Toyota Congressional Hearing

[5thGenOwner]

Originally Posted by Hopper

I agree with DGthe3 on this. What the other poster referred to is the potential for a conflict of interest. People sometimes remove themselves from debate to avoid this potential because it's not worth the hassle. Some others admit their position won't allow them to be truly objective on an issue and remove themselves. In any event, it isn't an actual conflict of interest until actions are taken and two parties with similiar situations are treated differently solely based upon a relationship of an unobjective third party. The government pulled GM and Chrysler in for hearings both before and AFTER they took ownership stakes. They've done the same with financial institutions. They did this to understand the truth and to give the those that needed it a public flogging. If you don't think these hearings negatively impacted the value of the government's stake in these companies, you're kidding yourself. If congress was just out to protect their financial interests in these companies, they wouldn't have hearings and would have went silent after they put the money in.

Bottom line...they're doing the same thing to Toyota as they previously did to GM, Chrysler and the financial institutions and they are doing it consistently. Giving them the public flogging they deserve. Yes, political grandstanding is involved and that goes with the territory. If somebody can prove GM acted slowly and inappropriately in the past with regard to product recalls and it cost lives, I would expect GM to be taken to the carpet in the same fashion, regardless of the government's ownership stake. If that happens and the government takes no action, then you can talk all you want about conflicts of interest and I will support you. Right now, all I see is a government acting properly on behalf of it's citizens, despite accusations to the contrary.

You admit to political grandstanding... but then imply that it is ok. Sorry, it's never ok. Nor is it ever benficial. As you stated.. this will negatively impact the governmental ownership of GM & Chrysler. This is because the public sees the owner of GM & Chrysler dangling the president of Toyota by his feet. People see the conflict, and thus are even more discouraged by the government owning auto companies. If the government wasn't in the auto industry... no conflict, period.

You say this is the same thing as pulling GM & Crysler in for hearings... I absolutely disagree, those companies were asking for help. They went to the government to get some of the 'bail out'. This is completely different than a political flogging of a foreign auto maker.

Here's where we agree... I absolutely believe that everyone should be held accountable for their accomplishments as well as their errors. But who in the end will hold Toyota accountable... it's not the government, it will be the consumer!

[Ghost of Vincent Price]

GM plans on being free again this summer dont they?

Anyways if someone you knew was killed in a or by a toyota because of this problem you would be singing a different song.

They reason they are there is because of their behavior in the first place.

Its floor mats....oh no its not.

Its the pedal sticking...oh no its not that either.

Its a cpu glitch....umm maybe..we dont know.

If they didnt try to cover it up they wouldnt be in this situation. Toyota has had recall after recall and lawsuits swept under the rug...where as every little effing thing that happens to GM or Ford gets plastered on the front page of every paper and magazine. This time the media cant hide it because it actually killed people.

Phuck toyota. They are the economical enemy of my country. Until Japan and toyota compete on fair and even ground (import taxes and or UAW labor) I dont care what happens to them.

[dannkimmel]

the goverment is looking out for the safty of the public.
no one i have talked to thinks anything like you do about gm chrysler and the goverment some how beinng in on a witch hunt.
the problems with toyota would still be here if gm had not asked for help .
the goverment would still be looking out for the safty of the public.
HOPPER well stated.....
as for the grand standing thats how those guys make there liveing.
they WILL go after any body that they think will make them look like there doing ther job.
given the chance they would go after gm and never give a second thought about the money.
actually im sure ther are a good many repbulicans that would love to sink gm just so they could make things wors for the dems. and the president.
its not there money they dont care!!!!

[5thGenOwner]

Originally Posted by dannkimmel

only problem with this idea is that the feds are just as much at fault as toyota!!!!!
they didnt do there jobs and may have been involved with some back door dealing.

Originally Posted by dannkimmel

the goverment is looking out for the safty of the public.

Which is it... you can't have it both ways? I tend to agree with your first statement... how did it get to this point?

Originally Posted by dannkimmel

no one i have talked to thinks anything like you do about gm chrysler and the goverment some how beinng in on a witch hunt.

Please stop reading things... the way you want them to be, and stop putting words into my mouth! I have purposely ignored your statements, because they have added very little to this discussion, other than you trying to define me.

Personal attacks are un-necessary, if you want to quote me... quote me, don't twist things into your own view. When name calling begins, it destroys what could be a very good discussion.

[Hopper]

Originally Posted by 5thGenOwner

You admit to political grandstanding... but then imply that it is ok. Sorry, it's never ok. Nor is it ever benficial. As you stated.. this will negatively impact the governmental ownership of GM & Chrysler. This is because the public sees the owner of GM & Chrysler dangling the president of Toyota by his feet. People see the conflict, and thus are even more discouraged by the government owning auto companies. If the government wasn't in the auto industry... no conflict, period.

You say this is the same thing as pulling GM & Crysler in for hearings... I absolutely disagree, those companies were asking for help. They went to the government to get some of the 'bail out'. This is completely different than a political flogging of a foreign auto maker.

Here's where we agree... I absolutely believe that everyone should be held accountable for their accomplishments as well as their errors. But who in the end will hold Toyota accountable... it's not the government, it will be the consumer!

I wasn't implying that political grandstanding was OK, I just made the observation that it goes with the territory when the government is involved. Personally, it makes me sick, but none of us are going to change that. I also disagree that that the American public views this as the government dangling Toyota to the benefit of GM. The american public is much smarter than that. This is about Toyota and they know that. Some will talk about a conflict of interest, but I hear that coming louder from those with their own interest out front. Namely the state governments with the most to lose because they have Toyota plants in their state. I do agree that nobody would be talking about this if the government didn't have a stake in GM or Chrysler, but it would still be happening to Toyota.

I also agree the the hearings upfront were GM and Chrysler asking. The hearings after the bailout weren't. By having these additional hearings for the automakers and the financials, the government shows their impartiality. They showed they want to hold these companies accountable at the expense of the the value of the government's stake. I don't know a better way to demonstrate the lack of an actual conflict of interest when one could be perceived.

I also agree that the american consumer will be the ultimate arbiter of any company's success or lack thereof. They always are. BTW...don't take this as a flaming. Much respect to you and your take. The open minded dialog is what makes this country great.

[5thGenOwner]

Originally Posted by Hopper

I wasn't implying that political grandstanding was OK, I just made the observation that it goes with the territory when the government is involved. Personally, it makes me sick, but none of us are going to change that. I also disagree that that the American public views this as the government dangling Toyota to the benefit of GM. The american public is smarter than that. This is about Toyota and most know that. Some will alledge conflict of interest, but I hear that coming louder from those with their own interest out front. Namely the state governments with the most to lose because they have Toyota plants in their state. I do agree that nobody would be talking about this if the government didn't have a stake in GM or Chrysler, but it would still be happening to Toyota.

I intentionally added the 'MLB hearings' to make my point of how the I perceive these Congressional Hearings. Nothing will come of it and as you stated, it appears to be political grandstanding.

As for the intentions being to benefit GM & Chrysler, I only point out that this is an effect of the hearings. Probably not the intention, but it was definately known that it will be a result.

I also agree the the hearings upfront were GM and Chrysler asking. The hearings after the bailout weren't. By having these additional hearings for the automakers and the financials, the government shows their impartiality. They showed they want to hold these companies accountable at the expense of the the value of the government's stake. I don't know a better way to demonstrate the lack of an actual conflict of interest when one could be perceived.

I believe you could say the hearings after... were more of a "Look we gave you this money, you squandered it and didn't fix the problem... now you are going to have to go into bankruptcy." A.K.A. a lender saying to his lendee... no more! This was the relationship between the government and the 2 US car makers. I just don't see that as comparable to what Toyota is going through.

Again, don't get me wrong... if everyone involved in this hearing is "mother theresa", then everything is on the up n' up. I just pointed out what is typically known as a "conflict of interest", which in today's politics, I guess, is almost the norm.

I also agree that the american consumer will be the ultimate arbiter of any companies success or lack thereof. They always are. BTW...don't take this as a flaming. Much respect to you and your take. The open minded dialog is what makes this country great.

Finally things we do agree on...

1) This wouldn't be an issue if the government didn't have a (high) stake in 2 US auto makers. (hence, conflict of interest)

2) Consumers will ultimately have the final say, no matter what comes of the Congressional Hearings. (what actually was accomplished at the hearings?)

3) Great discussion. A solid debate with no name calling is healthy!

[dannkimmel]

Originally Posted by 5thGenOwner

Which is it... you can't have it both ways? I tend to agree with your first statement... how did it get to this point?



Please stop reading things... the way you want them to be, and stop putting words into my mouth! I have purposely ignored your statements, because they have added very little to this discussion, other than you trying to define me.

Personal attacks are un-necessary, if you want to quote me... quote me, don't twist things into your own view. When name calling begins, it destroys what could be a very good discussion.

you my friend are the one that picks statements and only replys to one or two statements out of context.
simple answer is that the NHTSA is an arm of the goverment respnsable for your safty.
congress men (the grand standers if you will)are elected politicans so its easy for both "the goverment "to be looking out for you and a DIFFERANT part of the same goverment putting on a show.
and i mean no ill towards you however NO MATTER what ANYONE says you just say the same thing..thats not a discussion thats a circular argument...

i may come across .....um not like i would wer we speaking in person..sorry no offence.

[djinva]

Do you honestly think the hearings would not have happened or be any different at all if GM and Chysler had not received bailout money. I don't think so, but that is my opinion.

[5thGenOwner]

Originally Posted by dannkimmel

you my friend are the one that picks statements and only replys to one or two statements out of context.

NOPE, that was me showing... you contradicting your own words.

Originally Posted by dannkimmel

simple answer is that the NHTSA is an arm of the goverment respnsable for your safty.
congress men (the grand standers if you will)are elected politicans so its easy for both "the goverment "to be looking out for you and a DIFFERANT part of the same goverment putting on a show.

There was nothing accomplished at the Congressional Hearings... do I have to repeat that? Everything had already come out before they took place... and I believe we all agree it was grandstanding or as you put it "putting on a show".

Originally Posted by dannkimmel

and i mean no ill towards you however NO MATTER what ANYONE says you just say the same thing..thats not a discussion thats a circular argument...

i may come across .....um not like i would wer we speaking in person..sorry no offence.

I also mean no ill will. I am engaged in a frank discussion. My points have been overlooked, by those who just want to make their own point or insult... therefore I have restated many of my statements to elaborate on my point.

As mentioned, nothing would be any different here if GM and Chrysler were still independant of the US and Canada governments. The hearings would still take place (still nothing would come of them). But... there would not be a conflict of interest. And if you can't see it, then I suggest you take some ethics courses. (I have to every year!)

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by 5thGenOwner

As mentioned, nothing would be any different here if GM and Chrysler were still independant of the US and Canada governments. The hearings would still take place (still nothing would come of them). But... there would not be a conflict of interest. And if you can't see it, then I suggest you take some ethics courses. (I have to every year!)

So...nothing would change...and nothing matters...but this is still an issue...how?

I get the potential conflict of interests you're endeavoring to prove...but if there is no proof that it is interfering in the current events, what does it matter?

[5thGenOwner]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

So...nothing would change...and nothing matters...but this is still an issue...how?

I get the potential conflict of interests you're endeavoring to prove...but if there is no proof that it is interfering in the current events, what does it matter?

I could definately gather from all of my posts that I'm fanatical about this... but that truely isn't the case. I suppose I should have just kept my trap shut. Or at least... watched my words better (think 2x, post 1x).

My Original Post was me ranting about 2 of my displeasures related to the whole Toyota Congressional Hearings (congressional being the key word)...

First and foremost... the conflict of interest, which I guess just annoyed me more than anything. We all have to play by the same rules, even our leaders.

Yeah, I didn't think 2x before posting... but I really do work in an environment where ethics are huge. (I don't think it's a bad thing)


Second, I ranted about all the hearings congress holds (we pay for)... the other day I read that they want to step in (have hearings) and "fix" the NCAA football championship. And the MLB hearings were a circus.

I know, I know I shouldn't have gone there, but I was feeling feisty... sorry :(

[Class1E]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

To be fair, I'm sure that is a response to the incentives that have been offered for anyone turning in a Toyota.


Anybody notice the similarity between Toyota's situation and the beginning of "Debt of Honour"?

That's one of my favorite Clancy novels...and yes, it is eerily familiar.

Originally Posted by DGthe3

If it was being done to benefit GM and Chrysler, why are Ford and Honda looking to be the big gainers out of it? Shouldn't such a conspiracy be constructed so that the only result is that you win? Seems sorta basic to me. If the goal were to give sales to GM and Chrysler, I would pass trade laws to cut off the supply of imported vehicles leaving a vacuum in the market for domestics to fill. Then I would seek to destroy Ford's reputation. This would open up millions of sales to GM and Chrysler, and only GM and Chrysler.

And what about the fact that Toyota has covered up this problem (and others), lied about its causes, and blamed its customers, and blamed its suppliers? What about the fact that Toyota has had more unintended acceleration incidents than everyone else combined? Couldn't that be enough cause for the government to take interest? Wasn't it a conflict of interest for congressmen who had 'transplants' in their state to hammer the domestics in late 2008?

OMG!!!!!!! WHAT HAVE YOU DONE!

[a_Username]

It's funny that DG mentioned having import laws, because isn't that is what is keeping GM/Ford from being competitive in Japan? It'd make it a level playing field IMO.

[Class1E]

Originally Posted by a_Username

It's funny that DG mentioned having import laws, because isn't that is what is keeping GM/Ford from being competitive in Japan? It'd make it a level playing field IMO.

You need to read the book DGthe3 mentioned earlier. That is seriously the EXACT start of Debt of Honor. In the book, a Japanese automaker sells cars with gas tanks prone to failure. When the US gov't finds out, Congress passes an act that allows the US to mirror the trade policies of other countries, so the sales of Japanese cars in the US comes to a screeching halt for the exact reason that you mentioned. Badness ensues....read the book. As I stated above, it's one of my favorite Clancy novels, and I have all of them from the main series.