The Glade 4.0 :: View topic - Government Motors update

I can not tell if that is Sarcasm or not, mostly because I don't know the state of Ford.

Uncle Fester wrote:

I can not tell if that is Sarcasm or not, mostly because I don't know the state of Ford.

Better than the other 2 of the "big three," though not exactly the picture of corporate health.

DFK! wrote:

Uncle Fester wrote:

I can not tell if that is Sarcasm or not, mostly because I don't know the state of Ford.

Better than the other 2 of the "big three," though not exactly the picture of corporate health.

They're solvent, and they're recovering. They've also boosted their reputation big-time, and their sales are great compared to Chrysler/GM.

Indeed.

Their cars still blow though, in terms of design. Fugly.

Is it legal to have government controlled private companies over there? I know it's not legal here.
Would those extra shares (bought with the more funds) put the government as the largest single share holder in the company? /boggle

Hannibal:

The best part of is that CFC created a liquidity sink for people who couldn't afford cars to lose more money and leverage more debt they didn't need.

Khross wrote:

Hannibal:

The best part of is that CFC created a liquidity sink for people who couldn't afford cars to lose more money and leverage more debt they didn't need.

I rather fond of the fact that some 690,000 vehicles that would have been on the market for the folks who couldn't/should't buy new are gone; those cars are unavailable for purchase, and the remaining used cars are that much more in demand. Add this to Khross' point, and boy am I glad the powers that be are so concerned with the "underprivileged". It's scary to think how they'd act if they didn't care so much.

DFK! wrote:

Indeed.

Their cars still blow though, in terms of design. Fugly.

I dunno... Lisa just got a Focus a couple months ago.. it is kind of cool.

Barack Obama's Campaign Promises

"I will always be a strong advocate for a market that is free and open."—9/17/07, New York City

Hannibal wrote:

Barack Obama's Campaign Promises

"I will always be a strong advocate for a market that is free and open."—9/17/07, New York City

My guess is that this quote is very seriously taken out of context. If I had to make a guess, he also likely talked about sensible regulation and even government intervention when the need arises.

Author:	Ladas [ Thu Oct 29, 2009 8:27 am ]
Post subject:	Government Motors update
WSJ article

Author:	Talya [ Thu Oct 29, 2009 9:38 am ]
Post subject:
And it becomes clearer and clearer how refusing to take taxpayer money has helped Ford recover far faster...

Author:	Uncle Fester [ Thu Oct 29, 2009 11:02 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Government Motors update
I can not tell if that is Sarcasm or not, mostly because I don't know the state of Ford.

Author:	DFK! [ Thu Oct 29, 2009 11:25 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Government Motors update
Uncle Fester wrote: I can not tell if that is Sarcasm or not, mostly because I don't know the state of Ford. Better than the other 2 of the "big three," though not exactly the picture of corporate health.

Author:	Talya [ Thu Oct 29, 2009 12:06 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Government Motors update
DFK! wrote: Uncle Fester wrote: I can not tell if that is Sarcasm or not, mostly because I don't know the state of Ford. Better than the other 2 of the "big three," though not exactly the picture of corporate health. They're solvent, and they're recovering. They've also boosted their reputation big-time, and their sales are great compared to Chrysler/GM.

The Glade 4.0 https://gladerebooted.net/

Government Motors update https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=687	Page 1 of 2

Author:	DFK! [ Thu Oct 29, 2009 1:23 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Government Motors update
Talya wrote: DFK! wrote: Uncle Fester wrote: I can not tell if that is Sarcasm or not, mostly because I don't know the state of Ford. Better than the other 2 of the "big three," though not exactly the picture of corporate health. They're solvent, and they're recovering. They've also boosted their reputation big-time, and their sales are great compared to Chrysler/GM. Indeed. Their cars still blow though, in terms of design. Fugly.

Author:	Rafael [ Thu Oct 29, 2009 1:39 pm ]
Post subject:
<3 Ford's Ecoboost engine.

Author:	darksiege [ Thu Oct 29, 2009 2:07 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Government Motors update
DFK! wrote: Indeed. Their cars still blow though, in terms of design. Fugly. I dunno... Lisa just got a Focus a couple months ago.. it is kind of cool.

Author:	Hannibal [ Thu Oct 29, 2009 2:35 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Government Motors update
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10 ... latestnews Report: Cash for Clunkers Auto Program Cost Taxpayers $24,000 Per Vehicle A report conducted by the automotive information firm Edmunds.com found that of the nearly 690,000 vehicles sold under the program, only 125,000 of the sales were incremental. American taxpayers doled out $24,000 per vehicle sold under the government's "Cash for Clunkers" auto program, according to a study released Wednesday. The report, conducted by the automotive information firm Edmunds.com in Santa Monica, Calif., found that of the nearly 690,000 vehicles sold under the program, only 125,000 of the sales could be credited directly to the Cash-for-Clunkers program. The rest of the sales would have happened anyway, despite the government program, the report said -- raising questions over its effectiveness. The report also said that the average cost for a vehicle in August 2009 was only $26,915 -- minus an average cash rebate of $1,667. Cash for Clunkers -- officially known as the Car Allowance Rebate System -- was a $3 billion program intended to provide economic incentives to Americans to purchase a new, more fuel efficient cars when they traded in an older, less efficient vehicle. The program was touted for giving a boost to auto sales while increasing the sales of more fuel-efficient vehicles http://www.edmunds.com/help/about/press ... ticle.html <-- link to Edmunds study. ________________________________________________________________________________ So 24,000 bucks for a vehicle that ended up having it's engine seized and sold off for parts. Really- did anyone read the requirements for what was considered a clunker? This was a new deal type program. Flush our money down the toilet in order to artifically inflate the numbers.

Author:	Khross [ Thu Oct 29, 2009 3:05 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Government Motors update
Hannibal: The best part of is that CFC created a liquidity sink for people who couldn't afford cars to lose more money and leverage more debt they didn't need.

Author:	Stathol [ Thu Oct 29, 2009 3:11 pm ]
Post subject:
Actually, I think the best part is this: During the GM bailout fiasco, the powers that be repeatedly declared that a big part of GM's problem is that they weren't selling enough fuel-economical vehicles. So what they do immediately after bailing GM out? Offer people a cash incentive to buy vehicles that they don't believe GM makes. Idiots.

Author:	Ladas [ Thu Oct 29, 2009 3:12 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Government Motors update
darksiege wrote: kind of cool. Which means it is still mostly "not cool".

Author:	Ladas [ Thu Oct 29, 2009 3:13 pm ]
Post subject:	Re:
Stathol wrote: Idiots. Same idiots that currently negotiating with GMAC to give the company another $2-5 billion in bail out funds, to increase the government holding from its current 34% ($12 billion currently invested in the company).

Author:	Lydiaa [ Thu Oct 29, 2009 5:16 pm ]
Post subject:
Is it legal to have government controlled private companies over there? I know it's not legal here. Would those extra shares (bought with the more funds) put the government as the largest single share holder in the company? /boggle

Author:	Rafael [ Wed Nov 04, 2009 12:02 pm ]
Post subject:
Power window motors aren't typically built by the manufacturer, they are bought in bulk from parts suppliers, unless they need a very special propietary unit, and even then, they can be bought in smaller lots under contract with some in-house design collobration. Consider yourself lucky.

Author:	Monte [ Wed Nov 04, 2009 5:36 pm ]
Post subject:
Gee, I guess I hold Barak Obama in significantly higher esteem than Rush Limbaugh. Wonder why that might be...

Page 1 of 2	All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	Rorinthas [ Thu Oct 29, 2009 6:57 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Government Motors update
It's not supposed to be but that doesn't seem to stop them.

Author:	DFK! [ Thu Oct 29, 2009 9:24 pm ]
Post subject:	Re:
Lydiaa wrote: Is it legal to have government controlled private companies over there? I know it's not legal here. Would those extra shares (bought with the more funds) put the government as the largest single share holder in the company? /boggle The rule of law? Bah!

Author:	Vindicarre [ Fri Oct 30, 2009 3:04 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Government Motors update
Khross wrote: Hannibal: The best part of is that CFC created a liquidity sink for people who couldn't afford cars to lose more money and leverage more debt they didn't need. I rather fond of the fact that some 690,000 vehicles that would have been on the market for the folks who couldn't/should't buy new are gone; those cars are unavailable for purchase, and the remaining used cars are that much more in demand. Add this to Khross' point, and boy am I glad the powers that be are so concerned with the "underprivileged". It's scary to think how they'd act if they didn't care so much.

Author:	Screeling [ Fri Oct 30, 2009 10:11 am ]
Post subject:	Re:
Lydiaa wrote: Is it legal to have government controlled private companies over there? I know it's not legal here. Would those extra shares (bought with the more funds) put the government as the largest single share holder in the company? /boggle Even if they are shareholder, they don't change company policy via the board of directors. They just pass legislation!

Author:	LadyKate [ Fri Oct 30, 2009 10:57 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Government Motors update
Vindicarre wrote: Khross wrote: Hannibal: The best part of is that CFC created a liquidity sink for people who couldn't afford cars to lose more money and leverage more debt they didn't need. I rather fond of the fact that some 690,000 vehicles that would have been on the market for the folks who couldn't/should't buy new are gone; those cars are unavailable for purchase, and the remaining used cars are that much more in demand. Add this to Khross' point, and boy am I glad the powers that be are so concerned with the "underprivileged". It's scary to think how they'd act if they didn't care so much. Amen.

Author:	Hannibal [ Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:57 pm ]
Post subject:
Barack Obama's Campaign Promises "I will always be a strong advocate for a market that is free and open."—9/17/07, New York City

Author:	Monte [ Wed Nov 04, 2009 11:35 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Government Motors update
darksiege wrote: DFK! wrote: Indeed. Their cars still blow though, in terms of design. Fugly. I dunno... Lisa just got a Focus a couple months ago.. it is kind of cool. I haven't been happy with the Focus we bought. The motor in the window mechanism died, and we had some other problems with it. We bought it at low mileage (used, obviously). Good fuel efficiency, and for a small car it's got good leg room. But yeah, I think I'm gonna get a Honda next time, if I can't get a hybrid.

Author:	Monte [ Wed Nov 04, 2009 5:22 pm ]
Post subject:	Re:
Hannibal wrote: Barack Obama's Campaign Promises "I will always be a strong advocate for a market that is free and open."—9/17/07, New York City My guess is that this quote is very seriously taken out of context. If I had to make a guess, he also likely talked about sensible regulation and even government intervention when the need arises.

Author:	Kaffis Mark V [ Wed Nov 04, 2009 5:32 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Re:
Monte wrote: Hannibal wrote: Barack Obama's Campaign Promises "I will always be a strong advocate for a market that is free and open."—9/17/07, New York City My guess is that this quote is very seriously taken out of context. If I had to make a guess, he also likely talked about sensible regulation and even government intervention when the need arises. This is hilarious when you consider this thread is right next to the Limbaugh thread.