Honda Car Forum

On Fri, 3 Apr 2009 10:42:49 -0400, "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com>
wrote:

>I hope you had on your aluminum foil hat when you post that LOL

Is that the same hat that made people want to regulate hedge funds and
credit debt swaps? Face it Mike, the days of the unregulated cowboy
mentality are coming to an end. You may have noticed a recent change
in management in DC.

And I am still waiting to find out if you favor government bailouts
fro GM, Chrysler and Ford (when they come begging.) I am assuming
that you oppose such big government meddling in the free market and
you would prefer that GM was in liquidation right now. Right?







>
>
>"dgk" <dgk@somewhere.com> wrote in message
>news:muubt4l5trvlajc2i1g734okdp0l3najid@4ax.com.. .
>> On Thu, 2 Apr 2009 10:04:58 -0400, "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>There will always be folks you who us statistic to support their "cause,"
>>>but one can not escape the laws of physics!
>>>
>>>The fact is the larger the vehicle the more room to build in the best
>>>design
>>>features to enable the VEHICLE to absorb the forces of the collision
>>>rather
>>>than the bodies of properly belted occupants.
>>>
>>>I worked the last fifteen years of my thirty years as an automotive design
>>>engineer, on the design of crumple zones and the ability of vehicle to
>>>absorb the forces of a collision that will more likely reduce the terminal
>>>speed of the "third collision," where one body strikes their skeleton, the
>>>one that kills even properly belted occupants when the passenger
>>>compartment
>>>is not impinged upon. It is an undeniable fact that the lager the vehicle
>>>the more likely that properly belted passengers will survive or sustain
>>>fewer injuries.
>>>
>>>In the real world, even among five star crash rated vehicles, the bigger
>>>the
>>>safer. Think about it, if a Smart and an F150 collided in which one
>>>would
>>>you rather be an occupant? If you still believe what you choose to
>>>believe I suggest you take a walk through a salvage yard and LOOK at the
>>>smashed vehicles, then decide which one you would rather have been riding.
>>>
>>>If you are still in doubt ask your insurance agent why a small FWD vehicle
>>>costs as much, or more, to insure than a large more expensive RWD vehicle.
>>>
>>>As to me personally, based on my experience I would never consider riding
>>>in
>>>a small or midget car, just to save a few relative dollars a year of fuel,
>>>or allow my family members to do so.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Right. Of course, your heavier vehicle will kill the people in the
>> other vechicle. So, instead of all of us driving cars that will spare
>> our planet as well as our lives, let's see who can get the biggest
>> piece of steel on the planet. You'll be safe while the planet chokes.
>> Great logic.
>>
>> Thus the need for big government. We need to BAN big heavy vehicles to
>> prevent people like you from killing the planet.
>

On Fri, 3 Apr 2009 21:36:54 -0700 (PDT), Ron Peterson
<ron@shell.core.com> wrote:

>On Apr 3, 9:26*pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> When you get hit with a $500 extra fee for registration when you
>> purchase the car, with the knowledge that that fee will be assessed
>> every year, it will have more of an effect.
>
>Families may own two or more vehicles, one of which, needs to be
>larger for carrying the whole family and towing a boat or trailer.
>Your solution doesn't match the needs of those families.

Big families might just be one of the things we need to discourage
most. As for boats, if you want that luxury you are just going to
have to pay (a lot) for it.

Ron Peterson wrote:
> On Apr 3, 9:26�pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> When you get hit with a $500 extra fee for registration when you
>> purchase the car, with the knowledge that that fee will be assessed
>> every year, it will have more of an effect.
>
> Families may own two or more vehicles, one of which, needs to be
> larger for carrying the whole family and towing a boat or trailer.
> Your solution doesn't match the needs of those families.
>
> --
> Ron


yet another giant myth. european vehicles load families, and tow
trailers up the pyrenees and the alps. that's why so many euro cars,
even little ones like civics and fits, have tow hitches out there.

yes, you read right, small cars tow trailers*. check out the towing
specs of vehicles on honda.co.uk and compare them to the same vehicles
sold here. notice the difference?

either us or the europeans are being ripped off with this ridiculous
b.s. about needing a honking great monster to tow stuff. i don't think
it's them.


* - i think one of the reasons, apart from u.s. oilcos, er,
"influencing" road safety laws in favor of larger thirstier vehicles, is
that /their/ trailers have brakes. for some reason i simply fail to
understand - unless you're paranoid and believe the previous statement -
ours don't. you /do/ need a bigger vehicle with more braking capability
if your trailer doesn't have brakes, so fit brakes and use a smaller
vehicle!

SMS wrote:
> Ron Peterson wrote:
>
>> What is wrong with a gas tax? Registration fees, once paid, don't
>> discourage anyone from driving.
>
> The gas tax is such a distributed expense that it's of limited value in
> changing behavior.

have you ever been to europe? gas taxes have a *dramatic* effect over
there!


> Also, the chances of getting a gas tax that is high
> enough to change behavior is highly unlikely at either the federal or
> state level given the influence of the oil companies.

you're dead right there.


> The big 3
> automakers have a lot less money to purchase influence these days, and
> the other automakers might not be against weight or MPG based vehicle
> license fees.

all detroit has to do is import the smaller more economic vehicles they
already make and sell very profitably in europe. the only reason they
haven't done it so far is because mercenary jerks like wagoner were
trying to get taxpayers to /pay/ him to do it! incredible chutzpah.


>
> When you get hit with a $500 extra fee for registration when you
> purchase the car, with the knowledge that that fee will be assessed
> every year, it will have more of an effect.

only if it's loaded on the heavy thirsty vehicles.

Gordon McGrew wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Apr 2009 10:42:49 -0400, "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com>
> wrote:
>
>> I hope you had on your aluminum foil hat when you post that LOL
>
> Is that the same hat that made people want to regulate hedge funds and
> credit debt swaps? Face it Mike, the days of the unregulated cowboy
> mentality are coming to an end. You may have noticed a recent change
> in management in DC.
>
> And I am still waiting to find out if you favor government bailouts
> fro GM, Chrysler and Ford (when they come begging.) I am assuming
> that you oppose such big government meddling in the free market and
> you would prefer that GM was in liquidation right now. Right?

bankruptcy is not liquidation.

but you're dead right - gm should have the plug pulled on their life
support. they have all the tools they need - including a full lineup of
cheaper more fuel efficient vehicles they make in europe - to get back
and survive if we stop giving them handouts.

only thing they seem to lack is willpower. and frankly, you can't
really blame them - making money from showing up in washington and
whining is a /lot/ easier than having to get up early in the morning and
go bash metal for 8 hours a day.



>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> "dgk" <dgk@somewhere.com> wrote in message
>> news:muubt4l5trvlajc2i1g734okdp0l3najid@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 2 Apr 2009 10:04:58 -0400, "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> There will always be folks you who us statistic to support their "cause,"
>>>> but one can not escape the laws of physics!
>>>>
>>>> The fact is the larger the vehicle the more room to build in the best
>>>> design
>>>> features to enable the VEHICLE to absorb the forces of the collision
>>>> rather
>>>> than the bodies of properly belted occupants.
>>>>
>>>> I worked the last fifteen years of my thirty years as an automotive design
>>>> engineer, on the design of crumple zones and the ability of vehicle to
>>>> absorb the forces of a collision that will more likely reduce the terminal
>>>> speed of the "third collision," where one body strikes their skeleton, the
>>>> one that kills even properly belted occupants when the passenger
>>>> compartment
>>>> is not impinged upon. It is an undeniable fact that the lager the vehicle
>>>> the more likely that properly belted passengers will survive or sustain
>>>> fewer injuries.
>>>>
>>>> In the real world, even among five star crash rated vehicles, the bigger
>>>> the
>>>> safer. Think about it, if a Smart and an F150 collided in which one
>>>> would
>>>> you rather be an occupant? If you still believe what you choose to
>>>> believe I suggest you take a walk through a salvage yard and LOOK at the
>>>> smashed vehicles, then decide which one you would rather have been riding.
>>>>
>>>> If you are still in doubt ask your insurance agent why a small FWD vehicle
>>>> costs as much, or more, to insure than a large more expensive RWD vehicle.
>>>>
>>>> As to me personally, based on my experience I would never consider riding
>>>> in
>>>> a small or midget car, just to save a few relative dollars a year of fuel,
>>>> or allow my family members to do so.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Right. Of course, your heavier vehicle will kill the people in the
>>> other vechicle. So, instead of all of us driving cars that will spare
>>> our planet as well as our lives, let's see who can get the biggest
>>> piece of steel on the planet. You'll be safe while the planet chokes.
>>> Great logic.
>>>
>>> Thus the need for big government. We need to BAN big heavy vehicles to
>>> prevent people like you from killing the planet.

jim beam <retard-finger@bad.example.net> wrote in
news:W4mdnX8MseBxy0rUnZ2dnUVZ_gSWnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t:

> Gordon McGrew wrote:
>> On Fri, 3 Apr 2009 10:42:49 -0400, "Mike Hunter"
>> <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote:
>>
>>> I hope you had on your aluminum foil hat when you post that LOL
>>
>> Is that the same hat that made people want to regulate hedge funds
>> and credit debt swaps? Face it Mike, the days of the unregulated
>> cowboy mentality are coming to an end. You may have noticed a recent
>> change in management in DC.
>>
>> And I am still waiting to find out if you favor government bailouts
>> fro GM, Chrysler and Ford (when they come begging.) I am assuming
>> that you oppose such big government meddling in the free market and
>> you would prefer that GM was in liquidation right now. Right?
>
> bankruptcy is not liquidation.

Some ARE liquidations,some are not.(reorganizations)
>
> but you're dead right - gm should have the plug pulled on their life
> support. they have all the tools they need - including a full lineup
> of cheaper more fuel efficient vehicles they make in europe - to get
> back and survive if we stop giving them handouts.
>
> only thing they seem to lack is willpower. and frankly, you can't
> really blame them - making money from showing up in washington and
> whining is a /lot/ easier than having to get up early in the morning
> and go bash metal for 8 hours a day.


GM making cars in Europe and Australia to bring into the US isn't going to
help them in the US,because GM needs to make cars HERE in the US,employing
US workers,who would then have money to buy new cars.
No job,no new car,or many other purchases.

At least Honda and other Japanese makers actually make cars here in the
US,using(paying) US workers.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Jim Yanik wrote:
> jim beam <retard-finger@bad.example.net> wrote in
> news:W4mdnX8MseBxy0rUnZ2dnUVZ_gSWnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t:
>
>> Gordon McGrew wrote:
>>> On Fri, 3 Apr 2009 10:42:49 -0400, "Mike Hunter"
>>> <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I hope you had on your aluminum foil hat when you post that LOL
>>> Is that the same hat that made people want to regulate hedge funds
>>> and credit debt swaps? Face it Mike, the days of the unregulated
>>> cowboy mentality are coming to an end. You may have noticed a recent
>>> change in management in DC.
>>>
>>> And I am still waiting to find out if you favor government bailouts
>>> fro GM, Chrysler and Ford (when they come begging.) I am assuming
>>> that you oppose such big government meddling in the free market and
>>> you would prefer that GM was in liquidation right now. Right?
>> bankruptcy is not liquidation.
>
> Some ARE liquidations,some are not.(reorganizations)

liquidation is liquidation, /not/ bankruptcy. admittedly, bankruptcy
law has different chapters which includes liquidation, but practitioners
don't use the words interchangeably.



>> but you're dead right - gm should have the plug pulled on their life
>> support. they have all the tools they need - including a full lineup
>> of cheaper more fuel efficient vehicles they make in europe - to get
>> back and survive if we stop giving them handouts.
>>
>> only thing they seem to lack is willpower. and frankly, you can't
>> really blame them - making money from showing up in washington and
>> whining is a /lot/ easier than having to get up early in the morning
>> and go bash metal for 8 hours a day.
>
>
> GM making cars in Europe and Australia to bring into the US isn't going to
> help them in the US,because GM needs to make cars HERE in the US,employing
> US workers,who would then have money to buy new cars.
> No job,no new car,or many other purchases.

that is my point - they /can/ and /should/ make them here. they have
all the designs, tooling, labor, r&d, testing EVERYTHING already done
for their euro operations. all they need to do is retool domestic
operations. all this whining about "oh, it'll take us time and money to
redesign" is complete and utter BULLSHIT.



>
> At least Honda and other Japanese makers actually make cars here in the
> US,using(paying) US workers.

damned right.

yet another reason to pull the plug on detroit. /we/ taught the
japanese how to make cars, but apparently we can't be bothered to learn
our own lessons because whining in washington gives a much better return
on investment. politicians have significant culpability in this debacle
- as long as they respond to lobbying dollars, and lobbying pays back
about 1000:1 [which it commonly does - at taxpayer expense] - we'll
never wean corporate america off the lobbying welfare teat.

jim beam <retard-finger@bad.example.net> wrote in
news:jc6dnRhLjr1_wErUnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t:

> Jim Yanik wrote:
>> jim beam <retard-finger@bad.example.net> wrote in
>> news:W4mdnX8MseBxy0rUnZ2dnUVZ_gSWnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t:
>>
>>> Gordon McGrew wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 3 Apr 2009 10:42:49 -0400, "Mike Hunter"
>>>> <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I hope you had on your aluminum foil hat when you post that LOL
>>>> Is that the same hat that made people want to regulate hedge funds
>>>> and credit debt swaps? Face it Mike, the days of the unregulated
>>>> cowboy mentality are coming to an end. You may have noticed a
>>>> recent change in management in DC.
>>>>
>>>> And I am still waiting to find out if you favor government bailouts
>>>> fro GM, Chrysler and Ford (when they come begging.) I am assuming
>>>> that you oppose such big government meddling in the free market and
>>>> you would prefer that GM was in liquidation right now. Right?
>>> bankruptcy is not liquidation.
>>
>> Some ARE liquidations,some are not.(reorganizations)
>
> liquidation is liquidation, /not/ bankruptcy. admittedly, bankruptcy
> law has different chapters which includes liquidation, but
> practitioners don't use the words interchangeably.

"bankruptcies" DO use the word for both reorgs and liquidations.

See the very recent Ritz Camera bankruptcy;they're -liquidating- 300 of 700
stores inventories.
(TODAY,FYI! there's a list of stores online.)

>
>
>
>>> but you're dead right - gm should have the plug pulled on their life
>>> support. they have all the tools they need - including a full
>>> lineup of cheaper more fuel efficient vehicles they make in europe -
>>> to get back and survive if we stop giving them handouts.
>>>
>>> only thing they seem to lack is willpower. and frankly, you can't
>>> really blame them - making money from showing up in washington and
>>> whining is a /lot/ easier than having to get up early in the morning
>>> and go bash metal for 8 hours a day.
>>
>>
>> GM making cars in Europe and Australia to bring into the US isn't
>> going to help them in the US,because GM needs to make cars HERE in
>> the US,employing US workers,who would then have money to buy new
>> cars. No job,no new car,or many other purchases.
>
> that is my point - they /can/ and /should/ make them here. they have
> all the designs, tooling, labor, r&d, testing EVERYTHING already done
> for their euro operations. all they need to do is retool domestic
> operations. all this whining about "oh, it'll take us time and money
> to redesign" is complete and utter BULLSHIT.

It DOES take money and time to retool/reconfigure a production line.
stamping dies are different,castings are different,etc.


>>
>> At least Honda and other Japanese makers actually make cars here in
>> the US,using(paying) US workers.
>
> damned right.
>
> yet another reason to pull the plug on detroit. /we/ taught the
> japanese how to make cars, but apparently we can't be bothered to
> learn our own lessons because whining in washington gives a much
> better return on investment. politicians have significant culpability
> in this debacle - as long as they respond to lobbying dollars, and
> lobbying pays back about 1000:1 [which it commonly does - at taxpayer
> expense] - we'll never wean corporate america off the lobbying welfare
> teat.
>

I don't disagree with this.
(*corporate* lobbying AND "sweetheart deals" like BHOblama got for his
wife's job and the property his Chicago house is on.)

IMO,people should be able to group together and lobby Congress;it's part of
free speech.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Jim Yanik wrote:
> Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in
> news:WvfBl.97636$4m1.3554@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
>
>
>>
>>Jim Yanik wrote:
>>
>>>jim beam <retard-finger@bad.example.net> wrote in
>>>news:UIudnYtCx7lIkEnUnZ2dnUVZ_jdi4p2d@speakeasy .net:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>fft1976@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Apr 1, 8:47�am, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>fft1...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I found this interesting study that shows the risk to drivers of
>>>>>>>other vehicles vs the risk to drivers for different 1995-1999
>>>>>>>vehicle models.
>>>>>>>http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/...-Safety-newWin.
>>>>>>>h tml For cars, it shows Camry to be the safest (with Accord and
>>>>>>>others pretty close). The data is not normalized per mile traveled
>>>>>>>though. What I find odd is that Prizm is considerably less safe
>>>>>>>than Corolla, according to them. Is there a likely mechanical
>>>>>>>explanation (dual airbags are standard in both, but perhaps the
>>>>>>>quality is different), or is this a statistical artifact due to
>>>>>>>the poorer and thus younger people buying Prizms?
>>>>>>>By the way, does anyone know of a similar, but more up-to-date
>>>>>>>study? I'd also like the probabilities of disablement included
>>>>>>>with the data given per mile traveled.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>In terms of your own safety, select a vehicle based on the IIHS and
>>>>>>NHTSA crash test ratings. For mid-size cars, the Subaru Legacy did
>>>>>>the best when you look at both ratings.
>>>>>
>>>>>Crash tests don't tell the whole story. They hide the fact that
>>>>>driving a heavier vehicle is safer for you.
>>>>
>>>>really? have you seen this?
>>>>http://bridger.us/2002/12/16/CrashTe...perVsFordF150/
>>>>
>>>>crash safety has nothing to do with weight and everything to do with
>>>>energy absorption and deceleration rates. the passenger cell of the
>>>>vehicle needs to resist deformation, and the crumple zones need to
>>>>absorb energy, thus keep deceleration rates down.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>If you are a good driver and live in an urban area, you are probably
>>>>>more likely to be in an accident involving another car than a
>>>>>concrete wall.
>>>>>
>>>>>Relative weight does matter. Graphic illustration:
>>>>>http://izismile.com/2009/03/31/road_...suzuki_ignis_7
>>>>>_ pics.html
>>>>
>>>>exactly as above.
>>>>
>>>>oh, and another dirty little secret - heavier vehicles are harder to
>>>>stop [as graphically illustrated] - thus they /increase/ the road
>>>>hazard, not decrease it.
>>>>
>>>>are you shilling for an oil company by any chance? oilcos have a
>>>>HUGE vested interest in heavy vehicles, not consumers - because of
>>>>the extra fuel consumption.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>SUVs have lower tolerance for driver errors.
>>>It's high center of gravity makes it prone to rollovers,and it must
>>>slow down more to make turns.Easier to lose control in a SUV,and
>>>harder to recover from it. Higher bumpers means other vehicles are at
>>>more risk.
>
>
> they also block the view ahead for regular passenger vehicles,increasing
> risk.
>
>>
>>
>>Nicely stated.
>>
>>A small car like a Civic is much better at avoidance assuming that the
>>driver has capacity to do so.
>
>
> plus there's incentive to avoid rather than take a hit. ;-)
> every driver has "capacity"(ability),it's that many don't exercise the
> skill.
>
>
>>OTOH, if all conditions were equal such as a head-on crash, I'll take
>>the bigger, badder, mass of iron any day.
>
>
> And thus LESS incentive to avoid a collision.
> Ordinary drivers in large cars/SUVs tend to not maneuver.

Those SUVs don't maneuver very well and when they try, they tend to roll
over.

Shortly after I put the '83 Civic FE on the road, I encountered a
situation that it easily dealt with but a full sized car/truck could
have had an unfortunate conclusion.

Accident avoidance sure has its advantages.


>>One of my favorite utterances is, "My '55 Studebaker President state
>>sedan will take full advantage of the other guy's econobox's crumple
>>zone!"
>
>
> And add to -everyone's- risk in the process.
> (selfish,besides being wasteful and costly to everyone.)

Uh, I said earlier that only in situations of equal circumstances. If
it's gonna happen, give me more iron for protection. (The '55 has
shoulder belts).


> Since smaller cars have to have additional refinforcements and safety gear
> like air bags to partially compensate for the more dangerous large
> vehicles others drive,their weight goes up and their fuel economy drops
> too.

A circumstance that few want to admit to.

AFAIC, the guv'ment should get out of the business of tightly regulating
mileage/safety standards to the point of micromanaging. If I were to buy
a new vehicle where choice was available, it would only have seat belts
period. Cost to benefit ratio just doesn't work (for me) otherwise.

I'm by nature a defensive driver. While others are chatting, texting,
eating and are otherwise pre-occupied, I'm looking down the road a
quarter of a mile anticipating potential disaster.


> since much of our petro is imported,larger vehicles that get lower mileage
> contribute to more imports,lessening our national security.
> It's patriotic to drive a small car! Besides being better environmentally.
> More oil tankers means more risk of spills.

Yes, this country needs an energy program to largely replace fossil
fuels not because of "sky is falling" climate change hysteria, but
because of economic reasons to end the economic blacmail being imposed
on us by every two bit dictatorship internationally.

Of course, if the world had two or three billion less in the way of
population, most of today's problems wouldn't exist...

JT

Jim Yanik wrote:
> jim beam <retard-finger@bad.example.net> wrote in
> news:jc6dnRhLjr1_wErUnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t:
>
>> Jim Yanik wrote:
>>> jim beam <retard-finger@bad.example.net> wrote in
>>> news:W4mdnX8MseBxy0rUnZ2dnUVZ_gSWnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t:
>>>
>>>> Gordon McGrew wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 3 Apr 2009 10:42:49 -0400, "Mike Hunter"
>>>>> <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I hope you had on your aluminum foil hat when you post that LOL
>>>>> Is that the same hat that made people want to regulate hedge funds
>>>>> and credit debt swaps? Face it Mike, the days of the unregulated
>>>>> cowboy mentality are coming to an end. You may have noticed a
>>>>> recent change in management in DC.
>>>>>
>>>>> And I am still waiting to find out if you favor government bailouts
>>>>> fro GM, Chrysler and Ford (when they come begging.) I am assuming
>>>>> that you oppose such big government meddling in the free market and
>>>>> you would prefer that GM was in liquidation right now. Right?
>>>> bankruptcy is not liquidation.
>>> Some ARE liquidations,some are not.(reorganizations)
>> liquidation is liquidation, /not/ bankruptcy. admittedly, bankruptcy
>> law has different chapters which includes liquidation, but
>> practitioners don't use the words interchangeably.
>
> "bankruptcies" DO use the word for both reorgs and liquidations.
>
> See the very recent Ritz Camera bankruptcy;they're -liquidating- 300 of 700
> stores inventories.
> (TODAY,FYI! there's a list of stores online.)

the legal difference for a company is that with a liquidation means the
company shuts down and all assets are sold. bankruptcy, chapter 11,
means relief from debt and intention to continue in some modified form.



>
>>
>>
>>>> but you're dead right - gm should have the plug pulled on their life
>>>> support. they have all the tools they need - including a full
>>>> lineup of cheaper more fuel efficient vehicles they make in europe -
>>>> to get back and survive if we stop giving them handouts.
>>>>
>>>> only thing they seem to lack is willpower. and frankly, you can't
>>>> really blame them - making money from showing up in washington and
>>>> whining is a /lot/ easier than having to get up early in the morning
>>>> and go bash metal for 8 hours a day.
>>>
>>> GM making cars in Europe and Australia to bring into the US isn't
>>> going to help them in the US,because GM needs to make cars HERE in
>>> the US,employing US workers,who would then have money to buy new
>>> cars. No job,no new car,or many other purchases.
>> that is my point - they /can/ and /should/ make them here. they have
>> all the designs, tooling, labor, r&d, testing EVERYTHING already done
>> for their euro operations. all they need to do is retool domestic
>> operations. all this whining about "oh, it'll take us time and money
>> to redesign" is complete and utter BULLSHIT.
>
> It DOES take money and time to retool/reconfigure a production line.
> stamping dies are different,castings are different,etc.

yes, but they've had two years already - they've simply FAILED to make a
freakin' decision! and again, they do NOT have to design and test -
they already have all the patterns ready to roll.


>
>
>>> At least Honda and other Japanese makers actually make cars here in
>>> the US,using(paying) US workers.
>> damned right.
>>
>> yet another reason to pull the plug on detroit. /we/ taught the
>> japanese how to make cars, but apparently we can't be bothered to
>> learn our own lessons because whining in washington gives a much
>> better return on investment. politicians have significant culpability
>> in this debacle - as long as they respond to lobbying dollars, and
>> lobbying pays back about 1000:1 [which it commonly does - at taxpayer
>> expense] - we'll never wean corporate america off the lobbying welfare
>> teat.
>>
>
> I don't disagree with this.
> (*corporate* lobbying AND "sweetheart deals" like BHOblama got for his
> wife's job and the property his Chicago house is on.)
>
> IMO,people should be able to group together and lobby Congress;it's part of
> free speech.

yeah, any person should be able to show up and make their point. but
when money changes hands, that's a fundamental perversion of the point.
i know - i've been in on stuff like this. you show up, a
"contribution" is made, and you get what you want. freakin'
ridiculously easy. and a fantastic system for those with money. but
it's freakin' sucky system for those with only principles.

example: elsewhere in the world, auditors have unlimited personal
liability for accounts they certify. here, auditors have limited
liability. so, at the end of the day, wtf do they care if the accounts
they sign and on which shareholders, pension funds, etc., are bullshit?
the result is that company accounts are unreliable and opaque. that
hurts the nation as we're seeing right now. but have you seen any
accountants, apart from madoff's, finding themselves in the spotlight
for presiding over what is effectively massive fraud? no, and the
reason is that they show up in d.c., hand over a few more dollars, host
a few more parties, and quietly lobby for what they want - immunity from
having the buck stop on their desk. it's absolute bullshit and we all
pay for it. reality is, they are the only people with the expertise to
do that job - which is theoretically why auditors exist in the first
place - they are very well compensated for it, and the principle is that
someone outside a corporation can certify whether accounts are accurate.
without that being reliable, corporations may as well certify their
own accounts and let's all stop the charade. right now, the charade is
that accountant audit is reliable. it isn't because they have no skin
in the game. that needs to end. and the politicians that accept
auditor dollars for enabling that charade need to be fired too.