So, explain to us all how it is that the F150 is the best selling vehicle in the world, if we all suppsoedly want to buy rice burners.

The F150 isn't the best selling vehicle in the world, the Corolla is. In fact, the entire F-series, taken as a whole, still comes in second to the Corolla.

Thing is, of course, when you do that, the truck won't exist, because so regulated they won't fufill the need. 'course, you knew that, right?

Are you saying that if the F150 was subject to CAFE averages, it wouldn't exist?

I'm not saying you shouldn't use it for every day driving, I'm just saying that if you're going to do that, don't complain when it's subjected to the same regulations as my Taurus.

Thing is, of course, when you do that, the truck won't exist, because so regulated they won't fufill the need. 'course, you knew that, right?

Works both ways. After all, why on earth would you need a bailout without fiscal issues?

But you're missing a connection between your two arguments, even though you're trying to use one to prop up the other. Even if I conceded that Unions were the primary cause of the need for GM's bailout, that doesn't automatically translate into Unions being the primary reason for the support of GM's bailout.

Won't caryy a camper, either, along with four people and all their stuff.

Most family sedans can do that, for a modestly sized camper. That's how my parents did it when I was a kid.

And why does that concern you?
Are you going to pay for the added vehicle to save a efw gallons of fuel? Are you going to pay for the insurance on my second vehicle so I can leave the truck home? I ahve need of the truck several times a year, and it serves my purposes well enough outside those times.

What business of that is yours?

I'm not saying you shouldn't use it for every day driving, I'm just saying that if you're going to do that, don't complain when it's subjected to the same regulations as my Taurus.

The quality issues are also being driven by labor costs. To meet the same price points they have to build lesser quality cars than other makers can afford to build. Reason? Union imposed labor costs and unfunded government mandates.

So we're back to the argument that their cars don't sell because they suck compared to their foreign competition. If you want to claim that it's because of the cost of Union labor, I won't argue against you. But don't argue that people don't want small fuel efficient cars, just because GM can't make money off their small fuel efficient cars.

But then you'd have to ignore the fact that even at the same price point, people prefer foreign cars to domestic ones.

No, I wouldn't.

The quality issues are also being driven by labor costs. To meet the same price points they have to build lesser quality cars than other makers can afford to build. Reason? Union imposed labor costs and unfunded government mandates.

But that wasn't your argument, Bithead, your argument was that the Unions were at least half the reason for the bailout the congress is proposing.

Works both ways. After all, why on earth would you need a bailout without fiscal issues?

A smugmobile will not carry a welder or tow a backhoe.

Won't caryy a camper, either, along with four people and all their stuff.

I agree, but the problem is that we have lawyers and accountants driving their F-350 to the office every day, not hauling a backhoe.

And why does that concern you?
Are you going to pay for the added vehicle to save a efw gallons of fuel? Are you going to pay for the insurance on my second vehicle so I can leave the truck home? I ahve need of the truck several times a year, and it serves my purposes well enough outside those times.

What business of that is yours?

Your hypocrisy makes me want to puke. (unfortunately, I have a strong stomach)

An F-350,with an average fuel economy of 14-17MPG,is every bit as fuel efficient as a four cylinder economy car getting 28MPG, maybe better.

I agree, but the problem is that we have lawyers and accountants driving their F-350 to the office every day, not hauling a backhoe. If they had been left as work-class vehicles they probably wouldn't have been included in CAFE.

BTW, last quarter sales for Honda and Toyota were down more than Ford sales.

Yes, but if this were just a last quarter problem, then GM could easily weather the storm. GM has been hemorrhaging money for years.

Specifically who blocked the bailout?. Was it the repubs or was it the dems?.

It was most Republicans and a hand full of Democrats. But you already knew that, so what's your spin?

the problem is that GM can't figure out how to sell fuel efficient cars, while Toyota and Honda can.

No doubt that GM has a P.R. issue against them. What was built in the 80's is killin' them now. But, that was then, this is now. They sold as many vehicles as Tayota last year, they have more hybrids than anybody else, they have more vehicles that get 30+ mpg than anyone else, the don't get the tax breaks that the foreign/southerners get and if you notice, sales are down across the board. Honda just all but pulled out of racing and I expect the rest to do the same. Quality is on par if not better than the foreign manufactures...hell, they give 100,000 mile warranties.

As for trucks and SUV's, they built a lot of them and sold a lot of them. They met demand. Do you think a $50k hybrid or pluggin is going to sell now???????????. Even at the peak of the gas prices, you can buy a LOT of gas for $50k.

There are a lot of legacy retirement costs/labor costs that the foreign automakers don't have. Until we want to lower our standard of living to meet them, it is what it is but it's not any one thing. Personally, I don't get lowering our middle class standard of living while giving the foreign automakers all the breaks.

And for the record I am from Michigan but have no ties to automobile manufacturing.

It's all about saving the Unions.

And blocking the bailout is not all about killing the unions?

Specifically who blocked the bailout?. Was it the repubs or was it the dems?. As I see it, as the vote was taken, the Dems had the votes but 5 or 6 either voted against it or didn't vote...and the top "didn't vote" was on midst Harry Reid. So who blocked it???

Your statement below makes me suspect that you have little if any knowledge of engineering, manufacturing, business, or marketing.

Yet in spite of all that ignorance folks like you feel perfectly entitled to try and run the car companies.

Foreign manufacturers decided to improve their across the board efficiency to meet CAFE.

No the foreign car companies already dominated that niche. They used their dominance of that niche to swallow large portions of the US car companies market share during the oil price shock of the 1970s.

Domestic manufacturers decided to introduce extremely fuel efficient cars to counter-balanced their extremely inefficient vehicles,

Those extremely fuel inefficient cars were extremely popular with consumers and extremely profitable for the car domestic car makers. If they had been allowed to work in that niche they would have been better able to respond to the current market conditions.

rather than simply improving the fuel efficiency of the vehicles they knew they could sell.

I bolded that statement to emphasize just how ignorant you are.

Do you not realize that increasing fuel efficiency is not a matter of waving a magic wand and making it happen? Do you not think that if it was technically feasible that Detroit would have done it?

The unfortunate fact is that you start at Carnot cycle efficiency and go downhill from that point. It is simply not possible for the big vehicles that US consumers wanted to attain the fuel efficiency CAFE mandated.

I have a hard time feeling sorry for them.

Nice combination of ignorance and arrogance you have going.

But by all means keep serving up the teachable moments.

You are not persuadable but you do provide lots of teachable moments. The fact that you are posting gibberish like

That's like saying if a baby food company can't make money selling arsenic-free strained carrots, the government is causing them a problem by limiting the level of arsenic they can put in food.

Show you are not paying attention and not responsive to fact based arguments.

You can choose to ignore the negative financial impact CAFE has had on Detroit but other people who are actually paying attention probably won't.

Detroit's Other Legacy Burden

Ford had to put out two small cars and discount their prices to get people to take them, so that we could also make and sell cars customers really wanted."

The resources used to make those two unwanted cars could have been put too much better use and Detroit would be in much better financial condition.

Folks with a little common sense realize that.

CAFE set a minimum average fuel efficiency for any company that builds or sells cars in the US. Foreign manufacturers decided to improve their across the board efficiency to meet CAFE. Domestic manufacturers decided to introduce extremely fuel efficient cars to counter-balanced their extremely inefficient vehicles, rather than simply improving the fuel efficiency of the vehicles they knew they could sell. I have a hard time feeling sorry for them.