Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 72

Thread: GM, Chrysler Get Ultimatum From Obama on Turnaround

  1. #61
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: GM, Chrysler Get Ultimatum From Obama on Turnaround

    Quote Originally Posted by SkyCore View Post
    Why was support contingent on the warranty time frame?
    It was contingent on pre-existing warranties also being honored. I don't agree with it only being applied to purchases form here on out in order to stimulate new sales.

    Perhaps someone bought two months ago in order to aid the flagging company, but the system set up says their decision doesn't deserve the same consideration and protection as someone who does the exact same thing tomorrow.

  2. #62
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Last Seen
    04-12-09 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    342

    Re: GM, Chrysler Get Ultimatum From Obama on Turnaround

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    It was contingent on pre-existing warranties also being honored. I don't agree with it only being applied to purchases form here on out in order to stimulate new sales.

    Perhaps someone bought two months ago in order to aid the flagging company, but the system set up says their decision doesn't deserve the same consideration and protection as someone who does the exact same thing tomorrow.

    Even if retroactive, I don't see how it would generate new sales or offer any form of solid financial aid to a level justifying the abuse of the Executive Branch to arbitrarily decide our collective tax dollars should be funneled into what is basically a reverse protection racket for corporations who have a proven track record of accountability lost. If anything, it would be a motivator for companies to lower standards since at the end of the day they would be riding on our dime.

    It also seems a bit odd to raise the "Not Fair" red flag simply because the warranties are not retroactive. How is I. (or would have been) fair for us to pay for others' auto repairs? I have a small business...can all businesses get in on this type of deal because I'll tell my guys to bill as high as possible while performing the shoddiest work then I will even take a humble move of flying coach to DC and asking for a Warranty protection for new customers so I know they will be well taken care of while I'm trying to decide how many womyn are going to jump in the hot tub in St. Croix.

  3. #63
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: GM, Chrysler Get Ultimatum From Obama on Turnaround

    Quote Originally Posted by SkyCore View Post
    Even if retroactive, I don't see how it would generate new sales or offer any form of solid financial aid to a level justifying the abuse of the Executive Branch to arbitrarily decide our collective tax dollars should be funneled into what is basically a reverse protection racket for corporations who have a proven track record of accountability lost. If anything, it would be a motivator for companies to lower standards since at the end of the day they would be riding on our dime.

    It also seems a bit odd to raise the "Not Fair" red flag simply because the warranties are not retroactive. How is I. (or would have been) fair for us to pay for others' auto repairs? I have a small business...can all businesses get in on this type of deal because I'll tell my guys to bill as high as possible while performing the shoddiest work then I will even take a humble move of flying coach to DC and asking for a Warranty protection for new customers so I know they will be well taken care of while I'm trying to decide how many womyn are going to jump in the hot tub in St. Croix.
    I think you are missing my point.

    I'm in for the consumer bailout, not the corporate bailout. I don't want GM to be bailed out. If they fail, let them fail. But at the same time, I don't really want to see old consumers get shafted because GM is run by incompetent ****heads.

    Since the government doesn't give a **** about the existing consumers if GM collapses, I say **** GM. I don't want to see this implemented to assist them in running their company into the ground. Now that only new purchases of a ****ty product are coming out of tax dollars, old purchases be damned, I honestly WANT to see GM fail.

  4. #64
    Sage
    DeeJayH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Scooping Zeus' Poop
    Last Seen
    06-21-15 @ 03:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    11,728

    Re: GM, Chrysler Get Ultimatum From Obama on Turnaround

    boy, make a mods name Girthier, and look what he turns into
    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    I'm not really seeing this as a big deal.

    1) So they conditioned the provision of further funds on this CEO leaving. Big deal. This happens all the time with all sorts of conditions. Who's running AIG right now? What happened to Greenberg?

    2) Nothing about this is even remotely unconstitutional, unless you want to complain about Wickard v. Filburn, in which case take it to one of the 500 threads where we've argued about that.

    3) Not sure how it's at all analogous to wiretapping (which I thought was okay too, fwiw).

    4) Not sure how this is a handout to the unions, when it's they and their retirees who will be taking the biggest hit (if I'm reading this correctly).

    5) I'm glad that we're not needlessly bailing out Chrysler anymore. If Cerberus doesn't think it's worth saving, we shouldn't either.

    6) If you can't express your opposition to this proposal without resorting to racism, that sounds like a personal shortcoming.

    Human Taxidermist - - now offering his services for all your loved ones
    Quote Originally Posted by jallman View Post
    How the hell did you just tie in a retroactive reparative measure with a proactive preventative measure. Not even close to being the same thing.

  5. #65
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Last Seen
    04-12-09 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    342

    Re: GM, Chrysler Get Ultimatum From Obama on Turnaround

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    I think you are missing my point.

    I'm in for the consumer bailout, not the corporate bailout. I don't want GM to be bailed out. If they fail, let them fail. But at the same time, I don't really want to see old consumers get shafted because GM is run by incompetent ****heads.

    Since the government doesn't give a **** about the existing consumers if GM collapses, I say **** GM. I don't want to see this implemented to assist them in running their company into the ground. Now that only new purchases of a ****ty product are coming out of tax dollars, old purchases be damned, I honestly WANT to see GM fail.

    Don't think I missed the point which is why I said it's a reverse protection racket. The center of the position isn't simply the consumer because if it were the warranty time-frame would be irrelevent. The anger reflected in the revelation of the time frame shows less concern for consumers and more contempt for the companies. I'm not making a moral judgment on that one way or the other but simply trying to reconcile the claim "consumers" are at the heart of the position with a total withdrawal of support that would protect some, if not all, consumers. It just smells like Editor's Choice Socialism lacking consistency.

    There are consumer friendly laws currently in play so any form of government backed warranty protection would not only be redundant but also open the door for future corporate and governmental financial incest that bears the children of retarded economies. Think a good example is looking at the relationships between the Fed Reserve and the FDIC. Technically the latter is a "government entity" but that is about as solid as a popsicle up Satan's butt.

  6. #66
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: GM, Chrysler Get Ultimatum From Obama on Turnaround

    Quote Originally Posted by SkyCore View Post
    Don't think I missed the point which is why I said it's a reverse protection racket. The center of the position isn't simply the consumer because if it were the warranty time-frame would be irrelevent. The anger reflected in the revelation of the time frame shows less concern for consumers and more contempt for the companies. I'm not making a moral judgment on that one way or the other but simply trying to reconcile the claim "consumers" are at the heart of the position with a total withdrawal of support that would protect some, if not all, consumers. It just smells like Editor's Choice Socialism lacking consistency.

    There are consumer friendly laws currently in play so any form of government backed warranty protection would not only be redundant but also open the door for future corporate and governmental financial incest that bears the children of retarded economies. Think a good example is looking at the relationships between the Fed Reserve and the FDIC. Technically the latter is a "government entity" but that is about as solid as a popsicle up Satan's butt.
    My position has been consistent. I was incorrect on what I thought the warranty protection would do from the start. But if you go back and read all of my posts on the matter, I was supporting it on the basis that it would cover the pre-existing warranties on purchases made before the decision to back warranties.

    Once I discovered that I had the facts of the situation wrong, I retracted my support.

    Go back, read all of my posts. It's not like I was supporting the future warranties being covered.

  7. #67
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Last Seen
    04-12-09 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    342

    Re: GM, Chrysler Get Ultimatum From Obama on Turnaround

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    My position has been consistent. I was incorrect on what I thought the warranty protection would do from the start. But if you go back and read all of my posts on the matter, I was supporting it on the basis that it would cover the pre-existing warranties on purchases made before the decision to back warranties.

    Once I discovered that I had the facts of the situation wrong, I retracted my support.

    Go back, read all of my posts. It's not like I was supporting the future warranties being covered.

    Here is my understanding:

    The main concern was consumer protection, therefore it was supported because it protected consumers even if the company went under. Is that accurate?

    If so the problem is trying to reconcile why new consumers are dismissed? If the plan protects current but not older consumers then support should not have been withdrawn because it moves the goal posts from protecting consumers to being indignant against the companies. Why are new consumers less important than older consumers?

  8. #68
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: GM, Chrysler Get Ultimatum From Obama on Turnaround

    Quote Originally Posted by SkyCore View Post
    Here is my understanding:

    The main concern was consumer protection, therefore it was supported because it protected consumers even if the company went under. Is that accurate?

    If so the problem is trying to reconcile why new consumers are dismissed? If the plan protects current but not older consumers then support should not have been withdrawn because it moves the goal posts from protecting consumers to being indignant against the companies. Why are new consumers less important than older consumers?
    In answer to your questions:

    Is that accurate?
    Not at all. There is a key word missing that I have used at least two dozen times while discussing my support, which is now retracted, for this program.

    If so the problem is trying to reconcile why new consumers are dismissed?
    That question doesn't really make any sense to me. I'm sure, though, that the answer lies within my previous posts on this thread. Most specifically, compare arguments I made FOR the decision, with my retraction of support. It should become clear. If it doesn't become clear, I can't help you.

    Why are new consumers less important than older consumers?

    It's all there in the previous posts on this thread. I don't know what else to say on it. If you have actually read my previous posts, the differences should be obvious. I won't be able to help you if you still don't get it.

    If you haven't read my previous posts, then I guess you should do that to prevent yourself from entering a debate from a position of ignorance.

  9. #69
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,254

    Re: GM, Chrysler Get Ultimatum From Obama on Turnaround

    LET THEM FAIL!!!!!!!!!!!

    Why??? Because i feel that this company could have benefited more in the medium/long run more so than GM/Chrysler with 1/10 the funding.

    Hybrid Vehicle Manufacturing and Services Company - Bright Automotive

    And this is just one domestic auto maker out of a vast pool.
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  10. #70
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Last Seen
    04-12-09 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    342

    Re: GM, Chrysler Get Ultimatum From Obama on Turnaround

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    In answer to your questions:



    Not at all. There is a key word missing that I have used at least two dozen times while discussing my support, which is now retracted, for this program.



    That question doesn't really make any sense to me. I'm sure, though, that the answer lies within my previous posts on this thread. Most specifically, compare arguments I made FOR the decision, with my retraction of support. It should become clear. If it doesn't become clear, I can't help you.




    It's all there in the previous posts on this thread. I don't know what else to say on it. If you have actually read my previous posts, the differences should be obvious. I won't be able to help you if you still don't get it.

    If you haven't read my previous posts, then I guess you should do that to prevent yourself from entering a debate from a position of ignorance.
    With all the tap-dancing of "read my earlier posts" it seems like it wouldve been easier to simply answer in full. But I understand why it wasn't. Much appreciated.

Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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