Norm's Coupe Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 Don't want to get into a political discussion, just giving an opinion after yesterday's news on the Big Three and the Bail Out's. So.......if you want to give an opinion, lets not blast what anyone else thinks, just give your opinion if you want. I personally think the government just drove a nail in the coffin of Chrysler and GM yesterday. First, they tell Chrysler they must complete a merger with Fiat within 30 days, if they want to get anymore bail out money. So........is Chrysler going to come out of this still being a US based car maker? Or, is Chrysler going to be run by Fiat, and eventually fade into the sunset? Second, they tell GM they must fire their CEO, and make other changes within 60 days if they want to continue getting any bail out money. Third, the government now is saying they are going to back the new car warranties. Wonder how much red tape it will take to get your car fixed if the government is behind it? Plus, how long will it take to get it fixed under warranty, if needed? I know the auto makers may have made mistakes in the past, and probably will make more. Every business does from time to time. But.........do we really want a government run auto industry? They can't decide when to take a potty break without arguing about it for 6 months! So.........in the end, looks like Ford was the only smart one out there by not taking any bail out money. At least, they can still run their own company without interference from the government that has people that have no idea on how to run a private business. Personally, I'd rather buy a new Ford or a foreign car than to have to rely on the government to back my warranty. One possible good thing may come of this. Other private companies may take a good hard look at taking bail out money. It's better to just go broke and start fresh than to have the government take over your business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teardrop puller Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 I agree 100%. However it is so good to know that our President is so well versed on running a car company. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desoto1939 Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 Go read the Wall Street Journel today and look at who is on the GM board of Directors. The board is made up of people that do not have any car manufacturing experiecne. The are Ceo's of big companies, drug companies and college presidents. May be a total shake up is needed to get these companies back to getting out products that will help the country. The general public does not decide what cars we want. The designers tell us what cars to buy. They product the cars and trucks and we are left to purchase what they produce. In this time they made the big trucks and SUV's and we as the public bought into the marketing that if we do not have a big truck or SUV then we are not cool. We as the public need to not get caught up in all of the marketing of the products but buy want we need for our own persoanl use. We are acting like we are little kids back in grade school and Junior HS. If we do not have the latest gadit then we are not part of the in crowd. Grow up America. The guys on the auto assembly line only assemble what the higher exec decide what to product. The line worker is left holding the bag os goods. They are tyring to produce a good product. Go after the ones that made the decisions not the average worker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Young Ed Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 I'm hoping they bring back some cheaper cars. I'm very happy with my dakota with manual locks windows and tranny. It was cheap when it was new and well built. I think you'd have a hard time finding a similar truck or even a car without all that power equip. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radioguy7 Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 Why is Ford the only car company that didn't take a bail out?? They are just better at organized crime than GM or Chrysler and made a deal with the Government decades ago. Almost every police department uses Ford's in their fleet, not to mention State police fleets in almost EVERY state. Gee there's no corruption there fella's. The main reason I can't stand Ford is how they shove their product down everyone's throat and gloat that they THINK they make a better product. All the while getter their palms greased by uncle sam. It's all a bunch of BS And don't get me started on that moron in the white house. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Young Ed Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 No one forces the police to buy fords. There are plenty of GM and Mopar police cars around here. There were tons of Caprice cop cars until they stopped making them. The reason there are so many Crown vics is they were the only RWD 4dr sedan for a long time. Now I see Tahoo or Blazer cop cars plus our state patrol uses Impalas. Some of the cities use Chargers too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LAKOTA169 Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 I heard on the local news this morning that Carl Levin said that Obama didn't confer with congress about getting rid of the Government Motors CEO. My daughter-in-law works at the GM Tech Center and she has already taken one pay cut. Now they are telling her she will get another pay cut, lose her company car, and her retirement money. She has worked for GM for over 20 years. She started in high school working summers. They put her through Michigan State and Purdue for her Masters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randroid Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 Gents, Slightly out of character for my usually reserved self, I'm going to go out on a limb and take a semi-educated guess, and I'll try to keep it short: Doing research for a book I started delving into the history of the Santa Fe Railroad and found nothing but corruption at the highest level. In their first nineteen years they had twenty presidents, fat cats who sat in the chair and scraped money off the top until the company was on the brink of collapse. They finally got a president (William Barstow Strong, for whom the city of Barstow was named) who was relatively straight and made it a strong company for twenty years but as soon as he retired the old practice resumed. Strong returned to the office for a few years and got it back on the track, so to speak, but within three years of his second departure the company was back in the toilet. Such actions were not exclusive to the Santa Fe; indeed it was sop for all railroads because the cash-flow they generated was too much of a temptation for mortal man to resist, hence the RR mergers we still see today. I think the car manufacturers are following their example and the current administration wants it to stop. It's been only ten years since Chrysler merged with Daimler-Benz and now they've exhausted that money pump and need to look elsewhere. It's easy to envision the president of a company as a benevolent captain steering his ship through the storm, but the sad fact is they're as greedy if not more so than their subordinates and when this company flounders they'll simply move on to another. No administration needs to know how to run a railroad in order to realize that's a crappy way to run a business, and I believe the President is telling them to change their behavior. I guess I didn't keep it very short, but I think the point has been made. -Randy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radioguy7 Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 With all respect Lakota, I think she has had red carpet treatment her whole career with GM. As far as a paycut, it's either take one or be un employed. Company car? I'm sorry but that's a perk nobody deserves unless they are in outside sales and travel is part of their job description. Company cars should be the first to go before ANY of these companies get a bail out. I'm guessing the car comes with a company gas card as well??? Where's my friggen company car?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm's Coupe Posted March 31, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 With all respect Lakota, I think she has had red carpet treatment her whole career with GM. As far as a paycut, it's either take one or be un employed.Company car? I'm sorry but that's a perk nobody deserves unless they are in outside sales and travel is part of their job description. Company cars should be the first to go before ANY of these companies get a bail out. I'm guessing the car comes with a company gas card as well??? Where's my friggen company car?? This may clarify the company car benefit. Yes, the person getting the car can usually use it anytime they want and don't have to pay for the car. Sometimes a company will charge the employee for personal use and sometimes they don't. Regardless if the company charges an employee for that car, the employee doesn't get it scott free. Whatever the cost of that car is, the IRS considers that cost as part of the employee's income. Therefore, the employee does have to pay income taxes on that amount. The same IRS rule applies to the cost of gas used in the car. If the company provides the gas for personal use, that cost is also added to the employee's income and is taxable income. It is only non taxable and not considered income when the employee uses the car for "official company business". So.........it's not all that great of a perk since you may be paying taxes on it, and not really receiving actual dollars to pay the taxes out of. There are employees of some companies that do a lot of driving between plants, etc. (not in sales) that is required by the company. Since that is also business related, it makes sense to give some employee's a company car so the company doesn't have to pay them a car allowance to use their own cars for that business. So........that's the reason some company people not in sales would need a company car. So, in really that employee isn't getting a free car to do as they please like a lot of people think. Anyone with a company car also has to keep accurate records on mileage and usually have to submit an expense report, each week. This is also required by the IRS to prove the use was business or non business. This IRS rule was put in back in the 70's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg g Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 Let's face it here, the business of business is making money, the product is secondary to the primary mission. The way to make more money is to produce the product, ship and sell it at the least possible cost. So the people who run companies are no longer concerned withthe product, but the bottom line of the business. Because the more the company makes the more they make. The US auto companies shot them selves in the foot, by flooding the market with products at low lease rates, and artificially high residual values. Values that bore no relationship to the market of the depreciation of the vehicle. Look at 1 year old cars, they are selling everywhere in the country for about 60 cents on a dollar, why buy a new car, when you can get a 10 to 15 K version for about half price. The market is flooded with these things. Then you have the poo schnook who falls for the 100% financing, buys a 20 K car makes 12 of 400 bucks for 4800 bucks on the loan looses their job, and how has a car worth 11K that they owe 15K on. This racket has made the rich richer the poor poorer and the workers making products that no one wants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobT-47P15 Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 Back in the late 60s--early to mid 70s, I worked for a major tobacco manufacturer as a factory rep. They furnished us a company car on which they paid all the repair bills, gas used, etc. I could use if for personal use, vacations, trips......but I had to turn in my mileage driven and they did charge me 5 cents per mile. I thought that was a pretty good deal. On one vacation trip a deer ran across the interstate and in front of the car.....damaged the left front corner. The company paid for the repair. I agree with Norm......there can be legitimate needs for a company car, but some are just gravy for certain folks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatS.... Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 I think until they get "car guys" running car companies, they will keep swirling into the toilet. Guys like Iacocca who "get it" and love cars and know what makes people buy. Bean counters make beans and that's just not what people want. Nothing will change at GM now that they ran off the CEO...NOBODY will have the balls to make a decision in case they are run off next, so no decisions will be made. The only way out is with a few VERY bold, risky decisions. And that won't happen when those in charge are afraid of being wrong. As for Ford, I think they are doing the right thing...don't take the charity, just work like hell to do it on their own. They won't be beholding to anyone...smart. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radioguy7 Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 Most of the company cars as we are talking about are Gravy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billwillard Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 The ones running these co's arent interested in making money for the co. Only for themselves. No one is worth what they get and this goes for the banks to. A bous for what. Do your job thats why you are there. I'll shut up before I really get going. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm's Coupe Posted March 31, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 Most of the company cars as we are talking about are Gravy The government should not worry about company cars though. After all, how many people have assigned government vehicles to drive and keep at their disposal 24/7? Some of which are chauffeur driven. Are those gravy too? If they didn't get a company car to perform their company business, they would have to use and pay for their own cars to do the company business performed. If the employee uses his own personal car, he also has to pay more for car insurance for that business use. That can be verified by our resident forum insurance agent BobT. Now, that said. Would you go out and buy a car and then use it for a company that you didn't own, putting all that extra mileage on to perform their business? Then because of that, you would need to trade your car in more often, taking a loss because of the extra mileage. I doubt it, I know I certainly wouldn't unless I got a car allowance, plus mileage paid for doing so. The company I worked for from 1968 until 1989 provided us with company cars until 1981. We had about 150 salesmen and some office people with company cars at the time. During a banquet at the owners house for the sales management people the owner got me off to one side and ask how I felt about doing away with the company cars and just paying a car allowance, plus mileage. I did not hesitate in giving him my answer. I told him I would rather have a reasonable car allowance, plus mileage than a company car. But........some salespeople would probably quit if we took them away. But........in my opinion if they did, they were just there for the cars and didn't care about the company. So........about a week later the owner made the announcement that there would be no more company cars the following year. We would receive a car allowance, plus mileage and we could buy whatever car we wanted with it. The car allowance was more than what it would cost for a car like we were driving (Olds Cutlass Supreme for people like myself and Ford Fairmont for the sales people). It was more because it also cost more for auto insurance when used for business. Yes, we did lose about 10 to 20% of the salespeople, but they were no great loss. We just replaced them. Even with the car allowance we couldn't keep a car longer than about 2 years due to the excess company miles put on it. So.......to the people that don't receive company cars, I guess it does look like gravy. But.......it's not gravy. Maybe, what they should do is like you say. Get rid of their company cars. Then pay those people a car allowance, plus mileage in it's place. That way no one would know about it except the employee, and the other employees wouldn't have a reason to be jealous because they didn't get a car allowance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
claybill Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 the moron in the white house....? i thought he was voted out! biill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lorandunn Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 The auto executives HAVE to be lawyers and financiers...it the only way all the union-imposed insurance, benefits, payroll, etc...can get taken care of. What kind of a mess would having car guys in charge of making cars produce? (answer: cars that don't fall apart after 90K miles) And while I'm on the subject, NOTHING the government is in charge of works very well (except the military! HOOAH!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lorandunn Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 No one is worth what they get and this goes for the banks to. Actually, according to the FREE MARKET (anyone remember what that is?), everything and everybody is worth exactly whatever someone is willing to pay. Imagine an eBay where Grand-Dad's old pickup can only be sold for whatever the government says you can sell it for...even if someone is WILLING to pay more just to be the one to have it. WILLING & FREE...that's what made us great. Not hope, change, sacrifice or whatever other feel-good buzz word of the day happens to be shoveled our way by a compliant and pie-eyed newsmedia. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flatie46 Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 Ford only asked for a line of credit in the bailout because right before the economy went south they borrowed all they could borrow.I think they should have let the chips fall and let them go bankrupt.The government should not be involved. I think they [the politicans] used this as an excuse to pass some pork projects.I don't think Obama wanted the economy to rebound untill he could make some changes that the general public might not otherwise agree with.The stock market will react to what he says, he hasn't been very positive untill here lately.We need less government and more responsibility for ourselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveplym Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 This goes back to the same principle. The government should stay out of the private sector. I never thought I would see a US President fire a CEO of a private company. That is insane. The government should of never got in the business of bailing out anyone. Let the free market work and it will decide the winners and the losers. All this is doing is prolonging the recession. Bush should have never gone ahead with the TARP and started bailing out companies. The Obama administration is tossing money out like candy at a parade. If you have a bad business or have bad business practices it should fail, and we should let it fail. Then the competition who had a better business or practices will survive and thrive. This is how the free market works. What we are seeing now is like a socialist government. The government is deciding who wins and who loses. They also have been talking about setting salaries of CEO's. I know some people are in favor of this, but once the government starts where are they to stop? When will they start telling us what our salary is? Ok, I'm done ranting, I'm just sick of seeing the goverment in my pocketbook everyday. Problem is sounds like it is going to get worse before it gets better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobertKB Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 the moron in the white house....? i thought he was voted out!biill He was! Also, about Free Markets. You can't have it both ways. I'm pretty sure the majority of people like the government involved with the police, food regulations, prescription drug testing, airports, highways, etc. In a real free market all of these would be unregulated and at the will of those only concerned about making money. Would you like tolls on all highways - free market. Buy and eat uninspected meat - free market. The US and the rest of the world are dealing with the problems we have because there was not enough government regulation in the financial industry. The free market ran amok. Government has its place and I think at times like this, they need to get involved. My two cents worth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveplym Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 He was!Also, about Free Markets. You can't have it both ways. I'm pretty sure the majority of people like the government involved with the police, food regulations, prescription drug testing, airports, highways, etc. In a real free market all of these would be unregulated and at the will of those only concerned about making money. Would you like tolls on all highways - free market. Buy and eat uninspected meat - free market. The US and the rest of the world are dealing with the problems we have because there was not enough government regulation in the financial industry. The free market ran amok. Government has its place and I think at times like this, they need to get involved. My two cents worth. Actually Robert if we went to a fair tax system where everyone paid their fair share I would be in favor of that. If that means I have to pay a toll or pay a higher sales tax that would be fine. Lower income taxes and property taxes and just have people pay for what you use. I don't see a problem with that at all. What burns me is the people who depend on government for everything their entire life. I work hard and pay taxes while others live on welfare and never have any interest to get a job as it is all paid for. Problem now is the fact that the government is so involved is making this crisis worse. If they would have stayed out of it many years ago, and been more fiscally responsible maybe we wouldn't be in this mess. Somebody is getting right off all this, aka George Soros, and it ain't me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Coatney Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 Speaking of railroads, cars, airplaines, trucks, and other forms of transportation. I have a neighbor who has worked for the railroad for several years. The railroad gives him a vehicle to drive "at will" not only including trips to and from work but for unlimited personal use too. This guy has not owned a car in years. He wanted to buy a speciality car after I gave him a ride in my Plymouth. Problem is he is insurable only as a newly licensed driver (very high rates) because he has not bought car insurance in over 25 years. I wont go into his railroad retirement plan as it beats all others. In the early 70's I worked in sales and was given a company car (AMC Matador). If memory serves me correctly I could use the company car for personal use but I was required to pay a fee for doing so. Any mileage driven for work in the car I owned was paid at the rate of around 10 cents per mile. My daily driver is a Ford F-150 extended cab pickup. I dont drive this truck as a status symbol or to keep up with the Joneses. I drive it because it is easy for me to get in and out of. My wife drives a Taurus and I can barely contort my self enough to get in and out of her car. I hate to fly. Several reasons. The seats are way too small, leg room is not. And the security measures are an embarsement to our country. However several companies today have rules that require flying if the cost of the airline ticket is less than the goverment mileage rate. As far as the government bailout of auto industries there is an e-mail that has been floating around for a month or so. I dont have it handy but it says..... There are around 40 million American workers over 50 years oid. The Government should give each of these workers one million dollars each with a few stipulations. 1) They must quit there job. This opens up 40 million new jobs and the unemployment problem is fixed. 2) They must buy a new American built car and this fixes the auto industry. 3) They must buy a new house or pay off there current house and this fixes the financial crisis. To me this makes a lot more sence than pouring good money after bad to the banks and industries that have put us in the current crisis we are in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatS.... Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 Hi, I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help! I agree, although it's a damn shame to see GM and Chrysler go down, it's the free market and they did it to themselves. It's not like the marques wouldn't be reborn somehow, maybe better than before. Sad state of affairs for sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.