Discuss Detroit Archives - January 2008 How would an Obama presidency affect Detroit? Previous Next
Top of pageBottom of page

Lilpup
Member
Username: Lilpup

Post Number: 4201
Registered: 06-2004
Posted on Tuesday, May 06, 2008 - 11:10 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

It really bothers me the way he keeps bashing the automakers.

As President would he be good, bad, or neutral for Detroit and Michigan?
Top of pageBottom of page

Andylinn
Member
Username: Andylinn

Post Number: 844
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Tuesday, May 06, 2008 - 11:24 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

For one thing, either clinton or obama would be good for the automakers, in that they might create a comprehensive healthcare plan, making the american manufacturers more competitive.
Top of pageBottom of page

Dannyv
Member
Username: Dannyv

Post Number: 189
Registered: 08-2007
Posted on Tuesday, May 06, 2008 - 11:32 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The auto makers made a Faustian bargain by building and promoting heavy, gas guzzling SUVs. That's why we're so heavily involved in the Middle East, to project our interests in securing a reliable source of oil. If Obama is President I believe he will lean on the auto makers to build more fuel efficient vehicles. Do you recall how the economy of Texas was depressed in the late 80s because of falling oil prices? People switched into vehicles getting better gas mileage and lessened the demand for oil. I don't know if that same effect would happen given the emergence of China and India and their oil demands.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lilpup
Member
Username: Lilpup

Post Number: 4203
Registered: 06-2004
Posted on Tuesday, May 06, 2008 - 11:39 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Consumers want to buy trucks and SUVs. Detroit was building smaller, fuel efficient cars but they weren't selling like the larger vehicles were. If it weren't for these high gas prices Americans would still be buying large. Why do you think the foreign companies are building them now, too?
Top of pageBottom of page

Novine
Member
Username: Novine

Post Number: 503
Registered: 07-2007
Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2008 - 12:41 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

People will buy what they can afford to drive. Unless you think that gas is going to head back down to $2 a gallon again, the likelihood of a resurgence in the truck and SUV markets is pretty low.
Top of pageBottom of page

Rid0617
Member
Username: Rid0617

Post Number: 90
Registered: 03-2008
Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2008 - 12:47 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I think Obama is a better choice of the 3. Honestly I could like my child to know a President that isn't a Clinton or a Bush and that's sad when considered the child is 15
Top of pageBottom of page

English
Member
Username: English

Post Number: 731
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2008 - 1:45 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Novine's right. Google "Peak Oil". The Big Three need to re-invest in green transportation options, and lead... but I think the Japanese are beating them handily at it. I was hopeful for Ford's prospects, but it doesn't seem as if they are catching up.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lilpup
Member
Username: Lilpup

Post Number: 4204
Registered: 06-2004
Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2008 - 1:55 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Define "green transportation." The only thing the Japanese really have are mpg ratings that have been matched by the domestics and hybrid technology that the domestics now also have. The Japanese don't have flex fuel or biofuel capability, which Ford started rolling out back in 2000.
Top of pageBottom of page

Udmphikapbob
Member
Username: Udmphikapbob

Post Number: 567
Registered: 07-2004
Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2008 - 8:17 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

http://www.barackobama.com/iss ues/urbanpolicy/

Setting automotive issues aside, Obama is the only candidate with an urban policy in his platform. I think that a black man with a background built in Chicago has the best chance by far of doing something positive for the city of Detroit.
Top of pageBottom of page

Iheartthed
Member
Username: Iheartthed

Post Number: 3077
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2008 - 8:35 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Goldman Sachs analysts project oil to hit $200/barrel. If that happens it will translate into $6/gallon gas. Barack Obama is the least of Detroit's worries...
Top of pageBottom of page

Mikeg
Member
Username: Mikeg

Post Number: 1601
Registered: 12-2005
Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2008 - 8:41 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

The auto makers made a Faustian bargain by building and promoting heavy, gas guzzling SUVs.



Case in point:

Toyota Sequoia, 13/18 MPG

Toyota Sequoia, 13/18 MPG

quote:

Do you recall how the economy of Texas was depressed in the late 80s because of falling oil prices? People switched into vehicles getting better gas mileage and lessened the demand for oil.



That's not how I remember it. Increasing world-wide demand drove the price of a barrel of oil from $4 in 1970 to $48 a decade later. As a result, drilling activity in Texas exploded and their oil production climbed. Then the Saudis decided to take advantage of the rise in prices. They opened the valves on their already tapped fields and ramped up production from 6 million barrels per day in the early 80s to 9 million bpd in 1984. The result was a world-wide oil-glut which caused the price of a barrel of oil to drop to $12 a barrel by January 1986. The collapse in oil prices had nothing to do with changes in consumer vehicle preferences.
Top of pageBottom of page

Gravitymachine
Member
Username: Gravitymachine

Post Number: 2068
Registered: 05-2005
Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2008 - 8:43 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

Consumers want to buy trucks and SUVs. Detroit was building smaller, fuel efficient cars but they weren't selling like the larger vehicles were. If it weren't for these high gas prices Americans would still be buying large. Why do you think the foreign companies are building them now, too?



consumers are already trying to unload their SUV's and get into something smaller before fuel prices get worse, this is not a short lived trend, its a paradigm shift. the import's SUV entries are essentially late to the segment, one of the few where american automakers excelled (probably not in the least part due to the relative low-tech of the vehicles, based on truck frames, no need for weight savings, etc). I have a hard time beleiving that there weren't people in the offices of the big three that didn't see the conditions that we are facing now that are driving up fuel costs and hurting sales of large vehicles. 'course it would take years for a company to thoroughly react to todays conditions

(Message edited by gravitymachine on May 07, 2008)
Top of pageBottom of page

Mikeg
Member
Username: Mikeg

Post Number: 1602
Registered: 12-2005
Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2008 - 9:05 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

I have a hard time beleiving that there weren't people in the offices of the big three that didn't see the conditions that we are facing now that are driving up fuel costs and hurting sales of large vehicles


Contrary to popular opinion, the people who toil in the "Big 3" are not stupid. They know that the risk of a change in consumer demand is always out there and they try to measure it and make projections as to when and how much the demand might swing from truck-based products to car-based vehicles. But keep in mind that the vehicle architectures of trucks and cars are very different and they are not typically built in the same assembly plant. Therefore, they cannot just flip a switch and change an assembly plant from producing 250,000 trucks per year to an equivalent number of cars - it takes at least half a billion dollars and two years lead time to do that.

So the questions becomes, while looking at the trend data, at what point does an automaker make the call and roll the dice to switch over 250,000 units of production away from truck to cars?


In a growing market, when trying to time the market two or more years in advance, these kinds of decisions are not so risky. However, in a situation of declining market share like the "Big 3" finds itself, you could be betting the future of the company if you try to lead and anticipate a large swing in consumer preferences that doesn't materialize when you expected it to happen.
Top of pageBottom of page

Darwinism
Member
Username: Darwinism

Post Number: 740
Registered: 06-2005
Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2008 - 9:37 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Ask yourself a few simple questions ...

1) Are you and your family better off today and within the past 8 years, compared to the time before that? My family and I - No, we are worse off in the past 8 years.

2) Is the country and national economic health better off today and within the past 8 years, compared to the time before that? My opinion - No, America is in 2 wars (Afghanistan, Iraq) that has become a huge money pit. The budget surplus had turned into a deep budget deficit. The world view of America is largely negative. The American people are losing their jobs, their homes, the value of their currency and their quality of life.

3) Who were the people in our national leadership positions during this past 8 years? Mr. George W. Bush and associates.

The future of the United States belongs to the voting decisions of fellow Americans. At this juncture of the crossroads, you either go with someone closely resembles GWB's policies and conduct, or you go with someone completely opposite in order to implement total change.
Top of pageBottom of page

Xd_brklyn
Member
Username: Xd_brklyn

Post Number: 399
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2008 - 10:04 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

At least there's communication and some interest, so that's a start. It's a lot better than getting the cold shoulder that Bush gave the auto makers. How long did it take for him to meet with the domestics? Six, seven years?
Top of pageBottom of page

Paulmcall
Member
Username: Paulmcall

Post Number: 984
Registered: 05-2004
Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2008 - 10:05 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

How can you do any worse than what we've had these last few years? Anybody but Bush.
Top of pageBottom of page

Oladub
Member
Username: Oladub

Post Number: 251
Registered: 08-2006
Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2008 - 10:45 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Sen. Obama has proposed spending an additional $287B annually. He is good at spending. For instance, he has voted to spend $300B on the Iraq war. That is $300B less to spend on domestic programs. The largest category of Sen. Obama's proposed new annual spending would be $104B on infrastructure.

Sen. Obama's proposed Spending by Category
http://www.ntu.org/main/page.p hp?PageID=141
Top of pageBottom of page

Mikeg
Member
Username: Mikeg

Post Number: 1604
Registered: 12-2005
Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2008 - 10:57 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Obama - and all of the others who think that the solution to our overdependence on oil can be solved by forcing manufacturers to stop making SUVs and large passenger cars - conveniently forgets that gasoline consumption in the US accounts for only about 45% of our total petroleum usage. Apparently, the "Big 3" make a much easier target to pummel during election campaigns and in the halls of Congress.
Top of pageBottom of page

Patrick
Member
Username: Patrick

Post Number: 5376
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2008 - 11:01 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

When in doubt, bash Detroit.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 4274
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2008 - 11:37 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

gasoline consumption in the US accounts for only about 45% of our total petroleum usage



Which is only 11.3% of global petroleum consumption. Peanuts! Drive on!
Top of pageBottom of page

Mikeg
Member
Username: Mikeg

Post Number: 1605
Registered: 12-2005
Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2008 - 12:09 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

Which is only 11.3% of global petroleum consumption. Peanuts! Drive on!



And if we outlaw SUVs and large cars like Obama's hemi-equipped Chrysler 300, US gasoline consumption might plummet to 11.0% of global petroleum consumption. Problem solved?

Instead of legislative "solutions" that target selected products and/or the fleet MPG of an industry that represents less than half of the problem, let the pricing mechanisms inherent in the petroleum supply and demand equation drive efficiency improvements across the full spectrum of energy consumption.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 4281
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2008 - 12:12 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

let the pricing mechanisms inherent in the petroleum supply and demand equation drive efficiency improvements across the full spectrum of energy consumption.



Yeah, they have these efficiency improvements already. They're called "walking", or "buying produce that's not flown-in from California". You get the idea. Magic is NOT a solution.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jt1
Member
Username: Jt1

Post Number: 11624
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2008 - 12:23 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Neither Dems or Repubs or any individual candidate will help the domestic auto industry or the city. The industry is an easy target for both parties and the city has voted Dem for so long and will continue to do so that the Dems take it for granted and the Repubs ignore it.
Top of pageBottom of page

W_chicago
Member
Username: W_chicago

Post Number: 25
Registered: 01-2008
Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2008 - 12:34 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"Define "green transportation." The only thing the Japanese really have are mpg ratings that have been matched by the domestics and hybrid technology that the domestics now also have. The Japanese don't have flex fuel or biofuel capability, which Ford started rolling out back in 2000."

"Flex fules" and biofuels are not green! They are very destructive. In Brazil, the poorest still go hungry as all their food is either exported or made into ethanol, all while tearing down more virgin forest to make way for more corn production! The same thing in other countries as well. And its not green in and of itself either. Ethanol and biofuels still burn dirty, and contribute more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.

Lets not fool ourselves: the green solution is NOT easy. But the good thing is much of the technology is already there, but a huge problem is lack of investment, subsidies, research, etc. And as far as the auto companies are concerned (both Detroit and foreign), green/clean cars are just a niche market. Treating the global warming and peak oil crisis as simply a market niche is not acceptable. We need a fundamental transformation in our economy. Meaning, new infrastructure, new ways of producing and allocating resources, and yes maybe even new ways of organizing our economy.

Sure, maybe the current economic order will survive, and will find solutions to global warming. But I honestly don't think that will happen unless the poorest, most vulnerable people on Earth... you know the 2, 3, 4 billion... bear the brunt of the costs (and quite possibly with their lives). --- its a sad thought, but not the only solution. I hope a new economic system will take root, that upholds values of environmental sustainability, solidarity, equity, diversity, and democracy. I hope a participatory economy takes root, one in which every single person (regardless of how many billions of dollars they have) has control over the decisions that affect them in the proportion to the degree in which they are affected.

Oh, I forget we were talking about Obama. Do I think he will be good for Detroit. Hell yeah, at least compared to Bush/McCain/Clinton. But will he solve all our problems? Hell no, thats our job.. you know, the people.
Top of pageBottom of page

Detrola
Member
Username: Detrola

Post Number: 72
Registered: 02-2006
Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2008 - 1:37 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

As long as Detroit continues to vote for the likes of Conyers (both), Kilpatrick (both), Obama will be no better for Detroit than anyone else. The problem is of Detroit and so shall the answer be of Detroit.
Top of pageBottom of page

Gene
Member
Username: Gene

Post Number: 104
Registered: 10-2006
Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2008 - 2:32 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Any benefit (money) from Washington or any other source will quickly end up in KK's or one of his contractors pocket.

I really dont think any of the three running, if elected will make any difference.

This is the first time in my life that not I may not vote.

But when you consider the way the Bush got blamed for everything, no one in their right mind would run for president.
Top of pageBottom of page

Gnome
Member
Username: Gnome

Post Number: 1169
Registered: 08-2007
Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2008 - 3:05 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Does anyone know if the tax break is still in place for small business folks to buy trucks and SUVs? The tax break was created in the early 1980's before the explosion of the SUV market.

I remember that there was provision that allowed small businesses to write-off maybe 1/2 of the cost. That provision was inserted to encourage farmers to buy pick-ups, but the effect was to allow every attorney, CPA, Ad Agency and hair salon owner to move from passenger cars and into SUVs.

On the subject of barak, I think his address to the Detroit Economic Club was pretty clear. Our dependence on foreign oil is a national security issue and that the skill and power of the American auto industry needs to be refocused to help get us out of what even GWB has called "our addiction to oil".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =Al_PMBcVDFA
Top of pageBottom of page

Bearinabox
Member
Username: Bearinabox

Post Number: 633
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2008 - 3:18 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/urbanpolicy/

Setting automotive issues aside, Obama is the only candidate with an urban policy in his platform. I think that a black man with a background built in Chicago has the best chance by far of doing something positive for the city of Detroit.

Bingo.

Many of Detroit's issues are the result of local policies. Many are the result of federal policies. Most are a combination of the two. Even if nothing changes at the local level, I think an Obama presidency will make it much easier to get things done in Detroit.

(edited to fix link)

(Message edited by bearinabox on May 07, 2008)
Top of pageBottom of page

Lilpup
Member
Username: Lilpup

Post Number: 4207
Registered: 06-2004
Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2008 - 3:20 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Why is the auto industry be expected to single handedly solve the oil dependency problem?

Shouldn't airframe manufacturers have to meet fuel performance criteria?

The government is dictating we all have to switch to digital tv. Shouldn't it facilitate or require distribution of alternative energies?
Top of pageBottom of page

401don
Member
Username: 401don

Post Number: 429
Registered: 11-2007
Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2008 - 3:22 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The only thing differentiating the domestic manufacturers from everybody else has been their ability to sell profitable trucks and suvs. Yet they still lost money the last several yrs. If small, fuel efficient vehicles account for half their sales they're history. It's not just Toyota killing the domestics. It's the Koreans and soon to be Chinese and Indians.
Top of pageBottom of page

Erikd
Member
Username: Erikd

Post Number: 1018
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2008 - 9:13 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.d ll/article?AID=/20080507/OPINI ON01/805070322/1007/OPINION

quote:

Democratic U.S. Sen. Barack Obama is dead-on in denouncing the summertime gasoline tax holiday proposed by his presidential rivals as political pandering that won't ease pump prices, but will stall road projects and kill construction jobs.

The holiday pitched by Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton and Republican Sen. John McCain would save motorists $30 each over the summer. Yet it would strip $10 billion from highway improvement work and displace 300,000 road workers.

Obama rightly accused his rivals of focusing on feel-good, short-term fixes instead of exploring long-term policies to ease the burden on motorists.

But that's where Obama should have stopped talking. Instead, he morphed into yet another flogging of Detroit's automakers, blaming them for America's prolonged love affair with big trucks and sports-utility vehicles. Obama's premise: Motorists bought them because Detroit built them.

"Detroit," he noted on NBC's "Meet the Press" program Sunday, "ended up making investments in SUVs and large trucks because that's where they perceived a competitive advantage and that's where they felt they could make the most profit."

Well, yes. That's how business works. Detroit saw profit in big vehicles where it couldn't find it anywhere else and went for it.

That decision is haunting the domestic automakers now, as consumers are shifting rapidly to more fuel efficient cars.

But it didn't drive the mix of vehicles on America's roads. Consumer desire did.

While gasoline was relatively inexpensive, consumers preferred big, powerful vehicles that guzzled lots of fuel. Consumers like Barack Obama.

When the Democratic front-runner first delivered his anti-Detroit diatribe, the automobile in his own driveway was a sweet 2007 Chrysler 300 powered by a growling 340 horsepower Hemi engine -- hardly a gas sipper.

We presume Obama, like other consumers, chose the 300 because it met his personal needs, was fun to drive and he wasn't worried about the cost of gasoline.

He could have picked a smaller domestic car. General Motors Corp., for example, offered more than 20 models rated at 30 miles per gallon or higher at the time Obama purchased the 300.

But he wanted the Hemi, and American consumers tend to buy what they want.

Had Detroit switched its emphasis from the SUV and muscle car segments and focused instead on gasoline-electric hybrids and small cars, someone else would have satisfied the appetite for the big vehicles.

Most of its foreign competitors moved aggressively into the SUV market. Toyota invested heavily in cracking the Big 3's monopoly of pick-ups.

Top of pageBottom of page

Wilus1mj
Member
Username: Wilus1mj

Post Number: 265
Registered: 05-2005
Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2008 - 10:32 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

If Obama keeps bashing Detroit and John Mccain visits the state and saying the US automakers can be #1 again, Democrats will lose Michigan for the first time in 20 yrs
Top of pageBottom of page

Mayor_sekou
Member
Username: Mayor_sekou

Post Number: 2352
Registered: 09-2006
Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2008 - 10:39 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Which they should considering the blunders of the Democrats in handling this states primary.
Top of pageBottom of page

Erikd
Member
Username: Erikd

Post Number: 1019
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2008 - 11:53 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

It has become very fashionable to criticize American auto companies for their focus on building trucks and large cars, instead of smaller economy cars. The critics claim that American car companies are greedy, short-sighted, ignorant, etc; and they completely ignore the real reasons for the foreign dominance in the economy car market.

quote:

According to the latest calculations, the gap between Japanese and American carmakers' profits average out to about $2900 per vehicle, and the home team does not have the advantage.

A big reason is the cost of labor. As analyzed by Harbour-Felax, labor costs the Detroit Three substantially more per vehicle than it does the Japanese.

Health care is the biggest chunk. GM (Charts), for instance spends $1,635 per vehicle on health care for active and retired workers in the U.S. Toyota (Charts) pays nothing for retired workers - it has very few - and only $215 for active ones.

Other labor costs add to the bill. Contract issues like work rules, line relief and holiday pay amount to $630 per vehicle - costs that the Japanese don't have. And paying UAW members for not working when plants are shut costs another $350 per vehicle.


http://money.cnn.com/2007/01/2 6/news/companies/pluggedin_tay lor_ford.fortune/index.htm

The American auto companies have a much higher labor cost per vehicle, and this higher cost is fairly consistent, regardless of what type of vehicle is being produced. The UAW workers building a $13,000 economy car are paid the same wages and benefits as the UAW workers building a $35,000 SUV.

If Toyota sells their vehicles for 25% more than it costs to produce them, it breaks down like this:

An economy car costs $10,000 to make, sells for $12,500, Toyota makes $2,500.

A midsize car costs $20,000 to make, sells for $25,000, Toyota makes $5,000.

A SUV costs $30,000 to make, sells for $40,000, Toyota makes $10,000.
------------
If GM makes those same vehicles, and sells them for the same price, it breaks down like this:

An economy car costs $12,900 to make, sells for $12,500, GM loses $400.

A midsize car costs $22,900 to make, sells for $25,000, GM makes $2,100.

A SUV costs $32,900 to make, sells for $40,000, GM makes $7,100.
-------

Due to the vast difference in labor costs, it has been nearly impossible for American car companies to compete in the domestic economy car market. As a result, they have focused on the large car and truck market, where the higher labor costs can be more easily absorbed.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lilpup
Member
Username: Lilpup

Post Number: 4213
Registered: 06-2004
Posted on Thursday, May 08, 2008 - 12:20 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Those numbers are no longer true and they also ignore the Asian imports, which still outnumber the Asian badged units built here. The most recent UAW contract has substantially reduced labor costs and the down dollar would drive the import costs up if there wasn't currency manipulation going on. Toyota's recently announced price increases are pretty sleight, especially on the higher end cars.
Top of pageBottom of page

Ray
Member
Username: Ray

Post Number: 1129
Registered: 06-2004
Posted on Thursday, May 08, 2008 - 2:20 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Obama might be better for the city but.. you heard it here first.. Ray's gauranteed election prediction:

Obama wins the democratic primary and is crushed by Mccain in a landslide. I like Obama and may even vote for him, but let's face it: he's young, inexperienced, ultra-left wing, African American. The poor dems are drinking their own Koolaid. America is not ready for this guy. He will be crushed by mainstream general election voters in big states like New York, California, Ohio, PA, FLA and MI, who piously tell pollsters that they will vote for a Black man but really won't.

Sorry to be the messenger. Don't shoot me.
Top of pageBottom of page

Paulmcall
Member
Username: Paulmcall

Post Number: 986
Registered: 05-2004
Posted on Thursday, May 08, 2008 - 2:52 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Yeah and McCain is an experienced politician who will change his positions depending on which way the right wingers want him too. He'll do and say anything that'll get him over the top. That summer gas tax idea was really stupid and a blatant pandering position.
He's for immigration bill , now against it etc.
I guess if folks voted for Bush TWICE, he may get elected. Experience in this case doesn't mean a damn thing... just more experience in screwing tax payers.

Add Your Message Here
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.