R.I.P. General Motors (1931-2006)

"Mike" is a troll. I'd recommend filtering him.

 

Ray,
One of the other posters indicated that dealers can give special deals
(low prices) for the fleet owners that lease 5 or more cars at the same
time. The point was that Ford and GMC grant those special deals but Honda
and Toyota would not provide those same deals. If the poster was correct,
that could be one of the reasons why most the owners of fleets lease Ford
and Chevy cars instead of Honda and Toyota cars. I know that when I rented
a car--almost every car on the lot was a Ford or Chevy. The city that I
live in leases lots of cars and all of them are Fords or GM vehicles. Was
the poster correct in relation to the special deals mentioned in my first
sentence?
Jason

 

Mike,
Please stop top posting.
The problems that GM and Ford are having are their own faults. If they had
been making cars that were made as well as Honda cars and Toyota are made
for the past 20 or more years, they would not be having any problems
selling their vehicles. Almost everyone now knows that Honda cars and
Toyota cars have more quality than cars made by Ford and GM. I don't blame
the workers that work in Ford and GM factories. I blame the people in
management positions at Ford and GM.
Jason

 

Ah the morons are coming out of the woodwork now. Namely Dizzy. Can't follow
along eh! Should we all double space, and double line so you can read
easier?

 

When the American consumer is given poor(er) choices when buying
from American companies, they have little choice. What would be
even more unfortunate than what you say above is that we Americans
continue to buy inferior products with the misguided idea that it
will save jobs. We are in a global market. Buying American just to
buy American does nothing but attempt to avoid the inevitable. Buy
the best products at the best price and the manufacturers will
actually try to get better.

 

Yes, MOST people do realize that Honda and Toyota make higher
quality cars than GM and Ford. Their are exceptions however.

 

It's common courtesy to not top-post... but then maybe courtesy is
not always common.

 

I would rather they license them as cars. Cars have higher safety standards.

Jeff

 

Because it is a bigger vehicle. By your logic, perhaps we should charge for
gas by the miles driven rather than by the gallon.

If the President set fuel standards, he would set them lower than they are
now.

What's tippling?

However, if we got rid of all the trucks and got just small cars, the injury
rate would go down.

They already are.

Not anymore. The production of ethanol is more efficent.

Easy. No one would be allowed to drive medium duty military vehicles on
local streets.

The government is the people.

The government already tells us where to drive. For example, it is illegal
to drive on other people's lawns or in Central Park (NYC) during certain
hours.

And the CAFE laws were not repealed for a reason, as well.

Jeff

 

You mean like when people buy at a store where the average worker makes less
than $10 an hour?

Actually, there are plenty of good jobs out there. Science and math teachers
are in high demand. In fact, there are many people from the Phillipines
coming into the US to help fill those jobs. There are a lot of high tech
jobs for computer programmers and other IT people, as well. There will be an
increasing need for doctors and nurses to treat all the undocumented
immigrants who can't cross back and forth accross the border and have chosen
to stay in the US as well as the old folks who need more medical care.

Jeff

 

Mike is saying that they don't have many problems selling their vehicles.
And they don't. Of course, they do have problems selling vehicles at higher
prices.

Depends on the model. My Ford Contour has almost 130,000 mi on it and has
had very few problems (one CV joint and two wheel bearings are the only
things excluding regular maitainance that I had to replace).

And I thank the imports. Because DC, GM and Ford had to compete with them,
they improved their quality. Otherwise, we would still have low-qualtiy cars
from the big 4.

Jeff

 

And the people that believe that shit. are morons. I know first hand that
Honda, and Toys are no better than domestics. I was a mechanic at a Toy
dealer. And they had just as many vehicles in their bays as the Gm, and Ford
dealers across the street. Come to think of it, the domestics outnumber the
Jap shit 10 - 1, and yet Toyo had just as many vehicles in their bays as
the others. What does that tell ya dipshit!

 

Cool. Thanks.

Jeff

 

I agree with you. One exception is the full sized pickups made
by Ford and GM. I have yet to talk to the owner of one of those
trucks that has complained about the quality of their trucks.
There may be other exceptions that I don't know about.
Jason

 

Dear Mike,

In Arkansas and Missouri, the license fee varies by the horsepower of the
engine. SAE formula horsepower, I think in most cases. Illinois divided
their car tag fees at 35 SAE horsepower for many years. Indiana charges an
ad valorem tax as part of the license fee. Mississippi and Arkansas still
charge property tax. Illinois did until 1970.
Don't give me that guff about even license fees. Isn't Californication the
state with the 2% tax per year on cars or something to that effect?

Just remember, you get what you pay for.

Charles of Schamburg.

 

It tells me that I'm waisting my time trying to have a reasonable
conversation with you.

 

No it isn't. because I don't have the ability to go out and get a
representative sample of all the Hondas and Toyotas sold in the US.

The 2004 had over 90% domestic content:
http://www.businessweek.com/print/autos/content/apr2006/bw20060427_493909.htm

However, Toyota stil falls behind the big 2 + DC:
http://newsletter.csmauto.com/4thQtr2005/charts/article3.gif

The problem that I have with your posts is that your are plain being rude
and disrespectful to other posters.

Plus, you are diluting your own message, because it is hard enough to follow
your logic even when we can follow the thread.

Jeff

 

Uh, I think that was Jeff. I just made a rough approximation. I said
less than 6%. He said 5%. He may be closer than I am but we came to
these figures independently using different sources and methods so I
think we are pretty close. LOL yourself, it's not us who have been
holding on to a crummy stock for forty years. Have fun riding it
down.


Here is what Jeff said:
Actually, the shares closed at 22.88, which means that your intitial
investment at 40.125 is now worth 91.52 (4 x 22.88). Which means that
you
got an annual return of around 5% (the dividends) for a total return
of
around 1000% (it takes about 14 years for a something that returns 5%
to
double in value). Meanwhile, the SP 500 index had a return of about
1700%
plus dividends (the value of the S&P index does not include
dividends). I
assumed of 5%, which is probably generous, considering that the yeild
is now
4.3% and one of the highest dividend yields of any large-cap stock.

 

"Mike Hunt" is a proven liar and LOL asshole. Like most top-posting
idiots, he's lazy and selfish, and will not change his ways to help
others. Plonk him and you'll miss nothing of value.

 

That there are even more domestics at local shops not associated with the
dealers.

Jeff