Time for Jeff Bridges to dump Hyundai

[Rt.66]

The profits from your car purchase is appreciated by Honda and the Japanese people. They will use it to pay deficits, build schools, provide for the elderly and sick, improve roads, etc.

Meanwhile don’t complain as the lack of such improvments and services continues in YOUR country.

What do you expect as a response? Oh, well at least you tried?

Why did you stop at Pontiac?
Chrysler makes cars, Ford makes cars, Chevy?

Pretty lame ” I had no choice, but buy a Honda” post.

[PKMAN]

[quote=Rt.66]The profits from your car purchase is appreciated by Honda and the Japanese people. They will use it to pay deficits, build schools, provide for the elderly and sick, improve roads, etc.[/quote]

Your arguments seem strong but are only skin-deep and can be applied to foreign componets sourced by American car makers. So based on your arguments the only way we can truly be sure that 100% of our car purchase $$ will be used to pay OUR deficits, build OUR schools, provide care for OUR elderly, etc. is to buy car with 100% USA-sourced componets and based on my recent experience that car doesn’t exist, not anymore and we have the Big Three to thank for that, as they were the pioneers in sourcing from overseas to cut costs.

Where do we draw the line? Do we say 70% USA components is acceptable, or must it be 95%? Which is more preferrable, American-branded cars that are assembled elsewhere or foreign-branded cars that are assembled in USA? If #1, then should we care that GM plans to introduce cars from China and plans to shift more production and R&D resources (both blue and white collar jobs) to China? Once again, where do we draw the line?.

I didn’t consider Ford or Chrysler in the first place because of their styling. I’m not into the retro-style of most Chrysler/Dodge nowadays and didn’t like the new Taurus’ styling either. This is highly subjective so I don’t expect everybody to agree with me. Chrysler also has qualify/reliability issues that are not perception but factual.

I had other choices. I could’ve bought a VW that was assembled in Europe, or a Hyundai Azera that was assembled in Korea. I chose to buy a Honda that was assembmed in USA.

The world is one big economy nowadays so the old protectionism simply doesn’t work anymore…unless we want to be like North Korea. That’s why it’s more important to me that the assembly of cars is in the US, rather than the brand itself.

[PKMAN]

[quote=Rt.66]The profits from your car purchase is appreciated by Honda and the Japanese people. They will use it to pay deficits, build schools, provide for the elderly and sick, improve roads, etc.[/quote]

Your arguments seem strong but are only skin-deep and can be applied to foreign componets sourced by American car makers. So based on your arguments the only way we can truly be sure that 100% of our car purchase $$ will be used to pay OUR deficits, build OUR schools, provide care for OUR elderly, etc. is to buy car with 100% USA-sourced componets and based on my recent experience that car doesn’t exist, not anymore and we have the Big Three to thank for that, as they were the pioneers in sourcing from overseas to cut costs.

Where do we draw the line? Do we say 70% USA components is acceptable, or must it be 95%? Which is more preferrable, American-branded cars that are assembled elsewhere or foreign-branded cars that are assembled in USA? If #1, then should we care that GM plans to introduce cars from China and plans to shift more production and R&D resources (both blue and white collar jobs) to China? Once again, where do we draw the line?.

I didn’t consider Ford or Chrysler in the first place because of their styling. I’m not into the retro-style of most Chrysler/Dodge nowadays and didn’t like the new Taurus’ styling either. This is highly subjective so I don’t expect everybody to agree with me. Chrysler also has qualify/reliability issues that are not perception but factual.

I had other choices. I could’ve bought a VW that was assembled in Europe, or a Hyundai Azera that was assembled in Korea. I chose to buy a Honda that was assembmed in USA.

The world is one big economy nowadays so the old protectionism simply doesn’t work anymore…unless we want to be like North Korea. That’s why it’s more important to me that the assembly of cars is in the US, rather than the brand itself.

[PKMAN]

[quote=Rt.66]The profits from your car purchase is appreciated by Honda and the Japanese people. They will use it to pay deficits, build schools, provide for the elderly and sick, improve roads, etc.[/quote]

Your arguments seem strong but are only skin-deep and can be applied to foreign componets sourced by American car makers. So based on your arguments the only way we can truly be sure that 100% of our car purchase $$ will be used to pay OUR deficits, build OUR schools, provide care for OUR elderly, etc. is to buy car with 100% USA-sourced componets and based on my recent experience that car doesn’t exist, not anymore and we have the Big Three to thank for that, as they were the pioneers in sourcing from overseas to cut costs.

Where do we draw the line? Do we say 70% USA components is acceptable, or must it be 95%? Which is more preferrable, American-branded cars that are assembled elsewhere or foreign-branded cars that are assembled in USA? If #1, then should we care that GM plans to introduce cars from China and plans to shift more production and R&D resources (both blue and white collar jobs) to China? Once again, where do we draw the line?.

I didn’t consider Ford or Chrysler in the first place because of their styling. I’m not into the retro-style of most Chrysler/Dodge nowadays and didn’t like the new Taurus’ styling either. This is highly subjective so I don’t expect everybody to agree with me. Chrysler also has qualify/reliability issues that are not perception but factual.

I had other choices. I could’ve bought a VW that was assembled in Europe, or a Hyundai Azera that was assembled in Korea. I chose to buy a Honda that was assembmed in USA.

The world is one big economy nowadays so the old protectionism simply doesn’t work anymore…unless we want to be like North Korea. That’s why it’s more important to me that the assembly of cars is in the US, rather than the brand itself.

[PKMAN]

[quote=Rt.66]The profits from your car purchase is appreciated by Honda and the Japanese people. They will use it to pay deficits, build schools, provide for the elderly and sick, improve roads, etc.[/quote]

Your arguments seem strong but are only skin-deep and can be applied to foreign componets sourced by American car makers. So based on your arguments the only way we can truly be sure that 100% of our car purchase $$ will be used to pay OUR deficits, build OUR schools, provide care for OUR elderly, etc. is to buy car with 100% USA-sourced componets and based on my recent experience that car doesn’t exist, not anymore and we have the Big Three to thank for that, as they were the pioneers in sourcing from overseas to cut costs.

Where do we draw the line? Do we say 70% USA components is acceptable, or must it be 95%? Which is more preferrable, American-branded cars that are assembled elsewhere or foreign-branded cars that are assembled in USA? If #1, then should we care that GM plans to introduce cars from China and plans to shift more production and R&D resources (both blue and white collar jobs) to China? Once again, where do we draw the line?.

I didn’t consider Ford or Chrysler in the first place because of their styling. I’m not into the retro-style of most Chrysler/Dodge nowadays and didn’t like the new Taurus’ styling either. This is highly subjective so I don’t expect everybody to agree with me. Chrysler also has qualify/reliability issues that are not perception but factual.

I had other choices. I could’ve bought a VW that was assembled in Europe, or a Hyundai Azera that was assembled in Korea. I chose to buy a Honda that was assembmed in USA.

The world is one big economy nowadays so the old protectionism simply doesn’t work anymore…unless we want to be like North Korea. That’s why it’s more important to me that the assembly of cars is in the US, rather than the brand itself.

[PKMAN]

[quote=Rt.66]The profits from your car purchase is appreciated by Honda and the Japanese people. They will use it to pay deficits, build schools, provide for the elderly and sick, improve roads, etc.[/quote]

Your arguments seem strong but are only skin-deep and can be applied to foreign componets sourced by American car makers. So based on your arguments the only way we can truly be sure that 100% of our car purchase $$ will be used to pay OUR deficits, build OUR schools, provide care for OUR elderly, etc. is to buy car with 100% USA-sourced componets and based on my recent experience that car doesn’t exist, not anymore and we have the Big Three to thank for that, as they were the pioneers in sourcing from overseas to cut costs.

Where do we draw the line? Do we say 70% USA components is acceptable, or must it be 95%? Which is more preferrable, American-branded cars that are assembled elsewhere or foreign-branded cars that are assembled in USA? If #1, then should we care that GM plans to introduce cars from China and plans to shift more production and R&D resources (both blue and white collar jobs) to China? Once again, where do we draw the line?.

I didn’t consider Ford or Chrysler in the first place because of their styling. I’m not into the retro-style of most Chrysler/Dodge nowadays and didn’t like the new Taurus’ styling either. This is highly subjective so I don’t expect everybody to agree with me. Chrysler also has qualify/reliability issues that are not perception but factual.

I had other choices. I could’ve bought a VW that was assembled in Europe, or a Hyundai Azera that was assembled in Korea. I chose to buy a Honda that was assembmed in USA.

The world is one big economy nowadays so the old protectionism simply doesn’t work anymore…unless we want to be like North Korea. That’s why it’s more important to me that the assembly of cars is in the US, rather than the brand itself.

[PKMAN]

To Rt.66 – by the way, my other finalist was Mazda 6. Mazda is 50% owned by Ford but the particulr 6 I was interested was assembled in Japan (even though some Mazdas were assembled in the US). So in your view, which would be the lesser of 2 evils; a Japanese-assembled car with 50% US ownership or a US-assembled car with 100% Japanese ownership?

And since I’m on it, might as well ask another question; is it more OK to buy a Swedish-assembled Volvo (vs a US-assembled Honda) knowing that it’s own by Ford?

[PKMAN]

To Rt.66 – by the way, my other finalist was Mazda 6. Mazda is 50% owned by Ford but the particulr 6 I was interested was assembled in Japan (even though some Mazdas were assembled in the US). So in your view, which would be the lesser of 2 evils; a Japanese-assembled car with 50% US ownership or a US-assembled car with 100% Japanese ownership?

And since I’m on it, might as well ask another question; is it more OK to buy a Swedish-assembled Volvo (vs a US-assembled Honda) knowing that it’s own by Ford?

[PKMAN]

To Rt.66 – by the way, my other finalist was Mazda 6. Mazda is 50% owned by Ford but the particulr 6 I was interested was assembled in Japan (even though some Mazdas were assembled in the US). So in your view, which would be the lesser of 2 evils; a Japanese-assembled car with 50% US ownership or a US-assembled car with 100% Japanese ownership?

And since I’m on it, might as well ask another question; is it more OK to buy a Swedish-assembled Volvo (vs a US-assembled Honda) knowing that it’s own by Ford?

[PKMAN]

To Rt.66 – by the way, my other finalist was Mazda 6. Mazda is 50% owned by Ford but the particulr 6 I was interested was assembled in Japan (even though some Mazdas were assembled in the US). So in your view, which would be the lesser of 2 evils; a Japanese-assembled car with 50% US ownership or a US-assembled car with 100% Japanese ownership?

And since I’m on it, might as well ask another question; is it more OK to buy a Swedish-assembled Volvo (vs a US-assembled Honda) knowing that it’s own by Ford?

[PKMAN]

To Rt.66 – by the way, my other finalist was Mazda 6. Mazda is 50% owned by Ford but the particulr 6 I was interested was assembled in Japan (even though some Mazdas were assembled in the US). So in your view, which would be the lesser of 2 evils; a Japanese-assembled car with 50% US ownership or a US-assembled car with 100% Japanese ownership?

And since I’m on it, might as well ask another question; is it more OK to buy a Swedish-assembled Volvo (vs a US-assembled Honda) knowing that it’s own by Ford?

[dbapig]

[quote=CONCHO]I have a college degree but because I don’t work for govt nor GM, I won’t be getting pension after I retire. Meanwhile auto workers graduated from high school and start working at car factory right away and end up with pension. I’m sure working on factory floor has its difficulties and all BUT it doesn’t make sense. That’s unsustainable. We can’t sustain what’s unsustainable.

Wow what an amazing example of the way we think here in the US. Note that pensions are common across Western Europe (and used to be here too!), where lots of good cars and other products come from. However here in the US they are considered “unsustainable” relics of a bygone era. Rather than thinking — “Hey why don’t we all have a pension like the autoworkers? We should organize and hassle our politicians to make that happen!” we instead think “those darned overpaid spoiled autoworkers! They should be totally f***ed like the rest of us and have to work until they drop!”

And most people here think this way. Go ahead and call me crazy for thinking otherwise, I’m used to it.[/quote]

Ok let’s say pension isn’t a crazy idea. Can you please tell me why I don’t have it? I have a college degree but don’t work for Govt./GM. BTW, Govt/GM are prime examples how things should NOT be managed. I would love to get pension so how can I get it?

It’s NOT sustainable. Look at what happened to GM.

[dbapig]

[quote=CONCHO]I have a college degree but because I don’t work for govt nor GM, I won’t be getting pension after I retire. Meanwhile auto workers graduated from high school and start working at car factory right away and end up with pension. I’m sure working on factory floor has its difficulties and all BUT it doesn’t make sense. That’s unsustainable. We can’t sustain what’s unsustainable.

Wow what an amazing example of the way we think here in the US. Note that pensions are common across Western Europe (and used to be here too!), where lots of good cars and other products come from. However here in the US they are considered “unsustainable” relics of a bygone era. Rather than thinking — “Hey why don’t we all have a pension like the autoworkers? We should organize and hassle our politicians to make that happen!” we instead think “those darned overpaid spoiled autoworkers! They should be totally f***ed like the rest of us and have to work until they drop!”

And most people here think this way. Go ahead and call me crazy for thinking otherwise, I’m used to it.[/quote]

Ok let’s say pension isn’t a crazy idea. Can you please tell me why I don’t have it? I have a college degree but don’t work for Govt./GM. BTW, Govt/GM are prime examples how things should NOT be managed. I would love to get pension so how can I get it?

It’s NOT sustainable. Look at what happened to GM.

[dbapig]

[quote=CONCHO]I have a college degree but because I don’t work for govt nor GM, I won’t be getting pension after I retire. Meanwhile auto workers graduated from high school and start working at car factory right away and end up with pension. I’m sure working on factory floor has its difficulties and all BUT it doesn’t make sense. That’s unsustainable. We can’t sustain what’s unsustainable.

Wow what an amazing example of the way we think here in the US. Note that pensions are common across Western Europe (and used to be here too!), where lots of good cars and other products come from. However here in the US they are considered “unsustainable” relics of a bygone era. Rather than thinking — “Hey why don’t we all have a pension like the autoworkers? We should organize and hassle our politicians to make that happen!” we instead think “those darned overpaid spoiled autoworkers! They should be totally f***ed like the rest of us and have to work until they drop!”

And most people here think this way. Go ahead and call me crazy for thinking otherwise, I’m used to it.[/quote]

Ok let’s say pension isn’t a crazy idea. Can you please tell me why I don’t have it? I have a college degree but don’t work for Govt./GM. BTW, Govt/GM are prime examples how things should NOT be managed. I would love to get pension so how can I get it?

It’s NOT sustainable. Look at what happened to GM.

[dbapig]

[quote=CONCHO]I have a college degree but because I don’t work for govt nor GM, I won’t be getting pension after I retire. Meanwhile auto workers graduated from high school and start working at car factory right away and end up with pension. I’m sure working on factory floor has its difficulties and all BUT it doesn’t make sense. That’s unsustainable. We can’t sustain what’s unsustainable.

Wow what an amazing example of the way we think here in the US. Note that pensions are common across Western Europe (and used to be here too!), where lots of good cars and other products come from. However here in the US they are considered “unsustainable” relics of a bygone era. Rather than thinking — “Hey why don’t we all have a pension like the autoworkers? We should organize and hassle our politicians to make that happen!” we instead think “those darned overpaid spoiled autoworkers! They should be totally f***ed like the rest of us and have to work until they drop!”

And most people here think this way. Go ahead and call me crazy for thinking otherwise, I’m used to it.[/quote]

Ok let’s say pension isn’t a crazy idea. Can you please tell me why I don’t have it? I have a college degree but don’t work for Govt./GM. BTW, Govt/GM are prime examples how things should NOT be managed. I would love to get pension so how can I get it?

It’s NOT sustainable. Look at what happened to GM.

[Author]

Posts