BoatBanter.com - View Single Post

Boater[_3_]

BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
John wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 06:34:29 -0500, BAR wrote:

wrote:
On Dec 16, 12:16 am, "Canuck57" wrote:
wrote in message

news
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 23:06:30 -0500, BAR wrote:
Chrysler should have been left to go bankrupt back in 1980. If
it wasn't
for the M1 Abrams the government never would have stepped in.
Maybe, but then the government would have missed out on the
$335 million
profit they made on the $1.5 billion loan guarantee.
Today has 2 major differences.

First, $1.5 billion is about the burn rate for GM, Chrysler and
Ford in 1
week! It is estimated for GM alone, $75 to 125 billion is
needed for
solvency and sustainability. Assuming Chrysler needs about the
same and say
$50 billion for Ford, further assuming their numbers are
accurate and not
cooked they collectively need $250 billion. And that is if they
instantly
fix the problems, which historically, it is like investing in
NorTel. By
the way they too need a bailout. That is about $1250 out of
each middle
class workers pocket. 2-3 car payments for cars they don't
own. Oh, and
parts suppliers like JCI and Magna, extra.

Second, what do you do with the other 98% of the people and
businesses out
there? Screw them with $1250 more taxes? The last points bill
must be paid
or the next loaf of bread might as well cost $1000. You can't
print out of
debt on this scale without at least a working generation of
recession. Keep
in mind, government revenue is going down at an alarming pace.
The war in
the middle east will not end with peace, it will end in
bankruptcy of the
government and currency itself.

North America can no long afford these dogs. Will make some
good case study
for Harvard and Yale is the only redeeming value GM and Chrysler
has left..

This is going to come down to American bankruptcy into the
currency.
Said it before, so did several others. Give us middle class folks a
voucher to help pay for a new car. We get a bailout, GM gets to sell
cars, then put folks to work building new ones.... But the Union
doesn't want that, it would mean they would have to go back to
work to
get the money...
If I received a voucher I wouldn't buy a GM or Chrysler. I would
buy a Ford, Toyota, Honda or Nissan.

Depends on the size of the voucher. I'd buy another GM pickup if the
voucher were big enough to overcome my doubts about future warranty
service.

A voucher might be worthwhile if its use were restricted to
high-mileage vehicles with a certified "manufactured in the USA or
Canada" content of at least 90%. Not assembled...manufactured.

I see no reason to subsidize purchases of products produced overseas.

I wouldn't use the voucher if I was forced to purchase a vehicle I
would not normally purchase. A cheap headache is still a headache.

I wouldn't argue that point, but...the purpose of such a voucher is to
help the U.S. auto industry. You don't help the industry by buying
goods whose most expensive pieces and parts are made overseas.

GM and Chrysler need to go bankrupt. Their management needs to change
and their union contracts need to be voided. The skill in putting pieces
of a car together does not warrant the money that the union workers
receive. And, getting paid 95% for sitting around reading a newspaper
all day long is ridiculous. Whomever agreed to that on both sides of the
table should be take out back and shot.

I rent different cars on business trips. Since I am usually traveling
on some union's business, I rent "American cars" built by the Big
Three. I try to alternate, but I've sort of kicked GM off the list
entirely. I've been disappointed by something substantial on each GM
car I've rented over the years. The Fords have been fine, and so have
the few Chrysler products that have been readily available at my
destination.

When I travel on business I always rent a Chevy Impala. The reason is
that I fit in the car. I have a long torso and I know that I will fit.
There is no other reason that I choose this vehicle.

I rented a nice Ford Exploder on my last trip to Boston a month or so
ago. There was nothing about the car I didn't like, and it only cost
me $38 a night (holy schitt!) to park it in the hotel's garage.

You should have checked with the hotel before renting. It would have
been cheaper to catch a cab from the airport and to and from your
appointments.

I went to seven different construction sites and another hotel over two
days. No time to wait for cabs, and I had a movie cameraman and soundman
and their gear to lug around, too. But had I been going to meetings at
offices around the downtown hotel, I wouldn't have rented a car. It
certainly is cheap to cab in from Logan to downtown.