Good question. Why would they bother cutting costs, which is difficult in any case and painful to the politically powerful UAW, when Obama has promised our tax dollars to guarantee the same outcome regardless of performance?
Why would they bother improving quality to the level of their competitors if consumer demand is no longer relevant to their pay and job security, thanks to our tax dollars? This bailout has turned a company that was unlikely to turn around into one that doesn't even have a reason to try.
The difference is that Amtrak has no competition. Until the government mandates that we buy the car they chose, I will never buy another GM or Chrysler car. I will even pay a premium to buy an Un-Govt Car.
when the President announced the Chrysler plan, he made it clear that the feds had no intention of staking a permanent claim in either of the two companies.
Since I know from his history that Barack Obama is a lying sack of shit,this statement is meaningless. He, acting as the Government, has assumed 50 percent ownership of GM a failing company. The Union has gotten 40 percent. What person or group of persons would buy the Governments 50 percent stake of a failing Company, that the Union, largely to fault for that failure,owns 40 percent of? What a horrible investment. What a trememdous risk..
The sad truth is that we the invidual American taxpayers are now on the hook for this Company
This brings us to Amtrak. Amtrak may just be the future business model — if you can call it that — for Chrysler and General Motors. Amtrak is highly subsidized, underutilized and poorly performing.
And should have been allowed to commit Seppuku along with the two automobile giants too big to fail. Instead they will become resume enhancers for the ONE. I can see the headlines now, besides worldclass LS of S, “I ran GM and Chrysler - into the ground”.
Not to worry. Soon Obama will “Amtrak” Amtrak. Hence his blathering about “high speed rail networks”.
Why is it that even conservative thinkers can only get it half right on the big-3 automakers problem?
Unions and government regulations are their ONLY problem.
It is impossible to build small fuel efficient cars that will sell when you have an extra $2000 in labor costs per car.
They either have to cut $2000 in quality, options, or materials , or they have to overprice a $12,000 car by $2000. It wont work! There is no place to hide that 2k in small cars.
They can hide that 2k in a $30,000 pick-up or SUV only because the foreign automakers have never developed far into the small truck business and it will take years before they get that right.
The feds interest in this has nothing to do with cars and eveything to do with social engineering. The fact that we all need cars, allows them to use business to further their social objectives
Interesting.
In have a 1992 Ford F350, 351C V8, 6 pax. It has over 200K miles on it.
We now use the truck as the prime mover of Belly Acres, our RV.
The truck just sat for 9 months in winter storage - I went over, hooked up the battery and it fired it up. Turned right over and runs like a champ. Not a spot of rust on it.
I would buy a Ford again, but not just any Ford.