quote Originally posted by maryjane: I have never owned or even driven--and never will-- a foreign brand vehicle.

Sooo...if I were to arrive at your home and toss you the keys to the Benz, you wouldn't take 'em?

Don, you're a stronger man than I without question.

I'll drive it, Doni, I'll drive it! I don't have any problem admitting I'm not as strong-willed as maryjane.

I'd take em, say thank you, and that Benz would show up here in OT to the first person to show up at my house to get it--even if it were a Benz made in Alabama..

It's not that I dislike them--or any other foriegn make, I simply choose to do all I can to keep this nation as prosperous and growing as possible. Not much I can do now at my age except decide where I spend, and it will be on US brands for as long as they exist.

I owned one Nissan once, worst piece of crap I have ever owned. Other than that, all my cars and pickups have been American. I have owned foreign motorcycles, and still have a 1962 BMW. I ride an American motorcycle, but I can't say that I would not buy another foreign bike. There are just so few choices for American bikes. Thank God and Erik for Buell, but H-D put a stop to that.

------------------

quote Originally posted by maryjane: I'd take em, say thank you, and that Benz would show up here in OT to the first person to show up at my house to get it--even if it were a Benz made in Alabama.. It's not that I dislike them--or any other foriegn make, I simply choose to do all I can to keep this nation as prosperous and growing as possible. Not much I can do now at my age except decide where I spend, and it will be on US brands for as long as they exist.

I think I've mentioned before that my parents bought the same car every 3 years.....a bleck Caddy Fleetwood Brougham with grey interior. When I started buying my own cars, my 1st one was a Caddy Eldorado. But what pushed me to the "dark side" as it were was quality for the long haul. I didn't think I should have to buy a new car every 3 years just because parts started falling off. When I bought my 1st Benz, I was hooked. I let my parents drive mine and THEY were hooked. It's been Benz ever since....with a few exceptions through the years.

Of the US cars I've driven recently, the only one that could perhaps make me change my mind is the Cadillac CTS-V. I must admit that the Caddys of late are actually fun to drive and seem to have relatively few complaints from owners.

quote Originally posted by maryjane: . moved as requested. Old vs New? Old GM became toxic due to--well we all know the story, with plenty of blame to share. New GM, now toxic to most here due to the way they chose to do business accross several gray lines.

I was willing to give New GM a change *after* the government no longer owned any of it. Not that I was expecting that to happen anytime soon, mind you.
Their way of doing business does not earn them any of my future business, though. They chose to get in bed with the devil and now they can reap what they've sown.

quote Originally posted by User00013170: I agree that is how it works, but there should be some protection for previous customers. but i guess if there was then it wouldn't be 'protection'.

What really burns me is the widespread adoption over the past 30 years of bankruptcy as a business strategy. The airlines are perhaps the most egregious example. Question: How many major airlines operating today in the U.S. (except American and Southwest) have been or are currently operating under the protection of bankruptcy? Answer: Just about 100% of them, and in at least half those cases bankruptcy was a strategic decision. Huge unpaid fuel bill or an expensive pension plan negotiated 40 years ago? Bankruptcy allows you to walk away from them, but your competitors are still stuck paying their own fuel and pension bills.

[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 08-21-2011).]

Don't worry tho, "someone" will absorb those unpaid fuel bills--next customer down the line--the fuel distributor's employees--the stockholders of the fuel compny--someone. In spite of the very common misconception that "losses" are just written off" and end up in some financial netherworld, that misconception is still a misconception.

Wait !
Gm Did not go bankrupt. That's what the bail out prevented. No ?

quote Originally posted by maryjane: Don't worry tho, "someone" will absorb those unpaid fuel bills--next customer down the line--the fuel distributor's employees--the stockholders of the fuel compny--someone. In spite of the very common misconception that "losses" are just written off" and end up in some financial netherworld, that misconception is still a misconception.

And there you have it: redistribution of wealth and redistribution of debt. I can understand bankruptcy on a limited basis, for individuals; but if a business goes under, divide up what's left and be done with it.
But I am no economic wiz.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: Wait ! Gm Did not go bankrupt. That's what the bail out prevented. No ?

http://money.cnn.com/2009/0...anies/gm_bankruptcy/

quote Originally posted by tbone42: Allow me to start a little sheeit here... Suddenly! Ford is very popular among people who used to use the cute acronym "Found On Road Dead." Because Chevy and Dodge made testosterone levels rise in the past, I find it quite interesting watching so many "manly men" flocking to Fords nowadays. And not just that... Fords are still built by "evil union workers" .... hope nobody here with a problem with UAW and other union workers would possibly want to support them. Best just go buy Honda crap instead. Only half serious... no all the way serious. Signed, Proud son of a lifelong Ford employee and UAW member, and brother of another, totalling 67 years of hard work without threatening violence on anyone.

IMHO Unions have nothing to do with this, they are not the bad guys. Its The current regime in D.C. and the minions who kowtow to the anointed one in GM who made this mess.

Legal semantics over a "new or old" GM is just government motors trying to get out of dealing with a problem THEY were responsible for.

(OPINION) GM can go to hell in a hand basket, Ill be buying Ford from now on too.

(I have owned Ford before and found them to be a pretty good car, too. 1988 Mustang GT Conv, and a 1996 Bronco)

[This message has been edited by htexans1 (edited 08-21-2011).]

quote Originally posted by Cooter: Wasn't there commercials on TV during the transition telling about how the new GM would honor previous warranties and would be backed by the federal government and that people did not need to worry about their GM purchase?

Shush. That was then. This is now.

quote Originally posted by maryjane: Don't worry tho, "someone" will absorb those unpaid fuel bills ...

Yes, I agree. Those liabilities are all too real, and "someone" is going to get stuck with them. My point is that since ~1980 it has become a business strategy to (mis)use bankruptcy to dump those liabilities onto someone else.

I am not surprised GM is trying to shed these sorts of liabilities. It would make me question buying a later model used GM car anytime soon. At least one from before the new company emerged from bankruptcy. Sure, they will honor the warranty, but in the event of a serious problem which might otherwise be subject to recall after the warranty expires, there won't be an entity to go after for restitution.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: Wait ! Gm Did not go bankrupt. That's what the bail out prevented. No ?

quote Originally posted by 1985FieroGT: http://money.cnn.com/2009/0...anies/gm_bankruptcy/

Thanks for the info, , but ... I seem to remember that the word bankruptcy would scare future consideration of GM purchases and that the bail out was structured to avoid that plague. Besides, ???, what the hell is this, from your link ?

quote your link U.S. Judge Robert Gerber, the bankruptcy judge will oversee GM's bankruptcy, ruled Monday that GM will have access to $15 billion in government funds immediately.

A true bankruptcy would use assets to pay creditors. Why would a judge be needed to give permission to receive unearned cash ? What a travesty of justice.
frack government motors.

[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 08-22-2011).]

This is a disappointing thread to read through after test driving a 2009 G8 with my dad this weekend. It really seemed like Pontiac had done something right with that car. My dad loved it! He wants something new that he'll be able to drive daily, but have fun in it too (and the 6.0 definitely provides that ). I'll have to let him know about this skiving of responsibility before he shells out $26,000.

I agree that GM should be taking care of that issue. Tho, I also see that in the recent horsecrap/bankruptcy/bailout - that this item was in fact "shed" from their burdens. Just as Reagan did with Ford back in the day with their transmission recall which would have essentially bankrupted Ford. Yes, Ford was bailed out too. By the "paperwork" - yes, GM has shirked this item of responsibility.

What I find amusing is that it is the corporate lapdogs which are crying about this. Usually, it is the other way around - the liberals crying "evil corp" and the corporatists crying "buyer beware". But, goes to show it is NOT the issues - it is the players. See the true colors....taste the rainbow....

quote Originally posted by cliffw: A true bankruptcy would use assets to pay creditors. Why would a judge be needed to give permission to receive unearned cash ? What a travesty of justice. frack government motors.

I think the whole idea was to keep GM running... thus the funding despite the bankruptcy... and thus, GM's bankruptcy was more of a special case.

I bet that if GM completely collapsed, it would have made our economy really, really, bad.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: Please continue the Foreign v. Domestic discussion here. Let's keep this thread specifically about New GM v. Old GM. Thank you.

I never really had any like for old GM. I have even less for the new GM. I would buy a new one if there was no other choices except asian. As it stands now, it would just depend on what GM vehicle it was and if I got a deal on it. (ie say a 69 Camaro or 61 Corvette). I got my Cadillac because it was in perfect shape and I stole it.

I bought a used 2008 Cobalt SS about a year ago. So far GM has done 2 recalls (steering motor, and engine hose routing bracket), re-sealed the rear wing (was leaking into trunk, and just recently replace the entire shifter asm., shift cables, and some internal transmission parts...........all covered under warranty. So I don't understand this fear of GM not covering warranty items on pre-2009 cars as long as they fall within the original warranty guidlines.

Here's the problem. GM made crap. Everything that rolled off their lines, was some level of crap compared to the competitors. They changed Cafe standards in the 70's and gutted GM's business plan, and they never recovered.

The beloved corvette? Crap. Looked nice, but as soon as I sat in it, I felt like it was a shitty Impala. C5 definitely, C6 kind of.

Cavalier? Crap. I have slightly higher impressions of the 80's Cavs as at least they felt like a 'real' car. Still see quite a few on the roads.
Trucks? Decent, but nothing to really get excited about. Ford and Dodge were more respected.

Don't get me wrong, Ford made crap too. Chrysler was all about crap. The difference is at the time of GM and Chrysler's restructuring, Ford was on the mend. Their cars to me have a very import feel. What does that mean? Well, even the entry level cars can't feel like they are falling apart.

It's funny, that right now the imports are all going bigger-look at what happened to the Civic as an example, while Ford is gaining in the small car segment-sporty, small cars that are good on gas.

I'm all about buying North American cars, but they need to meet me half way. Have something that's worth buying and I'll buy it.

A few years ago, when the Cobalt was released, we went to a GM dealership looking for a car. Went for a test drive and was looking at it. Buddy sits down and starts going over the numbers. He finishes by saying the monthly payment was some 350/month. I say, hold up, we didn't even talk price on this thing.

"Oh! well the sticker price is $15,xxx".

"Oh! well, no. I know its a "new" model and all, but its taking the place of a cavalier. Meaning its going to depreciate like crazy. Meaning, I'm happy to consider one, but its going to have to be at a price that reflects that reality."

We bought a civic instead.

That's a problem that all 3 are going to have problems getting out of. Their customers are fully trained to expect rock bottom prices on domestics. Now with employee pricing...man, I want that **** all the time. Your "special" pricing in my mind is your new regular price.

The import brands have no where to go but down. People go onto the lot expecting to pay more. They are perceived as being higher quality, which may be true on look and feel still, but a lot of the consumer quality tests put dom's up very high. I've also seen many high profile import recalls.

Oh man, I could go off on this for hours. As it is, I'm rambling. It just frustrates me how badly they screwed themselves, then get an instant out in the form of hitting the gov`t easy button.

quote Originally posted by 1985FieroGT: I bet that if GM completely collapsed, it would have made our economy really, really, bad.

You would probably lose that bet. But I'm sure the Economy is speeding along up there with the bailout.

Brad

quote Originally posted by 1985FieroGT: I think the whole idea was to keep GM running pay back the union vote... thus the funding despite the bankruptcy... and thus, GM's bankruptcy was more of a special case. I bet that if GM completely collapsed, it would have made our economy really, really, bad.

Fixed that for you. GM would not have completely collapsed.

"The beloved corvette? Crap. Looked nice, but as soon as I sat in it, I felt like it was a shitty Impala. C5 definitely, C6 kind of."

Ive worked on LOTs of Corvettes and owned a few. All of them including C6 have the cheapest and shoddiest interiors of just about any car. Even my Sebring looks and feels like better quality...and for 1/10 of the price. My vettes squeeked and rattled all over the interior, sun warped everything and all the sheet metal screws in the plastic holding it together just broke out all the mounting corners. Everything in it was just cheap molded plastic that self destructed quickly. I replaced just about every part of the interior on my 88 vert. Same with engine bays...everything on most cars is just covered up with cool looking crap plastic parts that fall apart in a few years due to heat exposure.

Even if GM technically is not liable for Old GM's problems, if they had any business saavy at all, they would honor all warrantees and stand by all of their vehicles.

They clearly have no clue on how to retain customers, and the fact they would shove them under the bus for a quick buck is laughable. It almost makes me embarrassed to drive a Pontiac.

quote Originally posted by masospaghetti: Even if GM technically is not liable for Old GM's problems, if they had any business saavy at all, they would honor all warrantees and stand by all of their vehicles.

Bankruptcy doesn't work that way. You can't just pick and choose which obligations you're going to honor and which you're not. The bankruptcy court has to approve any special treatment afforded an individual or subgroup within the usually large number of unsecured creditors.

[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 08-24-2011).]

quote Originally posted by Marvin McInnis: Bankruptcy doesn't work that way. You can't just pick and choose which obligations you're going to honor and which you're not. The bankruptcy court has to approve any special treatment afforded an individual or subgroup within the usually large number of unsecured creditors.

Right. It appears New GM isn't legally obligated to honor old warranties as a result of bankruptcy.

However, GM could easy stand up and stand behind their vehicles above and beyond their legal obligation. By not doing so, they are effectively screwing over a lot of loyal customers - not a good business plan.

quote Originally posted by Marvin McInnis: Bankruptcy doesn't work that way. You can't just pick and choose which obligations you're going to honor and which you're not. The bankruptcy court has to approve any special treatment afforded an individual or subgroup within the usually large number of unsecured creditors.

Like wiping out bondholder assets in favor of giving ownership to the UAW?

quote Originally posted by Marvin McInnis: Bankruptcy doesn't work that way. You can't just pick and choose which obligations you're going to honor and which you're not. The bankruptcy court has to approve any special treatment afforded an individual or subgroup within the usually large number of unsecured creditors.

Actually Marvin, it works exactly that way. I filed bankruptcy after a divorce. All I had to do was sign papers for those creditors I wanted to pick and choose to keep. I got rid of all my credit card obligations, mortgage, store credit and kept my car and plane. A few days after it was finalized, I went to the same car loan place and bought 2 Lincoln Limos and went into business.

quote Originally posted by rogergarrison: Actually Marvin, it works exactly that way. I filed bankruptcy after a divorce. All I had to do was sign papers for those creditors I wanted to pick and choose to keep. I got rid of all my credit card obligations, mortgage, store credit and kept my car and plane. A few days after it was finalized, I went to the same car loan place and bought 2 Lincoln Limos and went into business.

wow

quote Originally posted by rogergarrison: All I had to do was sign papers for those creditors I wanted to pick and choose to keep ...

... and then the court reviewed and approved it. That is the key point you omitted.

I dont recall their being any approval on me keeping those loans unless the lawyer did that out of my presence. I signed statements of intention at those respective loan companies, not the court papers. When I went to court and the judge asked if anyone in the courtroom had anything to say and since no one was there, he just said the bankruptcy was approved and I left. I went from owing like $500,000 to just owing the balance on one Lincoln and a Cessna...less than $40,000. So it was easy to get the loan approved for the 2 other limos. And the ONLY company taking anything back was one loan company for a 50" tv. I got to keep everything else that had been charged, no one wanted to bother.

[This message has been edited by rogergarrison (edited 08-24-2011).]

I certainly won't try to dispute your own personal experience.

quote Originally posted by turbotoad: I bought a used 2008 Cobalt SS about a year ago. So far GM has done 2 recalls (steering motor, and engine hose routing bracket), re-sealed the rear wing (was leaking into trunk, and just recently replace the entire shifter asm., shift cables, and some internal transmission parts...........all covered under warranty. So I don't understand this fear of GM not covering warranty items on pre-2009 cars as long as they fall within the original warranty guidlines.

Realistically, I don't think that's the real issue. You're talking about peanuts, and the "New" GM can afford peanuts.

However, let's say (hypothetically) that you're rendered quadriplegic because the particular (pre-bankruptcy) vehicle you own had an unfortunate run of sub-standard suspension components, that the "Old" GM knew about but used anyway, and on one unfortunate day you had to make a sudden, but perfectly reasonable, maneuver to avoid a hazard in the road, something snapped, and the vehicle flipped & rolled. Maybe the vaunted side-cushion airbags were defective, too, and didn't fire when they should have. Maybe you did everything that the most talented, skilled driver in the world could have done to avoid the situation. You're still quad.

Far-fetched scenario? Not at all. I haven't reviewed a case with these specific facts. I have seen their close analog.

And even though the "new" GM is running the same business as the "old" GM, using the same assets, and employing the same people to make the same decisions, they're not responsible. You, meanwhile, have millions of dollars in hospital bills and future medical expenses, and unless you have hellacious umbrella insurance, are shortly to be destitute, along with the rest of your family.

The gods forbid that the people who made the call that put you in that position should have to answer for it. Or that they shouldn't profit from their support of one political candidate over another. So, regardless of the consequences to others, they get to walk away from a mountain of bad decisions, perhaps to make the same decisions tomorrow, and ruin others' lives, as well.

Companies don't kill people. People kill people. Companies are just the abstract scapegoat.

There's a certain irony here -- many of my personal injury lawyer friends, who make their livings pursuing claims against the deliberate acts of those who expose others to risks they themselves would not accept, tend to be overwhelmingly liberal, and Obama supporters. So they've sent their campaign support dollars to a regime that turned around and destroyed a substantial percentage of their own potential business. Now they're complaining about their tax burdens.

Payoffs 'R Us. Just be sure you're on the "Right" side.

quote Originally posted by Shyster: You can elect to not include certain creditors in a bankruptcy filing, which does two things. It waives your right to bankruptcy protection as to those creditors, so that they can pursue you to the ends of the earth, should you fail to pay on time, but it also does not usually affect your current credit status with them, so as long as you maintain current accounts, they treat you as golden.

Thanks for your comments. My point was that affirmation of some debts while excluding others is subject to law and, to a lesser extent, the discretion of the court. As I understand it (having never been through it myself), personal bankruptcy law generally exempts certain owned assets: a primary residence, an automobile (or other means of transportation necessary to earn a living), and other assets (e.g. tools) used in a trade or occupation, subject of course to any prior security interest that may have been granted to creditors.

Certain transactions prior to bankruptcy filing are voidable, specifically transactions that are used to shield assets from creditors and/or conceal them from the court. I think the voidable period is at least six months prior to filing, but in some cases it can be even longer (up to two years?).

Of course, if a creditor (e.g. a credit card company) fails to assert their claim then it's definitely going to be discharged by the bankruptcy court.

Finally, we have to consider that there are different rules for business bankruptcies vs. personal bankruptcies, and reorganization vs. liquidation. The original topic was GM's bankruptcy, but we seem somehow to have drifted into personal bankruptcy.

I've probably already said too much, so I'll stop now.

quote What happened in the GM case was more diabolical, a deliberate move by a "new" entity ... to be willing to "pay" ... for "some" (but not all) of its assets, and to "assume" some (but not all) of its liabilities.

That was what I characterized as abuse of bankruptcy as a business strategy.

quote In other words, a political payoff.

I disagree with that conclusion. Rather, I think it was a (mostly) sincere attempt to preserve several hundred thousand jobs during a time of already-high unemployment. My opinion is that the Bush administration would probably have done essentially the same thing. We can discuss whether or not that attempt was wise or not, and whether it was well executed or not, but that's another discussion for another time.

[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 08-26-2011).]

If they are NEW GM, and are distancing themselves from OLD GM, then I don't want to be seeing ANY advertising that capitalizes on TRADITION, longevity, etc.

So I IMMEDIATELY want to STOP seeing that GM truck ad where they guy goes in to get it fixed, and the mechanic is saying it is too expensive to fix, just get a different pick up. So he goes to clear out the glove box and sees a picture of his dad and the driver when he was a kid, and he goes back to the mechanic and says just fix it.

No. You don't get to do those kinds of ads. That was OLD GM. You are now NEW GM. You HAVE no tradition and no legacy. You surrendered that when you went NEW GM.

( I hated the ad anyway, but still.) New is new. Old is old.

New GM builds garbage too. A 7 year old could have been a better drivetrain engineer. My 2011 has had nothing but transmission problems. But they are all considered normal?? Grinding gears, gear noise, pops out sometimes, clutch pedal sticking to the floor. Yep thats all normal if you as GM what they think.