 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / General Car Topics / February 2009The US must Stop TaxPayer Subsidies to Toyota! Foreign Corporate Welfare!
Predecessor companies TMMNA opened in 1996 and oversaw all Toyota manufacturing concerns in North America. The company employed 1,055 with an annual payroll of $113.1 million. TTC opened in June 1977, and is located in Ann Arbor, Michigan. TTC employs 728 people in four states. The company is engaged in engineering design and research and development. Toyota factories: a.. NUMMI b.. TABC, Inc. c.. Toyota Motor Manufacturing Alabama d.. Toyota Motor Manufacturing Canada e.. Toyota Motor Manufacturing de Baja California f.. Toyota Motor Manufacturing Kentucky g.. Toyota Motor Manufacturing Texas h.. Toyota Motor Manufacturing West Virginia i.. Toyota Motor Manufacturing Indiana [edit] Corporate Welfare and Government Subsidies Toyota has received billions in federal, state, and local government tax subsidies and incentives including: a.. $323.9 million in subsides for the plant in Tupelo from Mississippi taxpayers. [1][2] b.. $371 million in subsides for the Georgetown plant from Kentucky taxpayers.[3][4] c.. $227.5 million in subsidies and tax incentives for the Tundra plant by Local, Texas, & U.S. taxpayers. [5][6] d.. $125 million (Canadian) in subsidies to help cover research, training and infrastructure costs. [7] e.. $29 million in subsidies for the Huntsville Engine plant by Alabama taxpayers [8] Toyota also received subsides of $3,150 per Prius sold in the United States. This amounted to at least $189 million for the 60,000 cars sold.[9] > Predecessor companies > TMMNA opened in 1996 and oversaw all Toyota manufacturing concerns in [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > Toyota also received subsides of $3,150 per Prius sold in the United > States. This amounted to at least $189 million for the 60,000 cars sold.[9] Toyota is now an American car producer, one that actually works as opposed to the Detroit 2.2, they are abject failures.  SignatureCivis Romanus Sum Actually Toyota IMPORTS more of the vehicles it sells in the US, than those they only assemble in the US, of primary "world sourced parts," according to the US Commerce Department and their own TV ads. >> Predecessor companies >> TMMNA opened in 1996 and oversaw all Toyota manufacturing concerns in [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > Toyota is now an American car producer, one that actually works as opposed > to the Detroit 2.2, they are abject failures. > > Toyota is now an American car producer, one that actually works as opposed > > to the Detroit 2.2, they are abject failures. Now that Toyota is number one they must be the best Perhaps in your world, but in the US. In the real world toyota is still number two, by nearly a million vehicles LOL >> > Toyota is now an American car producer, one that actually works as >> > opposed >> > to the Detroit 2.2, they are abject failures. > > Now that Toyota is number one they must be the best > Perhaps in your world, but in the US. In the real world toyota is still > number two, by nearly a million vehicles LOL I hate to tell you this, but the US is only part of the world. World wide, Toyota sold more vehicles than GM or anyone else. > >> > Toyota is now an American car producer, one that actually works as > >> > opposed > >> > to the Detroit 2.2, they are abject failures. > > > Now that Toyota is number one they must be the best What part of, "But in the US Toyota is still number two, by nearly a million vehicles," did you not understand? ;) On Jan 21, 1:17 pm, "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote: > Perhaps in your world, but in the US. In the real world toyota is still > number two, by nearly a million vehicles LOL I hate to tell you this, but the US is only part of the world. World wide, Toyota sold more vehicles than GM or anyone else. > "Gosi" <gos...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > > Now that Toyota is number one they must be the best You just quoted yourself, but changed the text in the quotation marks! Sure, the spirit of what you said is the same, but your initial typo-laced turn of phrase was anything but clear. I think maybe what he did not understand was your poor conveyance of your point. >What part of, "But in the US Toyota is still number two, by nearly a >million vehicles," did you not understand? ;) [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >I hate to tell you this, but the US is only part of the world. World >wide, Toyota sold more vehicles than GM or anyone else. And what is your point? The thrust of the thread is subsides, not sales. As I said Toyota is still number two in the worlds biggest market by nearly a million vehicles, where it earns most of its profits. Being number one around the world, selling low profit small and midget cars by a few thousand vehicles, has not helped Toyota turn a profit. Toyota, as well had a loss for 2008, even with the annual subsidy they have been receiving from the Japanese government since WWII. > You just quoted yourself, but changed the text in the quotation marks! > Sure, the spirit of what you said is the same, but your initial > typo-laced turn of phrase was anything but clear. I think maybe what > he did not understand was your poor conveyance of your point. > Actually Toyota IMPORTS more of the vehicles it sells in the US, than those > they only assemble in the US, of primary "world sourced parts," according to > the US Commerce Department and their own TV ads. <snip> Just like GM's "globally sourced" parts Mike :-) SignatureCivis Romanus Sum Perhaps but not the majority of imported parts as it the case with Toyotas that are only assembled in the US >> Actually Toyota IMPORTS more of the vehicles it sells in the US, than >> those they only assemble in the US, of primary "world sourced parts," [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Just like GM's "globally sourced" parts Mike :-) > Perhaps but not the majority of imported parts as it the case with Toyotas > that are only assembled in the US Evidence that the majority of car parts that Toyota uses are made outside the US, please. Last I heard, it was like 60% of the parts were made in the US. Jeff > >> Actually Toyota IMPORTS more of the vehicles it sells in the US, than > >> those they only assemble in the US, of primary "world sourced parts," [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > -- > > Civis Romanus Sum Old news. In any event the vast majority of the MATERIALS Toyota uses to make the parts and cars they only assemble in the US, are imported On Jan 21, 1:19 pm, "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote: > Perhaps but not the majority of imported parts as it the case with Toyotas > that are only assembled in the US Evidence that the majority of car parts that Toyota uses are made outside the US, please. Last I heard, it was like 60% of the parts were made in the US. Jeff > "Jim Higgins" <gordian...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > -- > > Civis Romanus Sum > Old news. In any event the vast majority of the MATERIALS Toyota uses to > make the parts and cars they only assemble in the US, are imported [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >>> -- >>> Civis Romanus Sum No different than the Detroit 2.2 Fumblers. SignatureCivis Romanus Sum > Old news. In any event the vast majority of the MATERIALS Toyota uses to > make the parts and cars they only assemble in the US, are imported Depends on the vehicle. The Toyota Sienna and Tundra have more than 3/4 US content. Toyota buys billions of goods and services and makes millions of engines and trannys in the US. JEff > On Jan 21, 1:19 pm, "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > > -- > > > Civis Romanus Sum That is what the say but the parts and materials are mostly imported or purchased from other Japanese holding companies, of Japanese Corporations in the US, using mostly imported components and materials to make those parts, all of whom pay no US corporate federal income taxes. If you do a search of where they get their materials like steel, rubber, plastics, class etc and you will find Bridgestone, Nippon Steel, Denso Global, Stanly, etall, and you will see for yourself Your posting to give a different impression all the time, will not change the fact that Toyota only assembles vehicles in the US of mostly imported parts and materials and imports more of the vehicles they sell in the US On Jan 22, 12:19 pm, "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote: > Old news. In any event the vast majority of the MATERIALS Toyota uses to > make the parts and cars they only assemble in the US, are imported Depends on the vehicle. The Toyota Sienna and Tundra have more than 3/4 US content. Toyota buys billions of goods and services and makes millions of engines and trannys in the US. JEff > "Jeff" <jeff....@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > > -- > > > Civis Romanus Sum > That is what the say but the parts and materials are mostly imported or > purchased from other Japanese holding companies, of Japanese Corporations > in the US, using mostly imported components and materials to make those > parts, all of whom pay no US corporate federal income taxes. Actually, you just shot yourself in the groin on this one. GM which is a loser, they pay no taxes. You get taxed on profit and GM does not even know when the last time they made profit. A few years ago they stiffed shareholders with a BS earnings statement and it looks like it is settling for 300-400M. GM does not pay taxes as it is a loser. They contribute nothing to education, roads, military, etc. Toyota on the other hand pays taxes as it historically has made money. Yes, it contributed to your roads, education, defence and well being. Honda too pays taxes. They actually help ease the governments thirst for cash by paying taxes. Investing in GM is a pure waste of tax payers money. They NEED chapter 11 to clean up their mess. > If you do a search of where they get their materials like steel, rubber, > plastics, class etc and you will find Bridgestone, Nippon Steel, Denso [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] >> > > -- >> > > Civis Romanus Sum Once again you forgot to say, in my opinion. Japanese Corporations do NOT pay US Corporate federal income taxes on the PROFITS they earn in the US. GM on the other hand DOES, IF and when they earn a profits the US. Both GM and Toyota pay taxes, in the counties in Europe, on profits earned in European counties. That is one reason, other than it cost too much to make cars there, that the Japs choose to not manufacture in Europe. They lose the Japanese tax advantage. That is a fact, not an opinion. >> That is what the say but the parts and materials are mostly imported or >> purchased from other Japanese holding companies, of Japanese Corporations [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] >>> > > -- >>> > > Civis Romanus Sum > Once again you forgot to say, in my opinion. Japanese Corporations do NOT > pay US Corporate federal income taxes on the PROFITS they earn in the US. > GM on the other hand DOES, IF and when they earn a profits the US. But the Toyota subsidies that do operate in the US do pay income taxes. They are American companies that are owned by foreign companies. > Both GM and Toyota pay taxes, in the counties in Europe, on profits earned > in European counties. That is one reason, other than it cost too much to > make cars there, that the Japs choose to not manufacture in Europe. They > lose the Japanese tax advantage. That is a fact, not an opinion. > >> That is what the say but the parts and materials are mostly imported or > >> purchased from other Japanese holding companies, of Japanese Corporations [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] > >>> > > -- > >>> > > Civis Romanus Sum "That uniformed or misinformed comment does not deserve a reply" On Jan 23, 1:40 pm, "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote: > Once again you forgot to say, in my opinion. Japanese Corporations do NOT > pay US Corporate federal income taxes on the PROFITS they earn in the US. > GM on the other hand DOES, IF and when they earn a profits the US. But the Toyota subsidies that do operate in the US do pay income taxes. They are American companies that are owned by foreign companies. > Both GM and Toyota pay taxes, in the counties in Europe, on profits earned > in European counties. That is one reason, other than it cost too much to > make cars there, that the Japs choose to not manufacture in Europe. They > lose the Japanese tax advantage. That is a fact, not an opinion. > pay "Canuck57" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 80 lines] > >>> > > -- > >>> > > Civis Romanus Sum In your "opinion". Sorry, could not resist. > "That uniformed or misinformed comment does not deserve a reply" > [quoted text clipped - 101 lines] >> >>> > > -- >> >>> > > Civis Romanus Sum "That uniformed or misinformed comment does not deserve a reply" > In your "opinion". > [quoted text clipped - 110 lines] >>> >>> > > -- >>> >>> > > Civis Romanus Sum > Once again you forgot to say, in my opinion. Japanese Corporations do NOT > pay US Corporate federal income taxes on the PROFITS they earn in the US. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > make cars there, that the Japs choose to not manufacture in Europe. They > lose the Japanese tax advantage. That is a fact, not an opinion. It's as much a fact as your ideas on warranties, LOL. The Japanese _do_ manufacture in Europe. In other words, it's not a fact at all. You can start here, "http://www.toyota.fr/about/news_and_events/valenciennes_1000.aspx" but it's not the only factory owned by Japanese auto manufacturers in Europe. What's remarkable is that this Toyota factory is in France, not Poland, Romania, or other poorer country with low wage workers and no environmental protection. "That uniformed or misinformed comment does not deserve a reply" >> Once again you forgot to say, in my opinion. Japanese Corporations do >> NOT pay US Corporate federal income taxes on the PROFITS they earn in the [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Romania, or other poorer country with low wage workers and no > environmental protection. > Once again you forgot to say, in my opinion. Japanese Corporations do NOT > pay US Corporate federal income taxes on the PROFITS they earn in the US. > GM on the other hand DOES, IF and when they earn a profits the US. Oh yes they do, are you that stupid? So full of sh.t you are. > Both GM and Toyota pay taxes, in the counties in Europe, on profits earned > in European counties. That is one reason, other than it cost too much [quoted text clipped - 78 lines] >>>> > > -- >>>> > > Civis Romanus Sum "That uniformed or misinformed comment does not deserve a reply" >> Once again you forgot to say, in my opinion. Japanese Corporations do >> NOT pay US Corporate federal income taxes on the PROFITS they earn in the [quoted text clipped - 85 lines] >>>>> > > -- >>>>> > > Civis Romanus Sum > "That uniformed or misinformed comment does not deserve a reply" Hm, you are sounding like a broken recorded UAW message. >>> Once again you forgot to say, in my opinion. Japanese Corporations do >>> NOT pay US Corporate federal income taxes on the PROFITS they earn in [quoted text clipped - 86 lines] >>>>>> > > -- >>>>>> > > Civis Romanus Sum > > "That uniformed or misinformed comment does not deserve a reply" > > Hm, you are sounding like a broken recorded UAW message. He is a broken GM robot >> > "That uniformed or misinformed comment does not deserve a reply" >> >> Hm, you are sounding like a broken recorded UAW message. > > He is a broken GM robot Agreed. Must be union made robot too. "That uniformed or misinformed comment does not deserve a reply" >>> > "That uniformed or misinformed comment does not deserve a reply" >>> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Agreed. Must be union made robot too. "That uniformed or misinformed comment does not deserve a reply" >> > "That uniformed or misinformed comment does not deserve a reply" >> >> Hm, you are sounding like a broken recorded UAW message. > > He is a broken GM robot "That uniformed or misinformed comment does not deserve a reply" >> "That uniformed or misinformed comment does not deserve a reply" > [quoted text clipped - 91 lines] >>>>>>> > > -- >>>>>>> > > Civis Romanus Sum "That uniformed or misinformed comment does not deserve a reply" >> "That uniformed or misinformed comment does not deserve a reply" > [quoted text clipped - 91 lines] >>>>>>> > > -- >>>>>>> > > Civis Romanus Sum >> "That uniformed or misinformed comment does not deserve a reply" > > Hm, you are sounding like a broken recorded UAW message. Rather amusing that when proven wrong her uses that schtick. Still, the fact that he did not know that the Japanese manufacturers have factories in Europe is understandable, he's been listening to people as clueless as himself as he tries to bash Toyota, Honda, etc.. His best clueless statements still relate to his lack of understanding of how warranties work. "That uniformed or misinformed comment does not deserve a reply" >>> "That uniformed or misinformed comment does not deserve a reply" >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > statements still relate to his lack of understanding of how warranties > work. >> Once again you forgot to say, in my opinion. Japanese Corporations do NOT >> pay US Corporate federal income taxes on the PROFITS they earn in the US. >> GM on the other hand DOES, IF and when they earn a profits the US. > > Oh yes they do, are you that stupid? So full of sh.t you are. Now be nice. He's clueless, so you need to explain things to him. Toyota Motors Sales, U.S.A., pays corporate taxes in the U.S. on the profits they earn in the U.S.A.. General Motors Asia Pacific (Japan) pays corporate taxes in Japan on the profits they earn in Japan. It works the same way for all the multi-national companies. What often happens with multi-national corporations is that they do profit shifting to the lower tax country. I.e. if corporate taxes are lower in Japan, Toyota manufacturing in Japan may increase the costs to Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A. in order to reduce the profits in the U.S. and increase them in Japan. The reverse is also true, where U.S. based corporations shift profit from European countries with high corporate taxes to the U.S. which often has lower corporate taxes. "That uniformed or misinformed comment does not deserve a reply" >>> Once again you forgot to say, in my opinion. Japanese Corporations do >>> NOT pay US Corporate federal income taxes on the PROFITS they earn in [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > shift profit from European countries with high corporate taxes to the U.S. > which often has lower corporate taxes. >>> Once again you forgot to say, in my opinion. Japanese Corporations do >>> NOT pay US Corporate federal income taxes on the PROFITS they earn in [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > shift profit from European countries with high corporate taxes to the U.S. > which often has lower corporate taxes. Oh, you mean the illegal American trick of charging too much for parts going abroad to shift the taxes into the USA? Gee, I never thought a US person would ever admit that practice. My guess is it does not go on much at GM as you have to make a profit first, second you have to be a big exporter of parts to make it work. But who knows what goes on with bean counters these days. "That uniformed or misinformed comment does not deserve a reply" >>>> Once again you forgot to say, in my opinion. Japanese Corporations do >>>> NOT pay US Corporate federal income taxes on the PROFITS they earn in [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > But who knows what goes on with bean counters these days. Please take your pathetic discussion to a political group. We at alt.autos.ford are not interested in your anti-American rhetoric. >> That is what the say but the parts and materials are mostly imported or >> purchased from other Japanese holding companies, of Japanese Corporations [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] >>> > > -- >>> > > Civis Romanus Sum We aren't interested in his BS in the GM newsgroup either, but he won't shut up. > Please take your pathetic discussion to a political group. > We at alt.autos.ford are not interested in your anti-American [quoted text clipped - 77 lines] >>>> > > -- >>>> > > Civis Romanus Sum > We aren't interested in his BS in the GM newsgroup either, but he won't > shut up. From the land of the free, you can have any opinion you want so long as it is approved by UAW/CAW/GM? >> Please take your pathetic discussion to a political group. >> We at alt.autos.ford are not interested in your anti-American [quoted text clipped - 77 lines] >>>>> > > -- >>>>> > > Civis Romanus Sum >> We aren't interested in his BS in the GM newsgroup either, but he won't >> shut up. > > From the land of the free, you can have any opinion you want so long as it > is approved by UAW/CAW/GM? You don't know what it was like driving Jap cars in the 70's when UAW was producing garbage. Or do you? (Live anywhere near Oshawa?) >>> Please take your pathetic discussion to a political group. >>> We at alt.autos.ford are not interested in your anti-American [quoted text clipped - 77 lines] >>>>>> > > -- >>>>>> > > Civis Romanus Sum >>> We aren't interested in his BS in the GM newsgroup either, but he won't >>> shut up. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Or do you? (Live anywhere near Oshawa?) Used to live in Ontario but not near Oshawa, at the time had a Mazda 808, imported. Sheet steel was tinny, but the motor and tranny was far head of it's time, I abused it and it would not break. Tires, oil, gas... all it needed. Zippy and easy on gas. "That uniformed or misinformed comment does not deserve a reply" >>>> We aren't interested in his BS in the GM newsgroup either, but he won't >>>> shut up. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > it's time, I abused it and it would not break. Tires, oil, gas... all it > needed. Zippy and easy on gas. "That uniformed or misinformed comment does not deserve a reply" >>> We aren't interested in his BS in the GM newsgroup either, but he won't >>> shut up. [quoted text clipped - 99 lines] >>>>>>> > > -- >>>>>>> > > Civis Romanus Sum >> We aren't interested in his BS in the GM newsgroup either, but he won't >> shut up. > > From the land of the free, you can have any opinion you want so long as it > is approved by UAW/CAW/GM? You can have whatever opinion you want, I couldn't care less. What bothers me is your childish attitude. You come to a GM newsgroup, only to badmouth the company, it's products, the people who build the products, and the people who buy, or even just like the products. This group isn't occupied by anyone high up with GM, the CAW, or the UAW. All you are doing is turning a once peaceful group into a battleground. >>> We aren't interested in his BS in the GM newsgroup either, but he won't >>> shut up. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > occupied by anyone high up with GM, the CAW, or the UAW. All you are > doing is turning a once peaceful group into a battleground. No, what bothers you is that I don't succumb to your line of "opinion". >> You can have whatever opinion you want, I couldn't care less. What >> bothers me is your childish attitude. You come to a GM newsgroup, only to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > No, what bothers you is that I don't succumb to your line of "opinion". No - what bothers a lot of, and maybe most of the regulars here is that you and others like you (Higgins, Gosi, etc.) have bomarded a group that largely existed to provide information and help to GM owners, and turned it into a battleground and a platform for foolish rhetoric and useless opinions that serve no purpose but to inflame. Before folks like you came around here delighting in the problems of GM, we mostly shared information on fixing problems, finding parts, and otherwise helping others with GM vehicles. Your "opinions" don't matter a bit. They're nothing but noise and they serve only to satisfy your own ego and desire to be heard. Why not take them somewhere else that is better suited to private soapboxes and grandstanding? Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net Your uninformed or misinformed comment does not deserve a reply >>> You can have whatever opinion you want, I couldn't care less. What >>> bothers me is your childish attitude. You come to a GM newsgroup, only [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > and > grandstanding? >>> You can have whatever opinion you want, I couldn't care less. What >>> bothers me is your childish attitude. You come to a GM newsgroup, only [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > and > grandstanding? GM started it when they were pushing to get into tax payers pockets. That crossed the line for me and I suspect many others. Makes them wide open for criticism on the issue. Corporate GM pick pocketing behavior is a very valid thing to discuss here. I chose this medium to express myself as it pisses me off that I have to pay for a GM I don't own. Yes, part of my purpose is to show to others it is OK to feel this way towards GM. That is not OK just to wash over the fact that non-GM, non-union workers now contribte to keep mismanaged GM and overpaid union afloat. If they decide not to buy GM because of it, that is their right and there is nothing patriotic about supporting a company that is using the tax system to cover up for it's failures. There is also a lot of BS, while GM had their head up their arse for 30+ years Toyota, Nissan, Honda, BMW started becoming domestic manufactures. And much of their content is as American as any of the D3. There are only two differences between GM & Toyota, where their world headquarters are and how poorly or well they are managed. The rest is feltercarb, they are in the same markets under the same conditions. Then there is the corruption of it. This problem didn't start because of the recession/depression, although it accelerated it no doubt. It started as GM spun off profitable entities making private equity rich. It deliberatly let go if it's winners leave the If they can't take the heat then they should change their behavior. All I ask is that they get their hands out of our pockets. Want to know my GM experience? Drove a GMC 4x4 as a snow/tow vehicle for years, circa 1973-5. Fantastic vehicle in 4x4, while it broke once and awhile it was the hardest service I have ever given a vehicle...plowing snow is hard on them. 7/10. Ventura, my mom owned it and I learned to drive in it. Basic but reliable and a good vehicle. 7/10. Was overseas driving a GM-Vauxhaul Cavalier, first class vehicle I rate as 8/10. On return I was told the Olds Firenza was the same as a Cavalier so I bought one new. Had it for 5 years and while nothing major went wrong, after 5 years it was about to become a real problem and the boy fit/finish was the craps. It was not of the same quality as the GM-Vauxhal, in fact only shared the shape as the engine was gutless. 4/10. Then had bought a used 1980 Cutlas Supreme, put a lot of miles on it. This was the kind of car GM was famous for, too bad they don't make them like this any more, 8/10. Then in 2001 bought a Regal, it would have got a 9/10 but for early transmission failure, first at 8,000 and with 5 visits finally got GM to fix it right. Traded it because of the scare it gave my wife when it outright failed, she would not drive it. 9/10 for design-features, 2/10 for manufacturing, 1/10 for service for a 4/10 average. Also owned Mazda, Chrysler, Ford, Nissan. GM, Chrysler and Nissan are no longer on my buy list. My average rating of all vehicles would be about 6/10. My current ride, F150 Lariat is a 9.5/10. I will not trade this in, best vehicle I have ever had to date. I don't buy Japanese only because I am too tall for them as a rule but did own a Nissan 6/10. Family and friends have had real good luck with Toyota and Honda and suspect they too would be at least 8/10 range if I fit. I loved the Mazda 808 7.5/10 because I sent that car through hell and could not brake it, used it for a country rally even. GM isn't the worst in my experience. Just not anywhere near the top either. But really gets me is GM car payments via the tax system when I don't own one. That sends me over the top. Your uninformed or misinformed comment does not deserve a reply >>>> You can have whatever opinion you want, I couldn't care less. What >>>> bothers me is your childish attitude. You come to a GM newsgroup, only [quoted text clipped - 96 lines] > But really gets me is GM car payments via the tax system when I don't own > one. That sends me over the top. > GM started it when they were pushing to get into tax payers pockets. That > crossed the line for me and I suspect many others. Makes them wide open for > criticism on the issue. Corporate GM pick pocketing behavior is a very > valid thing to discuss here. I chose this medium to express myself as it > pisses me off that I have to pay for a GM I don't own. You sound like a six year old. "GM started it..." Is that really your strongest argument? Do you even think it is relevant to the point? The point is, this is not a GM executive office. Plastering your blather here is completely meaningless. This is a usenet forum that had a purpose and value before the garbage like you and your likes brought here. It may be completely fair to criticize GM, but take that crap to a blog somewhere. You are not right - this is not a forum to continue your mindless chatter about something you don't even understand in its fullest, and certainly have no control over. You and your ilk are hearing more and more from people who are regulars here that you've worn out your welcome with your continued rants. No one here can change it and it's grown past old. Who really cares if you're pissed off? You're pissing a lot of people off - so why don't you stop the offending behavior in the same way you wish GM's offending behavior could be stopped? Your argument that this is an appropriate forum to discuss all things GM loses any hope of validity with the cross post list you spam your garbage to. How is your crap appropriate to ford groups, toyota groups, and everyone else you spam to? > Yes, part of my purpose is to show to others it is OK to feel this way > towards GM. Oh thank you - no one would ever have figured out their inner feelings without your guidance. Here's a hint - no one needs you to show them what is ok and what is not. You are performing no public service. > That is not OK just to wash over the fact that non-GM, > non-union workers now contribte to keep mismanaged GM and overpaid union > afloat. If they decide not to buy GM because of it, that is their right and > there is nothing patriotic about supporting a company that is using the tax > system to cover up for it's failures. You are way too full of yourself and your own sense of self importance. > There is also a lot of BS, while GM had their head up their arse for 30+ > years Toyota, Nissan, Honda, BMW started becoming domestic manufactures. So what? > And much of their content is as American as any of the D3. There are only > two differences between GM & Toyota, where their world headquarters are and > how poorly or well they are managed. The rest is feltercarb, they are in > the same markets under the same conditions. So what? > Then there is the corruption of it. This problem didn't start because of > the recession/depression, although it accelerated it no doubt. It started > as GM spun off profitable entities making private equity rich. It > deliberatly let go if it's winners leave the So what? Take it to a blog. We do not need you to take over as the watch dog for all those you seem to feel are incapable of observing and making decisions on their own. > If they can't take the heat then they should change their behavior. All I > ask is that they get their hands out of our pockets. So take it to a blog. Just leave here, will ya? We are not GM and we don't care to hear any more of your crap. > Want to know my GM experience? No. > But really gets me is GM car payments via the tax system when I don't own > one. That sends me over the top. So start a blog and vent your spleen. Just quit ruining what was a very good and productive group with the kind of stuff that does nothing to contribute to anything but noise level. Write your Congressman. He has the power to affect future loans, etc. You make such pathetic attempts to justify your pissing about, but in the end, you're just pissing. No one here can help you, people are getting tired of yours and other crap like yours here, and rather than contribute to a good group, you just try to justify your continued babble. Man - get over it or do something really meaningful about it - but ranting on and on here is not meaningful. Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net > contribute to anything but noise level. Write your Congressman. Silly you....he can't. He doesn't have one! His uninformed or misinformed cross posted opinion did not deserve a reply >> GM started it when they were pushing to get into tax payers pockets. >> That [quoted text clipped - 89 lines] > justify your continued babble. Man - get over it or do something really > meaningful about it - but ranting on and on here is not meaningful. His uninformed or misinformed comment does not deserve a reply >>> You can have whatever opinion you want, I couldn't care less. What >>> bothers me is your childish attitude. You come to a GM newsgroup, only [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > and > grandstanding? "That uniformed or misinformed comment does not deserve a reply" >> We aren't interested in his BS in the GM newsgroup either, but he won't >> shut up. [quoted text clipped - 83 lines] >>>>>> > > -- >>>>>> > > Civis Romanus Sum > We aren't interested in his BS in the GM newsgroup either, but he won't shut > up. Take it up with Zippy Van Pinhead, the OP. >> We aren't interested in his BS in the GM newsgroup either, but he won't >> shut >> up. > > Take it up with Zippy Van Pinhead, the OP. Look who's talking. You have posted articles to a GM newsgroup, bad mouthing there products, only to piss people off too. You also had "your a.s handed to you", as you put it. Why does this need to go on? You like Japanese cars, fine. I like GM, Ford, and Chrysler, fine. Why can't you stay in the Toyota group, and not bring your GM-bashing to the GM group? Not once have I started a thread in the Toyota group. I have actually never even visited the group. People need to realize that different people prefer different products, and bitching back and forth isn't going to change anyone's minds. The newsgroups are supposed to be a good place to visit, chat, seek advice, whatever. Not a battleground. It took me quite a while to realize this, and I'm sure it will take others quite a while, but this isn't doing anyone any good. >>> We aren't interested in his BS in the GM newsgroup either, but he won't >>> shut [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > mouthing there products, only to piss people off too. You also had "your > a.s handed to you", as you put it. Nah. > Why does this need to go on? You like > Japanese cars, fine. I like GM, Ford, and Chrysler, fine. Why can't you [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > to realize this, and I'm sure it will take others quite a while, but this > isn't doing anyone any good. 100%, my friend. I will not crosspost anymore drivel about GM unless it is non-'offensive'. Unfortunately, of all the cars there are, GM vehicles rank near the bottom on 'my' list. I have had Chrysler mini-vans and an LHS and really liked them. In all honesty, I am afraid to buy a GM since my family's history with their products has been so dismal! The HHR was my first consideration, but it wasn't everything I was looking for. But I *LIKE* them! I also hope GM pulls out of this tailspin, but I hope they do it by saying to hell with the shareholders and building products worthy of getting them back on the map. (Like our '64 Nova. That car was bulletproof!!! If they made cars like that now, I wouldn't be driving Japanese cars...) >>>> We aren't interested in his BS in the GM newsgroup either, but he won't >>>> shut [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > their products has been so dismal! The HHR was my first consideration, but > it wasn't everything I was looking for. But I *LIKE* them! Exactly, you have your opinion of GM's vehicles vs. the Japanese vehicles, so do I, and no one says they have to match. Personally, I have had the opposite experience with GM. My entire family (even the extended) drives GM vehicles, and there have been no major complaints. What people choose to purchase is totally up to them, it is a "free" country so to speak. All I am saying (and I'm sure many will agree) is insulting eachother isn't going to change anything. I'll still like GM, and you will still like Toyota's. Now, I can't speak for the Toyota group, but the GM group is usually a relatively nice place to visit. People come in, share there thoughts, ask there questions, etc.. We chit-chat about this and that, and everyone has a good time. I would assume the Toyota group is the same. I just don't see the need for hardcore GM fans and hardcore Toyota fans to go head to head. Calling your Toyota "Jap crap" isn't going to make you want to buy a GM, and calling my GM "Detroit garbage" isn't going to make me want to drive a Toyota. > I also hope GM pulls out of this tailspin, but I hope they do it by saying > to hell with the shareholders and building products worthy of getting them > back on the map. I totally agree. > (Like our '64 Nova. That car was bulletproof!!! If they made cars like > that now, I wouldn't be driving Japanese cars...) >>>>> We aren't interested in his BS in the GM newsgroup either, but he >>>>> won't [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] >> (Like our '64 Nova. That car was bulletproof!!! If they made cars like >> that now, I wouldn't be driving Japanese cars...) Higgins and Gosi were the original perpetrators. They would be here all day long slamming GM products, pasting negative articles and so forth. > Higgins and Gosi were the original perpetrators. They would be here all day > long slamming GM products, pasting negative articles and so forth. So if we had not said anything GM would not be in any trouble. Well.... uncle bushy popped up some taxpayer money to transfer through GMs books into his own pockets and until that transfer is complete GM will be up and running. "That uniformed or misinformed comment does not deserve a reply" >> Higgins and Gosi were the original perpetrators. They would be here all >> day [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > GMs books into his own pockets and until that transfer is complete GM > will be up and running. >> Higgins and Gosi were the original perpetrators. They would be here all >> day [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > GMs books into his own pockets and until that transfer is complete GM > will be up and running. And then GM will ask for more. Rumours have it they are about to ask for more. I would not doubt they are already in the back rooms a talking on how to rape more from the tax payer. They want GMs entitlement cut. "That uniformed or misinformed comment does not deserve a reply" >>> Higgins and Gosi were the original perpetrators. They would be here all >>> day [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > more. I would not doubt they are already in the back rooms a talking on > how to rape more from the tax payer. They want GMs entitlement cut. >>>> We aren't interested in his BS in the GM newsgroup either, but he won't >>>> shut [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > 100%, my friend. I will not crosspost anymore drivel about GM unless it is > non-'offensive'. Don't worry too much about cross posting, the original thread usually (but not always) chooses the lists it goes to and most like yourself or myself just generally hit "Reply". Pouncing on a person down a thread is anal. > Unfortunately, of all the cars there are, GM vehicles rank near the bottom > on 'my' list. I have had Chrysler mini-vans and an LHS and really liked > them. I would say it depends on the model. Price not withstanding there are some GM vehicle lines I would say are superior to Chrysler. But both have dogs to avoid. I too had a minivan, '89... great body works but the 4 cyl. drive train was POC. They cheapened the body style and with transmission issues with it, last one. > In all honesty, I am afraid to buy a GM since my family's history with > their products has been so dismal! The HHR was my first consideration, but > it wasn't everything I was looking for. But I *LIKE* them! That is the most damaging thing any auto can do to a manufacturer. As there are plenty of lines of autos that make 200,000 miles with only some fan belts, water pump and maintanance. That generates repeat and referal business. > I also hope GM pulls out of this tailspin, but I hope they do it by saying > to hell with the shareholders and building products worthy of getting them > back on the map. Hope so too, but when you look at the numbers the Titanic might sail again some day. The unfortuante part is GM management has let their cost issues out of control for so long it has dug a pile of debt that may be too big to get back out of. It is clear, if GM is going to dig out of this problem, it will take major concessions by all of managmeent, union and suppliers to get the GM costs in line and better than anyone to pay down their debt. GM problems have not for 30 years been swept under the rug and borrowed to cover. It can't continue any longer. And going onto what amounts to corporate welfare isn't going to help their reputation. It is also what they need to do the right thing and do chapter 11. Chapter 11 will force the needed concessions and reorganizations needed to make GM viable. > (Like our '64 Nova. That car was bulletproof!!! If they made cars like > that now, I wouldn't be driving Japanese cars...) My mother had the Pontiac Ventura a little newer than above, reliable, inexpensive and easy to maintain/fix. They were a bread of cars apart from the rest. They don't make them like that any more. If we all resisted the urge to respond to the OT political crap and $#it posted that is derogatory to the or cross posted just to suit the egos of the poster, the kooks would stop posting and go away. I'll will admit it is difficult, to not at least try to set the uniformed and misinformed straight, but ignoring them is the answer, in my opinion. It does make a different when one says in my opinion, but when the try to present their opinion as fact, it becomes a problem for those that know better. I think I will try to just say, "That uniformed or misinformed comment does not deserve a reply" >>> We aren't interested in his BS in the GM newsgroup either, but he won't >>> shut [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > quite a while to realize this, and I'm sure it will take others quite a > while, but this isn't doing anyone any good. >>> We aren't interested in his BS in the GM newsgroup either, but he won't >>> shut [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > quite a while to realize this, and I'm sure it will take others quite a > while, but this isn't doing anyone any good. Keep in mind people like Gosi, Higgins, Canuck57 and Harohito, or whatever his name is, is for the strenghthening of JAPAN and are basically saying screw America at all costs. >>>> We aren't interested in his BS in the GM newsgroup either, but he won't >>>> shut [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > whatever his name is, is for the strenghthening of JAPAN and are basically > saying screw America at all costs. Not at all. We want GM to pull it's head out of it's perverbial a.s and get it's greedy hands out of our pockets. To do this they need to get their sh.t together. And that means pull their heads out of thei a.ses first. Japan is eating GMs lunch because GM has screwed up for so long. Time to walk the walk and cut the bullshit. The message below is explicit. It does not slam the product, it slams the behavior of the incompetant GM management and entitlement attitude of CAW/UAW. Get their hands out of out pockets and I will not be here. That simple. CAW/UAW des not support my family, why the hell should I support theirs? _ /'_/) ,/_ / / / /'_'/' '/'__'7, /'/ / / /" /_\ ('( ' /' ') \ / '\' _.7' \ ( \ \ GM, Chrysler-Cerberus, CAW-UAW, get your selfish greedy hands out of our pockets! We don't steal from you! "That uniformed or misinformed comment does not deserve a reply" >>>>> We aren't interested in his BS in the GM newsgroup either, but he >>>>> won't shut [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > selfish greedy hands out of our pockets! > We don't steal from you! > Please take your pathetic discussion to a political group. > We at alt.autos.ford are not interested in your anti-American > rhetoric. It isn't anti-American, it is telling the D3 are dogs. Losers. Welchers suching on the tax system. And debunking the bullshit of D3 and UAW/CAW. Don't want to hear the truth? Put me in your kill file. I didn't start this thred into .ford... but why not reply to it. Geeze, thought Ford people were better as they were not picking Americans pockets via the tax system like beggers and pickpockets. >>> That is what the say but the parts and materials are mostly imported or >>> purchased from other Japanese holding companies, of Japanese [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] >>>> > > -- >>>> > > Civis Romanus Sum "That uniformed or misinformed comment does not deserve a reply" >> Please take your pathetic discussion to a political group. >> We at alt.autos.ford are not interested in your anti-American [quoted text clipped - 85 lines] >>>>> > > -- >>>>> > > Civis Romanus Sum > Please take your pathetic discussion to a political group. > We at alt.autos.ford are not interested in your anti-American > rhetoric. 1. Take it up with Zippy Van Pinhead, who started the crossposting 2. Stop top posting. "That uniformed or misinformed comment does not deserve a reply" >> Please take your pathetic discussion to a political group. >> We at alt.autos.ford are not interested in your anti-American [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > 2. Stop top posting. Just added what you forgot tom say "That uniformed or misinformed comment does not deserve a reply" > Just added what you forgot tom say > That is what the say but the parts and materials are mostly imported or > purchased from other Japanese holding companies, of Japanese Corporations in [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > the fact that Toyota only assembles vehicles in the US of mostly imported > parts and materials and imports more of the vehicles they sell in the US You forgot to say that this is your opinion. I am incorrect, prove it. Jeff > On Jan 22, 12:19 pm, "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > > > -- > > > > Civis Romanus Sum "That uniformed or misinformed comment does not deserve a reply" On Jan 22, 9:09 pm, "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote: > That is what the say but the parts and materials are mostly imported or > purchased from other Japanese holding companies, of Japanese Corporations [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > the fact that Toyota only assembles vehicles in the US of mostly imported > parts and materials and imports more of the vehicles they sell in the US You forgot to say that this is your opinion. I am incorrect, prove it. Jeff > "Jeff" <jeff....@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > > > -- > > > > Civis Romanus Sum On Jan 22, 12:19 pm, "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote: > Old news. In any event the vast majority of the MATERIALS Toyota uses to > make the parts and cars they only assemble in the US, are imported Depends on the vehicle. The Toyota Sienna and Tundra have more than 3/4 US content. Toyota buys billions of goods and services and makes millions of engines and trannys in the US. JEff Shooosh... you wll ruin some CAW/UAWs day by having them hear the truth. We both know Toyota is every bit as American as GM, in fact, maybe more so. They know how to run a business better than GM does. > "Jeff" <jeff....@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > > -- > > > Civis Romanus Sum You forgot to say, in my opinion ;) We > both know Toyota is every bit as American as GM, in fact, maybe more so. > They know how to run a business better than GM does. _ /'_/) ,/_ / / / /'_'/' '/'__'7, /'/ / / /" /_\ ('( ' /' ') \ / '\' _.7' \ ( \ \ GM, Chrysler-Cerberus, CAW-UAW, get your selfish greedy hands out of our pockets! We don't steal from you! > You forgot to say, in my opinion ;) > > We >> both know Toyota is every bit as American as GM, in fact, maybe more so. >> They know how to run a business better than GM does. "That uniformed or misinformed comment does not deserve a reply" > _ > /'_/) [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >>> both know Toyota is every bit as American as GM, in fact, maybe more so. >>> They know how to run a business better than GM does. > On Jan 22, 12:19 pm, "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote: >> Old news. In any event the vast majority of the MATERIALS Toyota uses to [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > We both know Toyota is every bit as American as GM, in fact, maybe more > so. They know how to run a business better than GM does. Every bit as American?? Wishful thinking to take away the guilt. You are buying japanese, its a fact...admit it. >> On Jan 22, 12:19 pm, "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote: >>> Old news. In any event the vast majority of the MATERIALS Toyota uses to [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Every bit as American?? Wishful thinking to take away the guilt. You are > buying japanese, its a fact...admit it. Yep, even if I buy D3, probably Japanese, Mexican, Chinese parts in there somewhere. Ditto the whole industry. Toyota and Honda buy a lot of parts from JCI and Magna.... No guilt here. I own a Ford F150. More foreign content than a Tundra. LOL. I bought it because it was the best vehicle in it's class and priced right when I bought it. But I knew that when I bought it. "That uniformed or misinformed comment does not deserve a reply" >>> On Jan 22, 12:19 pm, "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote: >>>> Old news. In any event the vast majority of the MATERIALS Toyota uses [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > LOL. I bought it because it was the best vehicle in it's class and priced > right when I bought it. But I knew that when I bought it. >Actually Toyota IMPORTS more of the vehicles it sells in the US, than those >they only assemble in the US, of primary "world sourced parts," according to >the US Commerce Department and their own TV ads. There are more US and Canadian manufactured parts in a Cambridge built Corolla than in virtually any car built and sold by the "big 3" in Canada or the USA. Same will be true of the Woodstock built RAV4. >>> Predecessor companies >>> TMMNA opened in 1996 and oversaw all Toyota manufacturing concerns in [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] >> Toyota is now an American car producer, one that actually works as opposed >> to the Detroit 2.2, they are abject failures. >>Actually Toyota IMPORTS more of the vehicles it sells in the US, than >>those [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Corolla than in virtually any car built and sold by the "big 3" in > Canada or the USA. Same will be true of the Woodstock built RAV4. Quite true. While the industry likes to think that D3/UAW/CAW is all there is in auto manufacturing in North America, that hasn't been true for decades. And the Carolla isn't the only one, not by a long shot. Toyota Tundra is another, more NAFTA content than a GM and Chysler offering in the same class. For many vehicle models you might actually provide more NA jobs with the Japanese NA manufacturer than with a D3. A lot of hyporacy and outdate statements come out of the PR machine with this bailout BS. Maybe Obama should talk to Toyota and see if they would be interested in GM or Chysler for a $1, this way they aren't picking the taxpayers pocket. >>>> Predecessor companies >>>> TMMNA opened in 1996 and oversaw all Toyota manufacturing concerns in [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] >>> opposed >>> to the Detroit 2.2, they are abject failures. > Actually Toyota IMPORTS more of the vehicles it sells in the US, than those > they only assemble in the US, of primary "world sourced parts," according to [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > -- > > Civis Romanus Sum According to Toyota, it makes over 1.2 million vehicles per year in the US. Last year it sold 2.2 million vehicles, so it makes most of it vehicles in the US. Plus, it made 300,000 vehicles in Canada. http://www.toyota.co.jp/en/about_toyota/manufacturing/index.html So it make more vehicles in the US than it imports into the US. And "world sourced parts" includes parts made in the US. What is the URL of the commerce dept. site? Jeff Search "US Department of Commerce" for the information you seek, WBMS ;) On Jan 21, 12:44 pm, "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote: > Actually Toyota IMPORTS more of the vehicles it sells in the US, than > those [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > > -- > > Civis Romanus Sum According to Toyota, it makes over 1.2 million vehicles per year in the US. Last year it sold 2.2 million vehicles, so it makes most of it vehicles in the US. Plus, it made 300,000 vehicles in Canada. http://www.toyota.co.jp/en/about_toyota/manufacturing/index.html So it make more vehicles in the US than it imports into the US. And "world sourced parts" includes parts made in the US. What is the URL of the commerce dept. site? Jeff > Search "US Department of Commerce" for the information you seek, WBMS ;) In other words, you can't back your claim and don't know what you're talking about. Jeff > On Jan 21, 12:44 pm, "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] > > Jeff I'm simply reporting what anyone who can find if one searches the "US Department of Commerce" site. I'm not claiming anything, you are. Your are saying the information on that site is wrong for some goofy reason, because you choose to believe something you hear from the Japs. On Jan 22, 11:59 am, "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote: > Search "US Department of Commerce" for the information you seek, WBMS ;) In other words, you can't back your claim and don't know what you're talking about. Jeff > "Jeff" <jeff....@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 77 lines] > > Jeff > I'm simply reporting what anyone who can find if one searches the "US > Department of Commerce" site. I'm not claiming anything, you are. Your > are saying the information on that site is wrong for some goofy reason, > because you choose to believe something you hear from the Japs. You're claiming that Toyota imports more cars than it makes in the US and the cars it makes in the US have mostly imported content. And no one can find it on the commerce site because it isn't there. If it is, show us the URL. I don't have time to go on wild goose chase. Jeff > On Jan 22, 11:59 am, "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 86 lines] > > > Jeff You don't know you history. The "US Department of Commerce" is the entity that oversees the Federal Governments Constitutional right to regulate Commerce between the states. It has a site just like all the other government departments. On Jan 22, 8:50 pm, "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote: > I'm simply reporting what anyone who can find if one searches the "US > Department of Commerce" site. I'm not claiming anything, you are. Your > are saying the information on that site is wrong for some goofy reason, > because you choose to believe something you hear from the Japs. You're claiming that Toyota imports more cars than it makes in the US and the cars it makes in the US have mostly imported content. And no one can find it on the commerce site because it isn't there. If it is, show us the URL. I don't have time to go on wild goose chase. Jeff > "Jeff" <jeff....@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 92 lines] > > > Jeff > You don't know you history. The "US Department of Commerce" is the > entity that oversees the Federal Governments Constitutional right to > regulate Commerce between the states. It has a site just like all the > other government departments. Are you saying Japan is a state of the union? LOL. > On Jan 22, 8:50 pm, "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote: >> I'm simply reporting what anyone who can find if one searches the "US [quoted text clipped - 110 lines] >> >> > Jeff > You don't know you history. The "US Department of Commerce" is the entity > that oversees the Federal Governments Constitutional right to regulate > Commerce between the states. It has a site just like all the other > government departments. When you have something worth while to say, I will reply to it. Until then, I won't waste any more time replying to your ill-informed nonsense. You're not worth my time. Jeff > On Jan 22, 8:50 pm, "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 107 lines] > > > > Jeff > > You don't know you history. The "US Department of Commerce" is the entity > > that oversees the Federal Governments Constitutional right to regulate [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Jeff Do not humor him. He is basically trying to upset you with his comments. If you look at it as an old mans pastime to throw around silly sentences without meaning it is easy for you to ignore and have a laugh at it. "That uniformed or misinformed comment does not deserve a reply" On 24 Jan, 00:03, Jeff <jeff....@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 22, 9:25 pm, "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Jeff Do not humor him. He is basically trying to upset you with his comments. If you look at it as an old mans pastime to throw around silly sentences without meaning it is easy for you to ignore and have a laugh at it. "That uniformed or misinformed comment does not deserve a reply" On Jan 22, 9:25 pm, "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote: > You don't know you history. The "US Department of Commerce" is the entity > that oversees the Federal Governments Constitutional right to regulate > Commerce between the states. It has a site just like all the other > government departments. When you have something worth while to say, I will reply to it. Until then, I won't waste any more time replying to your ill-informed nonsense. You're not worth my time. Jeff > "Jeff" <jeff....@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 116 lines] > > > > Jeff I am not sure, but believe Honda and Toyota produce most of their vehicles sold in Canada or USA are made/assembled in Canada or USA. I know Ford imports finished vehicles or is planning to, GM & Chrysler not sure. But maybe that is the problem. Maybe GM should import the Volt and other cars from more efficient plants. I hear Flint want big union yet they already have offshort ablities to make them cheaper. Seems like a no brainer, make the Volt offshore. It is now no different for any of them. It is impossible to buy a car without foreign content, and often the D3 are less NA content than are the Japanese. Go figure. On Jan 22, 8:50 pm, "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote: > I'm simply reporting what anyone who can find if one searches the "US > Department of Commerce" site. I'm not claiming anything, you are. Your > are saying the information on that site is wrong for some goofy reason, > because you choose to believe something you hear from the Japs. You're claiming that Toyota imports more cars than it makes in the US and the cars it makes in the US have mostly imported content. And no one can find it on the commerce site because it isn't there. If it is, show us the URL. I don't have time to go on wild goose chase. Jeff > "Jeff" <jeff....@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 92 lines] > > > Jeff I'm glad you said you were not sure, because what you believe in not correct. > I am not sure, but believe Honda and Toyota produce most of their vehicles > sold in Canada or USA are made/assembled in Canada or USA. I know Ford [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >> are saying the information on that site is wrong for some goofy reason, >> because you choose to believe something you hear from the Japs. > I am not sure, but believe Honda and Toyota produce most of their vehicles > sold in Canada or USA are made/assembled in Canada or USA. I was checking some Camrys today, and all of the ones in stock were U.S. made (this was the on-line inventory of three different California Toyota dealers, and was several hundred vehicles). The bottom line is that the taxpayer subsidies would be much better spent on helping Toyota create more U.S. jobs and build (or take over) more U.S. factories, than dumping it down the rat hole of GM. >> I am not sure, but believe Honda and Toyota produce most of their >> vehicles sold in Canada or USA are made/assembled in Canada or USA. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > on helping Toyota create more U.S. jobs and build (or take over) more U.S. > factories, than dumping it down the rat hole of GM. Agreed, and given Toyota's record, they would do a much better job. That also verifies that those Toyota's are at least as American and GM ones. Jus that they have les UAW/CAW content. Americans need to ask, if it was Toyota in trouble closing American plants, would they see $17B ? "That uniformed or misinformed comment does not deserve a reply" >>> I am not sure, but believe Honda and Toyota produce most of their >>> vehicles sold in Canada or USA are made/assembled in Canada or USA. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Americans need to ask, if it was Toyota in trouble closing American > plants, would they see $17B ? "That uniformed or misinformed comment does not deserve a reply" >> I am not sure, but believe Honda and Toyota produce most of their >> vehicles sold in Canada or USA are made/assembled in Canada or USA. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > on helping Toyota create more U.S. jobs and build (or take over) more U.S. > factories, than dumping it down the rat hole of GM. > I am not sure, but believe Honda and Toyota produce most of their vehicles > sold in Canada or USA are made/assembled in Canada or USA. I know Ford > imports finished vehicles or is planning to, GM & Chrysler not sure. Ford imports some cars from Mexico. In addition, it has imported some cars from Korea, like the Ford Aspire. GM also builds some cars in Mexico and elsewhere and imports them in the US. It used to be that GM and Ford both had around 75 or 80% US and Canadian content. However, with the recent economic problems, most manufacturers decreased the US and Canadian content of their cars. Toyota is pretty close to 50% and GM and Ford are around 70 or 80%. But it depends on the model and the specifics of the model, like the transmission and engine. The fact is that GM, Ford, Chrysler (now owned partly by Fiat), Toyota, Honda, and the others are multinational companies with operations in many different countries. Many of them are trying to move into the BRIC countries (Brasil, Russia, India and China) which have a potential market bigger than the US. I am not sure what the market sizes are now, because of all the changes in the different economic markets. As far as I can tell, it is hard to get exact US and Canadian content info for cars. The companies are not required to release it. And, I am unable to find it on sites like the US Commerce Dept. site. Jeff But > maybe that is the problem. Maybe GM should import the Volt and other cars > from more efficient plants. I hear Flint want big union yet they already [quoted text clipped - 116 lines] > > > > Jeff "That uniformed or misinformed comment does not deserve a reply" On Jan 23, 12:10 pm, "Canuck57" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote: > I am not sure, but believe Honda and Toyota produce most of their vehicles > sold in Canada or USA are made/assembled in Canada or USA. I know Ford > imports finished vehicles or is planning to, GM & Chrysler not sure. Ford imports some cars from Mexico. In addition, it has imported some cars from Korea, like the Ford Aspire. GM also builds some cars in Mexico and elsewhere and imports them in the US. It used to be that GM and Ford both had around 75 or 80% US and Canadian content. However, with the recent economic problems, most manufacturers decreased the US and Canadian content of their cars. Toyota is pretty close to 50% and GM and Ford are around 70 or 80%. But it depends on the model and the specifics of the model, like the transmission and engine. The fact is that GM, Ford, Chrysler (now owned partly by Fiat), Toyota, Honda, and the others are multinational companies with operations in many different countries. Many of them are trying to move into the BRIC countries (Brasil, Russia, India and China) which have a potential market bigger than the US. I am not sure what the market sizes are now, because of all the changes in the different economic markets. As far as I can tell, it is hard to get exact US and Canadian content info for cars. The companies are not required to release it. And, I am unable to find it on sites like the US Commerce Dept. site. Jeff But > maybe that is the problem. Maybe GM should import the Volt and other cars > from more efficient plants. I hear Flint want big union yet they already [quoted text clipped - 126 lines] > > > > Jeff Mike, you don't know what you are talking about. But will give you an A+ for UAW/CAW BSer. > I'm simply reporting what anyone who can find if one searches the "US > Department of Commerce" site. I'm not claiming anything, you are. Your [quoted text clipped - 91 lines] >> >> Jeff What the hell does that mean? Why would a stockholder do that? > Mike, you don't know what you are talking about. > > But will give you an A+ for UAW/CAW BSer. You own GM stock? LOL. Enjoy the ride down. > What the hell does that mean? Why would a stockholder do that? > >> Mike, you don't know what you are talking about. >> >> But will give you an A+ for UAW/CAW BSer. "That uniformed or misinformed comment does not deserve a reply" > You own GM stock? LOL. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >>> >>> But will give you an A+ for UAW/CAW BSer. >> Predecessor companies >> TMMNA opened in 1996 and oversaw all Toyota manufacturing concerns in [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > Toyota is now an American car producer, one that actually works as opposed > to the Detroit 2.2, they are abject failures. Yeh, tell the japanese that. What did they do just hand over the company?? >> Predecessor companies >> TMMNA opened in 1996 and oversaw all Toyota manufacturing concerns in [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > Toyota is now an American car producer, one that actually works as opposed > to the Detroit 2.2, they are abject failures. Yeh, tell the japanese that. What did they do just hand over the company?? Toyotas employees were trained in state owned schools, at taxpayer expense to work in those plants, as well > Predecessor companies > TMMNA opened in 1996 and oversaw all Toyota manufacturing concerns in [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > States. This amounted to at least $189 million for the 60,000 cars > sold.[9] > Toyotas employees were trained in state owned schools, at taxpayer expense > to work in those plants, as well Toyota is now a US company and makes more cars than anyone else Perhaps, but not in the US in taxpayer built plants >> Toyotas employees were trained in state owned schools, at taxpayer >> expense >> to work in those plants, as well > > Toyota is now a US company and makes more cars than anyone else > Toyotas employees were trained in state owned schools, at taxpayer expense > to work in those plants, as well Who owns the schools in your state? LOL >> Predecessor companies >> TMMNA opened in 1996 and oversaw all Toyota manufacturing concerns in [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >> States. This amounted to at least $189 million for the 60,000 cars >> sold.[9] Except for private schools, state and local taxpayers, who owns them where you live? ;) >> Toyotas employees were trained in state owned schools, at taxpayer >> expense to work in those plants, as well [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] >>> States. This amounted to at least $189 million for the 60,000 cars >>> sold.[9] > Except for private schools, state and local taxpayers, who owns them where > you live? ;) The people. And the people own them through their local governments. In PA, the school districts themselves are considered local governments, with the school board elected directly by the people and boards directly taxed by the people. In some areas of PA, particularly cities, the schools are part of the other local governments. However, while the state supports the schools, it does not own them. Jeff > >> Toyotas employees were trained in state owned schools, at taxpayer > >> expense to work in those plants, as well [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > >>> States. This amounted to at least $189 million for the 60,000 cars > >>> sold.[9] Get real! That may be your opinion but because the Pennsylvania state Constitution requires every government in the state to annual have a BALANCED budget, EVERY major expenditure like a the Turnpike, a school, water system, sewerage system, etc., built in Pennsylvania is built by a COMMISSION that is an arm of the state Government that issues thirty year bonds and "owns" the school etc. for thirty years. Otherwise the local taxpayers would have to pay the total cost in one year. The bonds are paid by the local school taxes and 100% of the states, six percent sales tax, is paid proportionally to the local school districts. In addition state DECD funds are used to support special training for industry in the schools. Do a search before you choose to comment on yet another subject of which you obviously have little or no knowledge, WBMA On Jan 21, 1:22 pm, "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote: > Except for private schools, state and local taxpayers, who owns them where > you live? ;) The people. And the people own them through their local governments. In PA, the school districts themselves are considered local governments, with the school board elected directly by the people and boards directly taxed by the people. In some areas of PA, particularly cities, the schools are part of the other local governments. However, while the state supports the schools, it does not own them. Jeff > "Canuck57" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > >>> States. This amounted to at least $189 million for the 60,000 cars > >>> sold.[9] > Toyotas employees were trained in state owned schools, at taxpayer expense > to work in those plants, as well [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > States. This amounted to at least $189 million for the 60,000 cars > > sold.[9] Which state-owned schools? All the public schools that I know of are owned by local governments or school districts (which are actually governments). Of course, some of the workers probably when to state universities and colleges, but not that many. Jef GM, Chrysler and Ford as they all get them too for plant and equipment. You know the D3 have squids after public dollars just like anyone else. Corporate welfare. You know they all do it. Who are you kidding? For d) below, at least Toyota got $125M CAD of the some $780M CAD wasted on the industry in the same time frame (excludes recent bailouts over 5 times that amount just for two losers). Next excuse please. Or if you are saying it is a waste of money for governments to flush tax payers cash like this, I agree. Not just for Toyota, but lets also include GM, Chrysler, Mana, JCI, Ford, Nissan, Honda, BMW and others. We shouldn't be subsidising businesses no mater who or what they are. > Predecessor companies > TMMNA opened in 1996 and oversaw all Toyota manufacturing concerns in [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > States. This amounted to at least $189 million for the 60,000 cars > sold.[9] > GM, Chrysler and Ford as they all get them too for plant and equipment. > You know the D3 have squids after public dollars just like anyone else. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > include GM, Chrysler, Mana, JCI, Ford, Nissan, Honda, BMW and others. We > shouldn't be subsidising businesses no mater who or what they are. Oh I get it...so now its OK. Socialism is OK after all. Its OK to throw tax dollars at car companies even when its a loan. > > GM, Chrysler and Ford as they all get them too for plant and equipment. > > You know the D3 have squids after public dollars just like anyone else. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Oh I get it...so now its OK. Socialism is OK after all. Its OK to throw tax > dollars at car companies even when its a loan. GM and Chrysler have shut down most of their factories this month to reduce unsold inventory for their dealers. Chrysler extended shutdowns at three plants on Jan. 15 because of slowing sales, which GM said may fall below a 10-million unit rate this month, a 26-year low. GM may announce additional production cuts, including the elimination of a shift at the Lordstown, Ohio, factory that makes Chevrolet Cobalt cars, the Wall Street Journal reported yesterday, citing union leaders and unidentified sources. Sapienza had no comment on production plans. The jobs bank program started in 1984 as part of an agreement to help ensure that workers replaced by robots or other productivity improvements wouldn’t be fired, Shaiken said. "That uniformed or misinformed comment does not deserve a reply" On 22 Jan, 05:01, "Zippy Van Wentington III" <zvw...@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Canuck57" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > tax > dollars at car companies even when its a loan. GM and Chrysler have shut down most of their factories this month to reduce unsold inventory for their dealers. Chrysler extended shutdowns at three plants on Jan. 15 because of slowing sales, which GM said may fall below a 10-million unit rate this month, a 26-year low. GM may announce additional production cuts, including the elimination of a shift at the Lordstown, Ohio, factory that makes Chevrolet Cobalt cars, the Wall Street Journal reported yesterday, citing union leaders and unidentified sources. Sapienza had no comment on production plans. The jobs bank program started in 1984 as part of an agreement to help ensure that workers replaced by robots or other productivity improvements wouldn’t be fired, Shaiken said. > Or if you are saying it is a waste of money for governments to flush tax > payers cash like this, I agree. Not just for Toyota, but lets also include > GM, Chrysler, He can't agree with that! Those are Good American cars, not crappy Japanese cars! > Predecessor companies > TMMNA opened in 1996 and oversaw all Toyota manufacturing concerns in North [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > Toyota also received subsides of $3,150 per Prius sold in the United States. > This amounted to at least $189 million for the 60,000 cars sold.[9] OK. Tell me...How much is GM asking for? Why don't you do some digging on GM and find out what kind of tax breaks they were given to open plants in various states. And it isn't "US" taxpayers giving the breaks, it's the states giving them the breaks, and in return what often happens is the companies build plants in areas of underemployment, thereby raising the tax base. Why don't you learn what you're talking about prior to posting drivel and looking ignorant? > > Predecessor companies > > TMMNA opened in 1996 and oversaw all Toyota manufacturing concerns in North [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > Why don't you learn what you're talking about prior to posting drivel and > looking ignorant? Well, at least he looks as well informed as Mike Hunter. Jeff Why don't you learn what you're talking about prior to posting drivel and looking ignorant? ;) On Jan 21, 8:48 pm, Hachiroku ¥Ï¥Á¥í¥¯ <Tru...@e86.GTS> wrote: > On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 12:15:09 -0500, Zippy Van Wentington III wrote: > OK. Tell me...How much is GM asking for? > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Why don't you learn what you're talking about prior to posting drivel and > looking ignorant? Well, at least he looks as well informed as Mike Hunter. Jeff > Why don't you learn what you're talking about prior to posting drivel and > looking ignorant? ;) Yo do not > Why don't you learn what you're talking about prior to posting drivel and > looking ignorant? ;) Oh, the irony... LOL Why don't you learn what you're talking about prior to posting drivel and looking ignorant? Oh, the irony...LOL >> Why don't you learn what you're talking about prior to posting drivel and >> looking ignorant? ;) > > Oh, the irony... > > LOL >> Predecessor companies >> TMMNA opened in 1996 and oversaw all Toyota manufacturing concerns in [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > Why don't you do some digging on GM and find out what kind of tax breaks > they were given to open plants in various states. Why should I do some digging? We all know they are getting tax dollars its been on the news for the last 3 months. > And it isn't "US" taxpayers giving the breaks, it's the states giving them > the breaks, and in return what often happens is the companies build plants > in areas of underemployment, thereby raising the tax base. Why don't you do some research? Who do think represents the states? Taxpayers of the states represent the states, and its both US taxpayers at both the state and federal level who are supplying these subsidies. Bottom line is shut the f.ck up about whining about tax dollars going towards a government loan to US auto as if Toyota is covering all of there costs out of pocket and all the while still manipulating the value of the yen in there favor upsetting auto manufactures all over the world. > Why don't you learn what you're talking about prior to posting drivel and > looking ignorant? Stop talking as if you are some 2 bit economics professor when you are simply babbling. >>> Predecessor companies >>> TMMNA opened in 1996 and oversaw all Toyota manufacturing concerns in [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > Why should I do some digging? We all know they are getting tax dollars its > been on the news for the last 3 months. Wow. Good for you. What about the tax breaks for the past years? You should do some digging because you're an ignoramous. You posted this in Toyota to try and piss people off, and you got your a.s handed to you. Crow taste good? >> And it isn't "US" taxpayers giving the breaks, it's the states giving them >> the breaks, and in return what often happens is the companies build plants >> in areas of underemployment, thereby raising the tax base. > > Why don't you do some research? Who do think represents the states? The states, Zippy the Pinhead. Evansville IN wanted the truck plant when Toyota was looking back in the 90's. so Evansville and the state on IN offered them incentives. Unless you live in IN, you had nothing to do with it. So stop whining about "US" taxpayers. It didn't cost me a cent. Or you, if you don't live in IN. And it raised IN's tax base on number of workers, number of goods being sold in the state, increased taxes on other businesses like stores and restaurants. Stop crying about Toyota taking food off your table. They did no such thing. > Taxpayers of the states represent the states, and its both US taxpayers > at both the state and federal level who are supplying these subsidies. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > of the yen in there favor upsetting auto manufactures all over the > world. I wasn't whining about any money going anywhere. You came into the Toyota group whining about states giving tax breaks to companies to build assembly plants there. That's better than just *giving* money to a *failing* company, isn't it? And do some more research. Last I knew Toyota hasn't laid off any US workers yet. When the Tundra sales started failing earlier last year, Toyota let go of their temp workers, but kept the full time workforce intact, doing maintenance and cleaning. The Japanese realize that loyal employees are productive employees, and doesn't add to the unemployment/welfare lines at the first whiff of trouble. They paid those people out of their own coffers without crying about it. >> Why don't you learn what you're talking about prior to posting drivel >> and looking ignorant? > > Stop talking as if you are some 2 bit economics professor when you are > simply babbling. Seems my simple babble was a lot more informed than the drivel you posted, pinhead. And it even a two-bit economics professor could spot the errors in you post almost as fast as I did. Later, Zippy Van Pinhead! >>>> Predecessor companies >>>> TMMNA opened in 1996 and oversaw all Toyota manufacturing concerns in [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > You should do some digging because you're an ignoramous. You posted this > in Toyota to try and piss people off, and you got your a.s handed to you. Oh you mean like you have been posting in GM?? It goes both ways. I can't count the times your a.s has been handed back to you but you keep coming back like the energizer bunny. > Crow taste good? > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > The states, Zippy the Pinhead. No its the taxpayers of the states. A state can't represent a state. > Evansville IN wanted the truck plant when Toyota was looking back in the > 90's. so Evansville and the state on IN offered them incentives. Unless [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > in the state, increased taxes on other businesses like stores and > restaurants. I understand how incentives works and that all car companies get them. > Stop crying about Toyota taking food off your table. They did no such > thing. > I wasn't whining about any money going anywhere. You came into the Toyota > group whining about states giving tax breaks to companies to build > assembly plants there. OH but you responded...some of your Toyota Newsgroup folks were agitators into the GM group so the message is towards them but you responded so you have put yourself into the mix. That's better than just *giving* money to a > *failing* company, isn't it? You still don't understand the basics of just giving and loaning do you? > And do some more research. Last I knew Toyota hasn't laid off any US > workers yet. When the Tundra sales started failing earlier last year, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > unemployment/welfare lines at the first whiff of trouble. They paid those > people out of their own coffers without crying about it. Last I heard last week is they are about to layoff. >>> Why don't you learn what you're talking about prior to posting drivel >>> and looking ignorant? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Later, Zippy Van Pinhead! I agree in part...just simple babble but no more informing. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.