If one of the Big 3 Automakers had to fail, who would you pick?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by 02SE
Your opinion doesn't equal fact. Member 'BHopkins' understood my point just fine.


So 1/3rd of the people that responded to that post took it the way you intended? Perhaps I should simply have said "most people", as that would more accurately align with the 2/3rds that responded to it negatively
wink.gif


Dave took issue with BHopkin's conflation as well, for the record.

And you still didn't answer my question....
whistle.gif


Anyways, it's 2:30AM, so I'm going to bed. It's been fun
cheers3.gif
I'll see if you've responded in the AM.


Dave (who doesn't know me from Adam) also replied to me with a personal insult. Why should I value Dave's opinion at all?

You still don't seem to want to comprehend my initial statement. Or you simply feel a need to make it out to be more than it is. I'll give you permission to assume whatever you want. Just know that you are wrong in your assumption of my intentions.

Please, keep any reply to less than 37k+ posts...
crackmeup2.gif
 
Originally Posted by Nick1994
Everyone loses their minds over a $9 billion dollar loss on the government's part to save GM, but doesn't even bat an eye that it's 0.6% of the size of the current $1.5 trillion tax cut for the top 1%


How about a flat tax. That's a truly fair tax rate.
 
Originally Posted by Warstud
Being from Michigan.....I especially don't wish that upon any of the Big 3


Me too. I was glad they all survived.
 
Originally Posted by 4WD
No … All this does is whip up the bashing and trashing like you knew it would …


Well that is on those that chose to argue.

But I am surprised I saw so many GM answers. But I am from a GM town. But I have owned many GM cars and currently a Ford and Chrysler. I have also owned foreign as well.
 
IMO every import should get the boot in this country before any of the big 3 fail. The 3 have pensions, higher wages, etc. and have raised the bar for American workers. The imports have lowered the standards by locating to mainly right to work states (if they manufacture here at all). I look at which is better for society here in general. For example, I would take GM any day over Wal-Mart.
 
Originally Posted by ZZman
Chrysler by far


None of them will fail as in "shutter their doors and lay off all of their workers". Some lines may disappear (ie. Chrysler)
 
Originally Posted by 02SE
Just know that you are wrong in your assumption of my intentions.


If that's the case then I think we are good.
 
Originally Posted by 02SE
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by 02SE
Your opinion doesn't equal fact. Member 'BHopkins' understood my point just fine.


So 1/3rd of the people that responded to that post took it the way you intended? Perhaps I should simply have said "most people", as that would more accurately align with the 2/3rds that responded to it negatively
wink.gif


Dave took issue with BHopkin's conflation as well, for the record.

And you still didn't answer my question....
whistle.gif


Anyways, it's 2:30AM, so I'm going to bed. It's been fun
cheers3.gif
I'll see if you've responded in the AM.


Dave (who doesn't know me from Adam) also replied to me with a personal insult. Why should I value Dave's opinion at all?

You still don't seem to want to comprehend my initial statement. Or you simply feel a need to make it out to be more than it is. I'll give you permission to assume whatever you want. Just know that you are wrong in your assumption of my intentions.

Please, keep any reply to less than 37k+ posts...
crackmeup2.gif




I did not reply with opinion. The fact is Ford did not take a bailout. It took a loan. GM took a bailout, then went bankrupt, followed by ownership by the federal government, then sold at a loss. It is delusional to believe a loan and a bailout are compairable.
 
Originally Posted by 02SE
Originally Posted by Nick1994
Everyone loses their minds over a $9 billion dollar loss on the government's part to save GM, but doesn't even bat an eye that it's 0.6% of the size of the current $1.5 trillion tax cut for the top 1%


How about a flat tax. That's a truly fair tax rate.

That'd be fair rate but is it fair? Why not a lump sum for taxes? I mean, seems to me that most of the services provided by the government is "fixed" per person. Protection of borders, paying the local firefighter & police salaries, etc. Water bill etc is charged on a different basis, but there is no rate of usage on those previous things. You either benefit or not. Why not just charge everyone $10k/year to live in the US? That way rich and poor people pay the same amount. Wouldn't that be fair and equal?

[And yes, I realize why we use a tax rate, I'm only questioning the "fair" bit from a different angle, rather than the customary flat vs progressive rate.]
 
Originally Posted by dave1251


I did not reply with opinion. The fact is Ford did not take a bailout. It took a loan. GM took a bailout, then went bankrupt, followed by ownership by the federal government, then sold at a loss. It is delusional to believe a loan and a bailout are compairable.


Dear Dave,

I did not post with an opinion, either. The fact is Ford took 5.9 billion in taxpayer money. Loan, bailout, a loan called a bailout, bankruptcies, etc., etc. it's all still money that taxpayers ponied up for. Which is what I said.

I'll further elaborate since you seem to have taken this personally.

I've owned models from all three. I've liked and disliked models from all three.
 
Originally Posted by supton
Originally Posted by 02SE
Originally Posted by Nick1994
Everyone loses their minds over a $9 billion dollar loss on the government's part to save GM, but doesn't even bat an eye that it's 0.6% of the size of the current $1.5 trillion tax cut for the top 1%


How about a flat tax. That's a truly fair tax rate.

That'd be fair rate but is it fair? Why not a lump sum for taxes? I mean, seems to me that most of the services provided by the government is "fixed" per person. Protection of borders, paying the local firefighter & police salaries, etc. Water bill etc is charged on a different basis, but there is no rate of usage on those previous things. You either benefit or not. Why not just charge everyone $10k/year to live in the US? That way rich and poor people pay the same amount. Wouldn't that be fair and equal?

[And yes, I realize why we use a tax rate, I'm only questioning the "fair" bit from a different angle, rather than the customary flat vs progressive rate.]


Why do we use a progressive tax rate? The same reason our elected officials do anything else. They want support from voters. They know that despite the inequality of anything other than a flat-tax, the majority of people make less than the so-called 1%, which in the USA is anyone making approx. 450k AGI per year or more. So it's easy to gain support from voters and stay in power, by saying they'll tax anyone making more than them at a higher percentage rate of their income.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by 02SE
Originally Posted by dave1251


I did not reply with opinion. The fact is Ford did not take a bailout. It took a loan. GM took a bailout, then went bankrupt, followed by ownership by the federal government, then sold at a loss. It is delusional to believe a loan and a bailout are compairable.


Dear Dave,

I did not post with an opinion, either. The fact is Ford took 5.9 billion in taxpayer money. Loan, bailout, a loan called a bailout, bankruptcies, etc., etc. it's all still money that taxpayers ponied up for. Which is what I said.

I'll further elaborate since you seem to have taken this personally.

I've owned models from all three. I've liked and disliked models from all three.




Yes it was all taxpayer money but there is a clear difference between a loan and a bailout. One is paid back. The other is not.
 
Originally Posted by PimTac
Originally Posted by 02SE
Originally Posted by dave1251


I did not reply with opinion. The fact is Ford did not take a bailout. It took a loan. GM took a bailout, then went bankrupt, followed by ownership by the federal government, then sold at a loss. It is delusional to believe a loan and a bailout are compairable.


Dear Dave,

I did not post with an opinion, either. The fact is Ford took 5.9 billion in taxpayer money. Loan, bailout, a loan called a bailout, bankruptcies, etc., etc. it's all still money that taxpayers ponied up for. Which is what I said.

I'll further elaborate since you seem to have taken this personally.

I've owned models from all three. I've liked and disliked models from all three.




Yes it was all taxpayer money but there is a clear difference between a loan and a bailout. One is paid back. The other is not.


There seems to be some sort of disconnect here.

The money given to GM and Chrysler under TARP were considered loans, Otherwise, they wouldn't have paid back anything, let alone the billions they did. But the taxpayers still didn't get all of the money back from them either.

Ford is still apparently working on paying back the money they were loaned under a different program.

And it is all taxpayer money. As I said.
 
Originally Posted by PimTac
Originally Posted by 02SE
Originally Posted by dave1251


I did not reply with opinion. The fact is Ford did not take a bailout. It took a loan. GM took a bailout, then went bankrupt, followed by ownership by the federal government, then sold at a loss. It is delusional to believe a loan and a bailout are compairable.


Dear Dave,

I did not post with an opinion, either. The fact is Ford took 5.9 billion in taxpayer money. Loan, bailout, a loan called a bailout, bankruptcies, etc., etc. it's all still money that taxpayers ponied up for. Which is what I said.

I'll further elaborate since you seem to have taken this personally.

I've owned models from all three. I've liked and disliked models from all three.




Yes it was all taxpayer money but there is a clear difference between a loan and a bailout. One is paid back. The other is not.

Exactly! Not quite sure why some people have trouble seeing this. It's pretty clear.

I'm not going to argue over whether the bailout was right or wrong, but in my opinion the bailout saved a LOT of jobs both at the present time and the future.

After having bought a new 2005 Trailblazer, I had sworn off GM. But in 2012 - 2014 I rented several Impalas and a couple of other GM vehicles, and I was pretty impressed. So when I bought my Impala my daughter was really surprised. Other than a burned out headlight I have had no problems with the Impala and the oft maligned D.I engine, so much so that I bought the Traverse here recently that has the same 3.6 D.I engine the Impala has.

The Traverse feels well built to me, and while I call it the "Camry" of SUV's (it is pretty much an appliance - it doesn't do anything particular well but gets you from point a to point b comfortably) it still is a good vehicle and works for me. (oops sorry for the off topic).
 
Fiat-Chrysler. Although there hasn't been a Big 3 in 20 years...

Another point about the loan vs bailout that people forget is Ford basically mortgaged a lot of their assets to avoid bankruptcy and the bailout back in 2007/08. The reason they were in front of Congress was to support GM and Chrysler. Ford knew if GM failed, it would have taken down most of the US auto industry and the suppliers. And they all had issues with the union and pensions.

The CEO of Chrysler traveled around the world looking for partners and buyers back in 2007/08. Remember Cerebus, the then owner of Chrysler.

Back in February 2009, GM had less than 30 days cash to run their business. Imagine if they couldn't make payroll or pay their suppliers.....

Without the government money and takeover, both GM and Chrysler would have been out of business.

What's scary is the recent news that Ford will layoff thousands over the next year. Couple that with the move away from cars and losing money in China....

I think another auto industry downturn is on the horizon.
 
Didn't Ford already fail out of the US car market? I thought they said they were leaving passenger car production and just making Mustangs and trucks.
 
"I think another auto industry downturn is on the horizon."



Perhaps downturn is specific to American automakers. Instead the automotive industry is adapting to the future. The American Big 2 are still stuck in the past to a degree.

Companies that fail to change with the times whither. Sears, JC Penny are a couple that became complacent.
 
The bailout crap is getting old. It was a decade ago. It's just another excuse that the prideless use to make it easier to show their own home companies their backs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Boomer
Toyota Credit Gets a Black Eye
Replies
11
Views
891
Rand
JTK
Interesting failed 2018 Nissan 5.6L video
2 3
Replies
40
Views
2K
Elkins45
wemay
VW to integrate ChatGpt into vehicles by mid year.
3 4 5
Replies
83
Views
2K
JohnnyG
R
Pick one car if you had to made it last the rest of your life.
6 7 8
Replies
145
Views
5K
Eddie
A
Long drive to pick up parts as cheap as possible.
Replies
15
Views
845
atikovi
Back
Top