Why register? ...To Enhance Your Experience
+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 61 to 71 of 71
  1. #61
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MarcusKspn View Post
    If Fiat keep AMERICAN factories open, keeps AMERICANS employed, keeps AMERICAN dealerships open, then it was worth it in my book.

    A bankrupt US company that cannot pay Americans their wages is a lot more worthless than an Italian company that keeps Americans on their payroll.
    Meanwhile, the profits shuffle off to Italy and we no longer have any rich people to tax.


  2. #62
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MarcusKspn View Post
    How else do you propose a bankrupt US company stay in business then?
    Here is the deal. The United States government needs to Govern and Businesses need to run businesses. If the business has trouble or fails. Oh well. I wonder what kind of salary and benefits the Italians will give American workers

  3. #63
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,951

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by firemanjb View Post
    You really believe the government should be giving money to people to make them buy things they normally would not buy? Why not give rebates to buy compact fluroscent lights? Or cigarettes? Or American made underwear and socks? Do you see where this goes? The government is artificially influencing how you spend your dollars, suggesting it is better for you to buy a car you may not need rather than spend money with your mechanic getting it fixed. Or donating the car to a church so it can be given to a family in need. Instead, the government wants to pay you to throw away a car and buy a new one. It's lunacy.
    Right, it's lunacy. That's why I was saying that the program needs altered to be better. No, in general I don't think that the government should be doing some of what's going on, but the fact still remains that they are. So, if they're going to give these organizations government money anyway, why do it in a fashion that benefits us too? Is it any worse than paying farmers to not produce crops?

    If the car is to be shredded and the dealership must promise the car will not be used by anyone else, I can assure you that you will NOT receive the trade in value.
    I'm sure that'll be the case too and think it's a fundamental "flaw" in the program.

    Maybe, just maybe, they should have been permitted to go bankrupt back in 2008. Or do we just keep throwing good money after bad? Really, our billions of dollars thrown at Chrysler just gave the Italian company Fiat quite a nice little business.
    Maybe they should've been, but the fact that they weren't is now irrelevant to solving the problem now.

  4. #64
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,951

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
    OK, pay attention. The car gets crushed. Since the dealer gets nothing in the end why would he give you anything for a trade?
    Sorry, but you're the one that needs to pay attention.

    I wasn't talking about the program as proposed, I was talking about changes that I think would make it a better program, changes that would get me to consider buying a new car sooner than planned.

    Part of what the car manufacturers need to get back on their feet is for people to buy their product. If I and others like myself aren't planning to buy a car for 3 more years, then we aren't helping to "fix" the problem. However, if the government is going to give us a substantial amount of money towards the cost of that vehicle, while keeping any other incentives, trade-in value, etc. in place, then some of us might buy early in order to save some money and thus be able to "help".

  5. #65
    Forum Member DaSharkie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Posts
    4,713

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MarcusKspn View Post
    How else do you propose a bankrupt US company stay in business then?
    They don't. They spent themselves and built themselves into the position they are in.

    Either they recover from it or they don't. Fiat is the company that GM paid 2 billion dollars to last year to divest themselves from. So Fiat turns around and buys another failing US automaker with those same $2,000,000,000.
    "Too many people spend money they haven't earned, to buy things they don't want, to impress people they don't like." Will Rogers

    The borrower is slave to the lender. Proverbs 22:7 - Debt free since 10/5/2009.

    "No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session." - New York Judge Gideon Tucker

    "As Americans we must always remember that we all have a common enemy, an enemy that is dangerous, powerful and relentless. I refer, of course, to the federal government." - Dave Barry

    www.daveramsey.com www.clarkhoward.com www.heritage.org

  6. #66
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FireMedic049 View Post
    Sorry, but you're the one that needs to pay attention.

    I wasn't talking about the program as proposed, I was talking about changes that I think would make it a better program, changes that would get me to consider buying a new car sooner than planned.

    Part of what the car manufacturers need to get back on their feet is for people to buy their product. If I and others like myself aren't planning to buy a car for 3 more years, then we aren't helping to "fix" the problem. However, if the government is going to give us a substantial amount of money towards the cost of that vehicle, while keeping any other incentives, trade-in value, etc. in place, then some of us might buy early in order to save some money and thus be able to "help".
    After reading your post I think we are both on the same page. It is an absolutely horrible piece of legislation. All it is doing is guaranteeing that I will get $3,500 or $4,500 for my trade. This is as bad as the Community Reinvestment Act which contributed in large part to the collapse of our economy. That and the notion that everyone needs a $100,000 home even if they can't afford it.

    Let's say that you are trading in your 1990 SUV that gets 8 MPG. It books for $2,000 but the government will guarantee you $4,500. The dealer takes the list price of your new SUV getting 18 mpg, knocks off $4,500, throws in any other rebates and incentives, and you end up at $30,000. Don't you think if you could afford the $30,000 you would have done it in the first place? To be really effective, they would have to guarantee the Blue Book price plus the $4,500. And who would benefit from that???

  7. #67
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MarcusKspn View Post
    How else do you propose a bankrupt US company stay in business then?
    Its called Chapter 11. Sort of like what Chrysler and GM ended up doing after we "bailed them out".

    On a side note, watching CNN this weekend and they had a story about rising gas prices. The economist are saying that commodity prices are rising becuase of the weak dollar. The dollar is weak becuase of the bailouts and the huge deficit. People are asking how is the U.S. going to pay back this worthless debt. I recommend people research Germany around 1920. You will then see how ill-advised our current policy is.

  8. #68
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Canuck Expat May be anywhere
    Posts
    2,906

    Default

    I was quite surprised when Fiat got into the market to buy GM. In Europe, other than Italy, Fiat is not that well regarded. Theres quite a few automakers ahead of them. Reneault, VW, Audi, Puegeot, Toyota, Honda, just to name a few. I'm not sure they have anything to bring to the table regarding improving GMs chances for survival other than 2 Billion $
    Last edited by BryanLoader; 06-16-2009 at 09:31 AM.

  9. #69
    Protective Economist Jonathan Bastian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    966

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BryanLoader View Post
    I was quite surprised when Fiat got into the market to buy GM. In Europe, other than Italy, Fiat is not that well regarded. Theres quite a few automakers ahead of them. Reneault, VW, Audi, Puegeot, Toyota, Honda, just to name a few. I'm not sure they have anything to bring to the table regarding improving GMs chances for survival other than 2 Billion $
    First, Fiat has purchased Chrysler, not GM. Just a clarification.

    Second, Fiat was chosen because it makes lots of small cars with tiny engines. That way the government can force Chrysler to do the same in the push for fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas reduction. Either that, or no one else was silly enough to want to buy Chrysler.
    My comments are sometimes educated, sometimes informed and sometimes just blowing smoke...but they are always mine and mine alone and do not reflect upon anyone else (especially my employer).

  10. #70
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Canuck Expat May be anywhere
    Posts
    2,906

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by firemanjb View Post
    First, Fiat has purchased Chrysler, not GM. Just a clarification.

    Second, Fiat was chosen because it makes lots of small cars with tiny engines. That way the government can force Chrysler to do the same in the push for fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas reduction. Either that, or no one else was silly enough to want to buy Chrysler.
    My apologies about the Chrysler/GM mix up. Sometimes my typing gets ahead of my brain. Fiat does make small engines, but ,IMO, they don't hold a candle to VW, or Reneault, or even some of the Asian groups like Daiwoo or Hyundai. I'm pretty damn sure there is enough engineering talent on this side of the pond for us to make our own fuel efficient, relatively powerful engines to keep jobs here. I really don't see Fiat being on the scene for more than 3 or 4 years. An Audi can easily keep up with a Chrysler 300 C.

  11. #71
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by firemanjb View Post
    First, Fiat has purchased Chrysler, not GM. Just a clarification.

    Second, Fiat was chosen because it makes lots of small cars with tiny engines. That way the government can force Chrysler to do the same in the push for fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas reduction. Either that, or no one else was silly enough to want to buy Chrysler.
    Problem is, people in this country don't want those little death traps. The Enviro-nuts are so dense that they don't get the concept that most people really don't have their enthusiasm for rising bicycles and eating granola bars.

    Our cars get lower fuel mileage in part becuase they are heavier for safety reasons. The second thing that affects the fuel mileage is the pollution controls. And as for Greenhouse Gases, nothing but a bunch of Hot Air to make people like Al Whore RICH!! When one examines the science they see that the nut cases pushing this agenda have over exaggerated and overstated consistently. They don't mention the part about how we have been cooling for 10 years. They don't mention the part about the 130,000 year cycle. Based on past history we are about to go into another ice age. Then what. Man cannot control the climate.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Sign of things to come for Democrats
    By ScareCrow57 in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 06-19-2009, 12:17 PM
  2. Something The Democrats can be proud of
    By ScareCrow57 in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 10-21-2008, 03:24 PM
  3. Why Democrats Don't Want Lower Gas Prices
    By dragonfyre in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 81
    Last Post: 08-02-2008, 01:16 PM
  4. Democrats changing their symbol!!
    By Farley in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 07-30-2008, 11:19 AM
  5. Hoses- Taking care of them so we can take care of business.
    By ssabados in forum Fireground Tactics
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-03-2003, 07:32 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts