Don't know if I can buy a government car?

[MrIcky]

Originally Posted by Captain Awesome

I'm going to disagree on one point. Where it has been stated that politicians start out wanting to "help" people like making affordable housing and such, I think with many of them it's their way of "helping" themselves get elected/re-elected.

In my opinion, selfishness and greed for power makes them "generous" to their constituents with other people's money in return for their votes...

I never said they wanted to help people. I said they wanted to make America and possibly the world a better place. Some would view that as helping people.

I'll use Barney Frank as an example. Barney Frank deeply, almost religiously believes that every American should have a home and healthcare. I believe that every part he played in the current housing debacle was done out of his beliefs. I think he would have done what he did there regardless of votes. My Dad was a banker, I spent time as a banker. Any banker could have told you that he was playing a dangerous game, but Frank voted as he did honestly believing what he believes. And if you ask me how I know this, my answer is he's behaved consistantly on the subject for 35 years.

Waxman believes that people are ruining the Earth through pollution. He sees his duty as helping America clean up the world. He is a true believer in Global Warming. (This isn't an argument about global warming).

Others are Reagan disciples who believe that America is at it's best when Gov't doesn't interfere and they don't want to give ANY money to GM.

I certainly agree there is some vote buying that goes on. Some congressmen do get corrupted or even start corrupted. I personally am more in the Reagan disciple camp, but I'll tell you now a significant share of congresspeople actually believe what they spout. Trust but verify.

[DGthe3]

This is one of those times that I don't like being a mod ... I can't quite say what I really want. But here goes ...

[rant]

Originally Posted by stovt001

And what the hell is government, a charity? The greed coming from government completely eclipses any greed from corporate America. You don't see private companies setting arbitrarily low speed limits and shortening yellow lights in an unsafe manner just for a revenue grab do you?

No, but nobody can claim that the auto industry doesn't invent arbitrary ways to make money. If they really wanted to, they could create cars that lasted 2x as long, used fewer parts, and cost only a little bit more. Why don't they? Ask anyone who works at a dealership where they make their money: parts or sales.

Even with the Camaro, GM is hoping that some will buy a 2010 SS right now and then trade it in for a brand new 2013 with some new features (vert? Z28? Gen V engine? Nav?) even when their current car has nothing wrong with it and would be completely satisfying if it weren't for something 'new and improved' being offered. Planned obsolescence was invented by Ford decades ago, the idea that your car is now old and needs to be replaced with something better every few years.

Does this bother me? Not at all. But the notion that government is evil and wants to destroy the GM that we know and love is laughable. Why? Because the GM is far from a simple business that inocently goes about building cars. They've gone out to destroy other industries (light rail for example) in order to further their own goals. They have their lobbyists in government and officials have gotten money (through back door dealings and up front campaign contributions) to give the automakers what they want, rather than what some other group wants, such as the average voter. So they have had their hand in things for decades, now the government is starting to return the favor and people are screaming foul.

This hasn't been a problem for me in the past, thats why I've never raised the point. Well, that and the interaction between government and GM hasn't been too much of an issue on the boards. But now that things have been flipped around, I think its worth mentioning. Personally, I think we should be more concerned about business interfering with government than government interfering with business. Because really, whats affects you more: Obama having a hand in GM or Fritz Henderson having a hand in the US Federal Government?

One last little comment ... regulations. Know what the penalty for not being up to CAFE standards is? A fine. A small fine. Less than the gas guzzler tax if you work it out for the cars that have the lowest mileage. I think tail pipe emmissions are similar. Crash standards are a minimum requirement to be legal, and every car greatly exceeds them. So its the customer that forces safety more than the government, a 3 start crash rating is not good enough for most: it has to be 5 star. Point is, GM could easily build unsafe, dirty gas guzzlers (a Hummer H2 is nothing compared to what they could do) if they wanted to, and pay some small fines. But the average consumers would abandon them faster than they do their new years resolution.


I'm done now.
[/rant]

[manimsoblack]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

No, but nobody can claim that the auto industry doesn't invent arbitrary ways to make money. If they really wanted to, they could create cars that lasted 2x as long, used fewer parts, and cost only a little bit more. Why don't they? Ask anyone who works at a dealership where they make their money: parts or sales.

I think one of the things wrong with the whole building cars that last 2x longer and all that is twofold. The number one reason by far is technology. With the rapid changes in technology and fads in our society almost every new model year of a car can incorporate a technology that either was cost effective or available the year before and by the time the car is ready to be rebuild from the ground up on a new platform the things that get put on it while available would've put it WAY out of its price bracket 5/6 yrs earlier. Number two would be monotony. Most people keep cars for 5-7 yrs. The number one reason for getting another is that the old one no longer satisfies the need they got it for. Number two is because they just "needed something newer," so unless they could build a car that could upgrade on the fly with newer tech and safety equipment it would actually be like those gum commercials where the people chew for too long, the company is losing sales money and (though not mentioned) the person would likely tire of having the same flavor for so long.

[theholycow]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

If they really wanted to, they could create cars that lasted 2x as long, used fewer parts, and cost only a little bit more.

You mean like a 1970 Camaro?
http://jalopnik.com/398478/woman-dri...-nose-at-volvo
Granted, it didn't cost more, and it lasted far more than 2x as long as most cars...

[Tomash]

Originally Posted by Gary B

The biggest problem I have if this comes to be true is the government is doing this with OUR tax dollars! To me, this means WE own part of GM and should benefit from that in some way.

You do: you all have just got a piece of GM's huge multi-billion debt. Feeling better now?

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by Tomash

You do: you all have just got a piece of GM's huge multi-billion debt. Feeling better now?

meh, GM's debt is a drop in the bucket compared to the US national debt.

[dbotsfordtat]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

meh, GM's debt is a drop in the bucket compared to the US national debt.

So true, our grandkids grandkids will be paying on it.:(

[Camaro_Corvette]

I am shocked that this thread is still going! You guys deserve applause!!

[Fireball]

Originally Posted by dbotsfordtat

I think regulations have done more good than harm. I say that because of past abuse to our environment by big business, safety considerations for workers and consumers, and so on. I think many that are worried about government intrusion on private business should look at our history before regulations. Hell, remember what happened to our Bald Eagle population? Big business almost killed our national bird off. Look at China's pollution problems and their subsequent health issues. Just because its good for business doesn't mean its good.

Environmentalists protect birds and kill people. They love anything -- dirt, rocks, ozone, climate, weeds, bugs, bears -- anything but humans. They protect "pristine landscapes" from oil production in America, so Americans have to go to the Middle East to get oil. Then when Americans get slaughtered by Mideast terrorists, environmentalists say, "So what! We've got to save the whales!"

Those same environmentalists want everyone OUT OF CARS and into sneakers. Why? To save the environment? Ostensibly yes. But upon deeper understanding it becomes clear they want MAN TO SUFFER. There is no greater good for environmentalists than for humans to be wiped off the planet so weeds & bugs can reproduce for eternity.

[dbotsfordtat]

Originally Posted by Fireball

Environmentalists protect birds and kill people. They love anything -- dirt, rocks, ozone, climate, weeds, bugs, bears -- anything but humans. They protect "pristine landscapes" from oil production in America, so Americans have to go to the Middle East to get oil. Then when Americans get slaughtered by Mideast terrorists, environmentalists say, "So what! We've got to save the whales!"

Those same environmentalists want everyone OUT OF CARS and into sneakers. Why? To save the environment? Ostensibly yes. But upon deeper understanding it becomes clear they want MAN TO SUFFER. There is no greater good for environmentalists than for humans to be wiped off the planet so weeds & bugs can reproduce for eternity.

No doubt those people do exist, but I don't consider myself one. I care about the environment and don't want to see things revert back to the day's of rivers catching on fire. There needs to be a balance but corporations can't be trusted to police themselves so government regulation is necessary. Unfortunately, they often tend to go to far or become corrupt, ect... Whats our alternative?

[manimsoblack]

Originally Posted by dbotsfordtat

No doubt those people do exist, but I don't consider myself one. I care about the environment and don't want to see things revert back to the day's of rivers catching on fire. There needs to be a balance but corporations can't be trusted to police themselves so government regulation is necessary. Unfortunately, they often tend to go to far or become corrupt, ect... Whats our alternative?

Create a regulatory body independent of the companies and the government. Get a few college professors from various fields and make it there job to serve as middlemen (and women) between the companies and government. They'd examine what the companies are capable of and set appropriate and reasonable time lines for government mandate/laws but they're "semi-anonymous" so that the companies can't get to them and offer them gobs of cash or kidnap their families, etc. Basically their job would be to make sure both parties are doing as much as they can while not undermining the other.

...or something...

[dbotsfordtat]

Originally Posted by manimsoblack

Create a regulatory body independent of the companies and the government. Get a few college professors from various fields and make it there job to serve as middlemen (and women) between the companies and government. They'd examine what the companies are capable of and set appropriate and reasonable time lines for government mandate/laws but they're "semi-anonymous" so that the companies can't get to them and offer them gobs of cash or kidnap their families, etc. Basically their job would be to make sure both parties are doing as much as they can while not undermining the other.

...or something...

Not bad.

[PQ]

Originally Posted by camaro_corvette

I am shocked that this thread is still going! You guys deserve applause!!

Cause I'm just reading it and not participating.

[Fireball]

Originally Posted by dbotsfordtat

No doubt those people do exist, but I don't consider myself one. I care about the environment and don't want to see things revert back to the day's of rivers catching on fire. There needs to be a balance but corporations can't be trusted to police themselves so government regulation is necessary. Unfortunately, they often tend to go to far or become corrupt, ect... Whats our alternative?

You have two basic choices here:

(1) Advocate politicians & bureaucrats to regulate & control businessmen and everyone will end up driving Yugos. :(

(2) Advocate individual liberty for all members of society whereby government only protects individuals and their property rather than running everyone's life -- and the ensuing prosperity will result in new Z/28, COPO & ZL1 Camaros for everyone who wants one.