Hello There, Guest!

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
GM's New Car Made With US Government
haha Rolleyes

yet amazingly, the same folk who say stuff like this probably rave about the fantastic US military .... Confusedcratch:
As far as I know, the people who rave about the US mililtary rave about the brave and mighty people who give of themselves to protect our country and others. I don't recall anybody raving about how well the military was managed. The amount of money wasted and the ungodly amount of red tape in the military is not something we rave about. It is actually a great example of why the gov't shouldn't run an auto company. The stories of thousand dollar hammers and such are numerous and well known. The outrageous amount of mid-level management in the military is an enormous drain on tax payer money that could be better spent in other places. Basically, when you hear us rave about our military, we are raving about the heroes who volunteer, not how it is run.
I was thinking more about weapons and equipment, not management!

I don't think anyone's suggesting the government run GM are they?
Weapons and equipment that the military purchased from contracted companies??

The entire point of the video was what the quality of the cars will be with the gov't RUNNING the company.

If you don't think the gov't is trying to run GM, you must not be seeing what is going on over here. The President may say he doesn't want gov't to run the company, but they are and are doing more of it every day.
I read a variety of US newspapers daily. The government does not want to run GM.
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

They say that.
But, the truth is that they are running the company already and doing more if it every day.
The task force has input on what happens with government money, as they should, and as any other unsecured creditor would want. It's also supposed to only for a defined period I believe.

The simple reality is that without government money, a number of carmakers would go bust, having potentially devastating effects on the US economy. Once lending the money has been deemed necessary (which is a separate argument), then it's absolutely politically necessary for their to be oversight of what happens with it. Neither step requires any desire to want to run the companies.
What you say may be true, and yes some of it is argueable, but that doesn't change the fact that they are running the company now. Whether they say they desire to or not doesn't matter.
For someone to be considered as "running the company" I would think they'd be making most of the decisions. This isn't the case.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)