, snap the rubber seal back on and connect the wire! Easy as sh!t! GM USED TO DESIGN LIKE THAT back in the 1980's! I really loved my 1985 Oldsmobile... 
it's the service at the stealerships that drove the nail in the GM coffin for me though. That, and all their newer vehicles I drove all had electrical problems, were sluggish, their ACTUAL fuel economy wasn't even CLOSE to what they advertized, and they were pretty fugly. 
ETA: MCN, I hear what you're saying about "Can't", but just because you CAN, doesn't mean it's a good idea. Just because I CAN buy a new gun each month, doesn't mean it's a good idea or that I actually CAN afford it (I think paying mortgage/bills takes higher priority). |
|
Quoted:
ETA: MCN, I hear what you're saying about "Can't", but just because you CAN, doesn't mean it's a good idea. Just because I CAN buy a new gun each month, doesn't mean it's a good idea or that I actually CAN afford it (I think paying mortgage/bills takes higher priority). Yeah, but you don't hear me saying you CAN'T do you? ETA: You can bitch about the bailout all you want, but know that things in my industry are totally different now. Only speak factually if you know what you are talking about. I think the bailout is bogus, too. I also think that for the first time in years, first time homebuyers with a reasonable down payment can finally buy an affordable house for their families. I can point to countless examples of this. |
|
I hate to dispute you, but the Fed CANNOT lower mortgage rates to 4%. Only the market can. The Fed can only do things to encourage that. I am predicting that you will never see 4% mortgage rates. Secondly, there are more affordable houses out there than ever and credit qualifying programs are more conservative than they have been since 1996. I have many clients that bought homes for their families at less than $120,000. The same homes were selling 2 years ago for $220,000 or higher. That's the market at work. Plus, if someone is going to default on their mortgage, then shame on them. At this point, the decision makers are making the conservative loans only. The bottom line is trying to tell people they Can't or Shouldn't buy houses is the exact same behavior that people around here jump all over. Same as "Can't" buy more than one gun a month... I'll take issue with that claim and say that the market wasn't responsible for that runup in housing prices. That came from the Federal Reserve allowing too much money to flood the system at once. Had the money not been there, the bidding up wouldn't have been possible. It happened with the tech stocks and the late '90's (the false prosperity mentioned earlier), then it happened with housing. I can't wait to see what the next artificially inflated bubble will look like. It will happen because nobody is seems interested in slowing the money supply so it can at least have the goods out there to back it all up. |
|
Quoted:
I can't wait to see what the next artificially inflated bubble will look like. It will happen because nobody is seems interested in slowing the money supply so it can at least have the goods out there to back it all up. That was kind of my point  It's being encouraged in cars right now. New car prices were already run up and even they are falling fast. You can get trememdous deals on barely used trucks and SUV's as people downsize (well you could a month ago). People are back to their driving and SUV buying habits again already with gas down to $1.50.
MCN, I didn't say 4% was a good idea...just that some brainiacs were calling for Congress to do it. What you said is exactly what should be done to correct the market. Let the free market prevail. People that CAN afford a house should certainly buy one now––one that is within their means. It is a spectacular time to buy, when the market is low, and you are actually in the market for one. I certainly would not suggest someone go out and buy a house that was not equipped to pay for it, or maintain it...but that's what had been done for the last 10 years. The number of people that should be lifetime renters that I know who were encouraged to go out and buy a house 10 years ago is amazing...home ownership is not for everyone. But I do disagree with you a little bit. Maybe the Fed can't, but congress certainly can make interest rates 4% buy funding it themselves or making it a condition of the next round of the bailout. I don't think it's a good idea, but I wouldn't put it past them to do it anyways. |
|
Normally I'd try and type something useful and insightful, but those posts were already made above mine...
What we are seeing from our government is action borne of desperation without a fundamental understanding of what their actions will wrought. I suspect Paulson knows what he is doing (getting what he can for he and his buddies), but our legislature hasn't any idea that they are destroying our currency, the global marketplace and the US Constitution. I fear we are done. I fear that it is just a matter of time before our economy and then our country collapses. Once the collapse is underway an entire globe of enemies will bums rush our nation. |
|
Originally Posted By FlashDude
But I do disagree with you a little bit. Maybe the Fed can't, but congress certainly can make interest rates 4% buy funding it themselves or making it a condition of the next round of the bailout. I don't think it's a good idea, but I wouldn't put it past them to do it anyways. Congress can't pass a law saying "Housing rates are now 4%" It just doesn't work that way. They are already trying to lower rates by funding the first bailout and it isn't working. Frankly, the only thing that will drop rates that low would be seeing the stock market become way more risky than the now perceived "risky mortgage backed securities market". In other words, Dow would have to drop another 3-4000 points. No one will buy "risky" mortgage backed securities at 4%. No one. If they do, you all better be calling me. That is cheap 30-year money and you had better borrow every penny you can and buy the biggest house you can. That's a total no brainer. Otherwise, Flashdude, I am with you. Grand Forks, I think that OIL FUTURES was already the net bubble after the housing bubble. The current one is AR LOWERS. I just saw a DPMS LPK for sale for $100
|
|
Quoted:
Grand Forks, I think that OIL FUTURES was already the net bubble after the housing bubble. The current one is AR LOWERS. I just saw a DPMS LPK for sale for $100 Ugg...yeah, check the price of delivered retail heating propane  My dealer bought futures at the years high expecting it to go higher yet. They haven't lowered their price in 6 weeks, but the price of crude dropped in half and retail gas fell through the floor boards.
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
On the auto companies wanting a bailout, what happened to the days when it was the same model for a few years? You see what Chevy did in the '07 Silverado Trucks? They changed body styles mid model year. It's bad enough the HD truck has a different engine from 06 (more gov mandated emissions instituted end of calendar year, not model year), they have to have parts for "New body style '07" and "Old body style '07). Mid year 2005 they also changed engine tuning and the entire transmission, doubling the number of parts they need to stock. The changes were not significant enough that they couldn't wait for the next model year, but they HAD to have increased costs significantly in tooling, parts, engineering and if they even did any, testing. As for the Auto Bailouts. Go take a look at how many shop hours and tools it takes to change a tail light bulb on a 2007 Buick Lucerne and tell me if engineering like that should be rewarded? (Hint, it requires at least socket set). Compare that to a Toyota, which can be changed without tools in under 2 minutes. It is certainly a way to keep people going back to the dealer, that's for sure. I know my family is done with Chevy's after changing a taillight over thanksgiving (and both myself and my dad have them). I certainly cannot blame the rest of the country for buying a better engineered vehicle. I hear you on that... Pretty much every vehicle I've ever owned was a GM until I got my Toyota. My wife drives a '98 Ford Taurus, and to change out her headlight/blinker you have to remove 4 bolts holding it in place. 3 are accessible on top, the 4th one is only accessible from underneath with either a specialized wrench, or you have to take nearly the whole damn front bumper off to use a regular wrench or socket wrench!!!
Who TF thought up that brilliant idea!?!? 
I just snap off a rubber seal on my Camry's light, unhook a small metal clip, and pull the light out! Pop a new one in, clip it down, snap the rubber seal back on and connect the wire! Easy as sh!t! GM USED TO DESIGN LIKE THAT back in the 1980's! I really loved my 1985 Oldsmobile...
it's the service at the stealerships that drove the nail in the GM coffin for me though. That, and all their newer vehicles I drove all had electrical problems, were sluggish, their ACTUAL fuel economy wasn't even CLOSE to what they advertized, and they were pretty fugly. 
ETA: MCN, I hear what you're saying about "Can't", but just because you CAN, doesn't mean it's a good idea. Just because I CAN buy a new gun each month, doesn't mean it's a good idea or that I actually CAN afford it (I think paying mortgage/bills takes higher priority). Flashdude you need to check your facts. While the engines were updated around those years, they still use the very reliable Gen 3 engine platform. The updates came as new fuel saving technologies such as displacement on demand and E85 compatibility and increased horsepower ratings. Even the diesel engines use the same iron just modest updates to make the feds happy and increase power. Indahood: I personally don’t base my vehicle purchases on how easy it is to change a light bulb though serviceability is an important factor. You will find this out once your Camry requires a repair out of warranty and the repair costs are much higher than a domestic. If you had trouble with getting your GM vehicle serviced, you should have brought it somewhere else. “Stealerships” as you call them, are private companies that are not owned by GM BTW. Look folks, All vehicles break. That’s why there is a service industry to repair them. Automobiles are very complex machines now days that require a lot of knowhow and expertise to fix them. The average GM vehicle for instance has over 15 computers! It’s very hard to relay this to customers as they expect that if they have a problem they just simply bring it in and poof its fixed. Cars are designed as such to be serviced by properly trained personal and, the guidelines that we have to follow to fix them are increasingly stricter. I can tell you from experience that almost any repair on an Asian import is harder than a domestic even simple maintenance is tougher. They are not engineered any better in that respect. If you don’t like domestics that is ok, I respect your opinion but don’t base it on a bad light bulb changing experience. 
Turk |
|
Quoted:
As for the Auto Bailouts. Go take a look at how many shop hours and tools it takes to change a tail light bulb on a 2007 Buick Lucerne and tell me if engineering like that should be rewarded? (Hint, it requires at least socket set). Compare that to a Toyota, which can be changed without tools in under 2 minutes. It is certainly a way to keep people going back to the dealer, that's for sure. I know my family is done with Chevy's after changing a taillight over thanksgiving (and both myself and my dad have them). I certainly cannot blame the rest of the country for buying a better engineered vehicle. Agreed. Another term would be "self fulfilling prophecy". Because you don't give us money, we can't sell cars that won't compete with non-UAW shops. OK ... how about building cars that DO compete and fire your union employees? Anyone live around here long enough to remember the investigation of the Ford plant union workers who were caught smoking weed, drinking, and getting hummers from hookers in St. Paul? Nobody was fired, nobody got demoted, and all those clowns went back to work on the PRODUCTION LIINE!!! I will never buy a domestic car ever again. Honda or Toyota will darken my drive way next year. Sorry folks, this may come as a shock to many, but, we don't "build" cars in the US. Not on the scale that Honda, Toyota and Suburu have been doing. Ford has more plants overseas and in Mexico than here in the US. |
|
Anyone live around here long enough to remember the investigation of the Ford plant union workers who were caught smoking weed, drinking, and getting hummers from hookers in St. Paul? Nobody was fired, nobody got demoted, and all those clowns went back to work on the PRODUCTION LIINE!!!
I will never buy a domestic car ever again. Honda or Toyota will darken my drive way next year. Sorry folks, this may come as a shock to many, but, we don't "build" cars in the US. Not on the scale that Honda, Toyota and Suburu have been doing. Ford has more plants overseas and in Mexico than here in the US. Employees at the Ford plant got caught doing that? There used to be a time when drinking while at work was entirely socially acceptable. Smoking weed and hanging out (literally and metaphorically) with hookers? Probably a lot of fun, but not what you're supposed to be doing at work. My first car was a Ford. It was a vehicle that needed to be fixed or repaired daily. A wreck solved that problem. I've had a Honda ever since. Every vehicle my family back home owns is a Honda. Can the Big Three really be called "American cars" anymore? |
|
Quoted:
Flashdude you need to check your facts. While the engines were updated around those years, they still use the very reliable Gen 3 engine platform. The updates came as new fuel saving technologies such as displacement on demand and E85 compatibility and increased horsepower ratings. Even the diesel engines use the same iron just modest updates to make the feds happy and increase power. .. If you don’t like domestics that is ok, I respect your opinion but don’t base it on a bad light bulb changing experience.
Turk I have the diesel. My main issue is the mid year changes confuses the hell out of customers and anyone looking for parts. Check your facts. The engine block may be the same iron, but it is a different transmission and different computer/programming. Yeah, I know that VW started the whole 200x.5 model year crap, but I would buy a Chevy again long before I'd buy a VW. Can at least agree that a properly engineered vehicle does NOT require tools to do something as simple as changing a tail light? I mean there is already a 3/4" hole from the trunk to the light for wiring. They already sealed the entire light assembly from the environment. Why in the heck didn't they just make the damn hole 1.5" so you don't need to remove the light assembly from the outside??? These aren't difficult engineering issues and point to a general design issue which does make me shy away from them. If a company can't design the little stuff...what makes you think they can design the rest of the car any better? My dad's last Buick had the fuse box UNDER a cross beam in the engine compartment. That also required a socket set. My dad had to have his car towed to a dealer (on their dime) because his headlights were out and he didn't have a socket set in the car. He did have a fuse. That is an absurd design and a waste of my dad's time (waiting for the tow and dealing with a dealership visit)––-for a fuse. Lead acid batteries in passenger compartment??? You know they off gas hydrogen when they charge and are filled with sulpheric acid? Maybe acceptable with a very specific model battery, but you know full well that people will not go to the dealer for a replacement battery and will end up with a "standard" aftermarket one. Don't even get me started on GM's approach to warranty repairs. They have covered all of my issues without question so that is not my issue, but both of the major items I had fixed, almost EVERYONE I know with the same model and year truck has had the same problem (more than once!). To my knowledge, they still have not come up with a connector on the transmission line that will not leak in the winter. I know many people who have had to change them out several times since they got their trucks, or they leave oil spots anywhere they start their truck. (I can't believe the EPA isn't on them for this...) It's a $300 repair out of warranty (Yes, $300 to change two quick connect hoses and add a quart of fluid). Instead of actually fixing the design flaw in the fitting, GM corporate has been simply replacing them in the cold climates for 2 years now. And as far as your comments on "trained techs"? I bought my truck from a dealership that my roomate has used for years and the main reason I chose them was because of their evening service hours. After a couple of visits, they pretty much told me that I should stop bringing it in during the evenings and only bring it in during the day because that is the only time they have a competent diesel mechanic on staff (and that is for fairly basic things like oil changes and tire rotations too). And with that many computers, and adds for Onstar remote diagnostic, you'd think they could actually read a code with their technology. I think the only code they can read is the one in the add where the driver left their gas cap off. They certainly couldn't read the codes for my EGR or transmission. I'm sorry if you work for GM at a dealership and took offense, but 95% of my issues have not been with the dealership or the techs, but with GM's corporate management and engineering design which is just pitiful. It is the little things that just add up over time that make me not want to buy one again (and I have one now). Sadly, I wouldn't buy a dodge, but for other reasons (my previous vehicle was a dodge). For the dealerships, well sadly, they ARE a major part of GM's problem. There are simply too many of them. I have 3 dealerships w/in 10 miles, and 18 of them w/in 25 miles and 25 dealers w/in 50 miles of my house (this search is from Chevy's website and only includes dealers that sell Chevy's. it does not include other GM dealers that carry one of the other 6 brands excluding Chevy). That is far too many dealers and is part of GM's overall cost problems. I will say again, I am completely against any government funded bailout until GM comes up with a plan to actually become profitable. If this includes Chapter 11 reorg like all the airlines just went through, then so be it. I would be fine with private investors loaning them the money to continue their downward spiral, but we are talking about my and other tax payers hard earned money here. If I have to pay for one more bailout, I will be damn close to needing one myself. |
|
A friend of mine since college considers buying Toyota his patriotic duty, since none of the Fords or Chevys he was looking at are made in America.
His dad did a tour in Nam and his grandfather landed on Omaha beach. For all you union members out there, this is every bit your mess as much as it is with Barney Frank and the banks. Jumping back to the original topic, I am NOT happy with Coleman on the 750B bailout. I wrote him to say as much. But, the contrast with franken is SO HUGE!!! I guess I see his vote FOR the final bailout bill as "small" in comparison to the cost of so many other things that franken is going to do. 2T for natonalized health care 150B for a "dept of peace" 200B for more aid to waste on Dept. of re-Education ... |
|
According to Wikipedia.com
"Citizens Against Government Waste has given Coleman a lifetime rating of 38%. The Club for Growth gave him a 33% "RePORK Card" rating for the year of 2007. Both scores denote a generally weak stance towards fighting pork barrel spending." "Coleman supported the REAL ID Act. He also voted in favor of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 which, among other things, suspended habeas corpus for "unlawful enemy combatants" detained by the U.S. In 2007, he co-sponsored the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007. He also voted to grant legal immunity to telecom corporations that cooperated with the NSA warrantless surveillance program." "Coleman recently made this statement about marijuana legalization: "I oppose the legalization of marijuana because, as noted by the Office of National Drug Control Policy, marijuana can have serious adverse health affects on individuals. The health problems that may occur from this highly addictive drug include short-term memory loss, anxiety, respiratory illness and a risk of lung cancer that far exceeds that of tobacco products. It would also make our transportation, schools and workplaces, just as examples, more dangerous." According to Coleman's former college classmate Norm Kent, Coleman smoked marijuana regularly in his college years and was an outspoken opponent of drug busts." In Coleman's defense: "In 2002, Coleman received a grade of "A" from the National Rifle Association, and in 2006 he received a 100% rating from Gun Owners of America." Now if only he'd follow through and propose abolishion of the ATF. For being a police statist, I'm suprised that he's so pro-2A |
|
Quoted:
According to Wikipedia.com "Citizens Against Government Waste has given Coleman a lifetime rating of 38%. The Club for Growth gave him a 33% "RePORK Card" rating for the year of 2007. Both scores denote a generally weak stance towards fighting pork barrel spending." "Coleman supported the REAL ID Act. He also voted in favor of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 which, among other things, suspended habeas corpus for "unlawful enemy combatants" detained by the U.S. In 2007, he co-sponsored the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007. He also voted to grant legal immunity to telecom corporations that cooperated with the NSA warrantless surveillance program." "Coleman recently made this statement about marijuana legalization: "I oppose the legalization of marijuana because, as noted by the Office of National Drug Control Policy, marijuana can have serious adverse health affects on individuals. The health problems that may occur from this highly addictive drug include short-term memory loss, anxiety, respiratory illness and a risk of lung cancer that far exceeds that of tobacco products. It would also make our transportation, schools and workplaces, just as examples, more dangerous." According to Coleman's former college classmate Norm Kent, Coleman smoked marijuana regularly in his college years and was an outspoken opponent of drug busts." In Coleman's defense: "In 2002, Coleman received a grade of "A" from the National Rifle Association, and in 2006 he received a 100% rating from Gun Owners of America." Now if only he'd follow through and propose abolishion of the ATF. For being a police statist, I'm suprised that he's so pro-2A I have to agree with you that Coleman is no peach but.....who would you rather have? An ex-dope smokin quazi Republican? Or this: 
Turk |
|
Snip> I challenge anyone who demands a "common sense", carefully-crafted, policy initiative with subtle nuances to show me where the federal government is given the legal authority by We the People in the Constitution of the United States. I don't know about you, but I don't remember giving them this sort of authority. As a result, any bailout effort is illegal and anyone in Washington who supports it should be impeached, removed from office, and run out of town on a rail without delay. <Snip
Uh...no. I will not challenge you because it's not in the Constitution...anywhere. Good luck on that impeachment thing. The folks that are voting on the bailouts would be the ones voting for impeachment. Not much chance that will happen. The clowns  feel like they need to do SOMETHING to make it all better. Trouble is they are going to just make it worse. Short term the stock market is in a Santa rally, but come the first of the year be prepared for a small drop to an S&P of 550. Thanks to these Bozo's we are going to be the next post WW2 Great Britain, except China will have all the money. Not like us last time. 
|
|
Quoted:
Snip> I challenge anyone who demands a "common sense", carefully-crafted, policy initiative with subtle nuances to show me where the federal government is given the legal authority by We the People in the Constitution of the United States. I don't know about you, but I don't remember giving them this sort of authority. As a result, any bailout effort is illegal and anyone in Washington who supports it should be impeached, removed from office, and run out of town on a rail without delay. <Snip Uh...no. I will not challenge you because it's not in the Constitution...anywhere. Good luck on that impeachment thing. The folks that are voting on the bailouts would be the ones voting for impeachment. Not much chance that will happen. The clowns feel like they need to do SOMETHING to make it all better. Trouble is they are going to just make it worse. Short term the stock market is in a Santa rally, but come the first of the year be prepared for a small drop to an S&P of 550. Thanks to these Bozo's we are going to be the next post WW2 Great Britain, except China will have all the money. Not like us last time. Of course. I was just saying what SHOULD happen. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
According to Wikipedia.com "Citizens Against Government Waste has given Coleman a lifetime rating of 38%. The Club for Growth gave him a 33% "RePORK Card" rating for the year of 2007. Both scores denote a generally weak stance towards fighting pork barrel spending." "Coleman supported the REAL ID Act. He also voted in favor of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 which, among other things, suspended habeas corpus for "unlawful enemy combatants" detained by the U.S. In 2007, he co-sponsored the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007. He also voted to grant legal immunity to telecom corporations that cooperated with the NSA warrantless surveillance program." "Coleman recently made this statement about marijuana legalization: "I oppose the legalization of marijuana because, as noted by the Office of National Drug Control Policy, marijuana can have serious adverse health affects on individuals. The health problems that may occur from this highly addictive drug include short-term memory loss, anxiety, respiratory illness and a risk of lung cancer that far exceeds that of tobacco products. It would also make our transportation, schools and workplaces, just as examples, more dangerous." According to Coleman's former college classmate Norm Kent, Coleman smoked marijuana regularly in his college years and was an outspoken opponent of drug busts." In Coleman's defense: "In 2002, Coleman received a grade of "A" from the National Rifle Association, and in 2006 he received a 100% rating from Gun Owners of America." Now if only he'd follow through and propose abolishion of the ATF. For being a police statist, I'm suprised that he's so pro-2A I have to agree with you that Coleman is no peach but.....who would you rather have? An ex-dope smokin quazi Republican? Or this: http://frontier.cincinnati.com/blogs/gov/uploaded_images/franken-794120.bmp
Turk Would you rather have a man in a diaper and bunny ears for one term followed by a solid conservative, or a dope smokin liberal republican until he decides to retire? |
|
That is some fantastic culture jamming! |
|
Brilliant! |
|
FWIW, I did send off an email to Norm Coleman.
The Ford plant will shut down regardless of this bail out or not. And already, they are going to LOAD UP a bill with TONS of pork. If the lazy unions are going to go about as if nothing is wrong and they are just innocent bystanders, well, then go back to the Ford plan in St. Paul and wait around for another hummer from a hooker. Have another martini and play that fiddle as rome burns around you. |
|
THE BAILOUT IS DEAD!!! Thankyou Norm Coleman!!!
US Senate Vote linky ... stinky link... Well, at least for this year. The congress-critters can still screw the taxpayer next year, but, not until Jan 21. time for Ford, GM, and Chrysler to file Chap 11 ASAP and get a move on. |