Cost per Car of Ads...

C. E. White wrote:
> "dr_jeff" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> waste of paper. Actually, newspapers and magazines are wastes of
>> paper, too, now that I can get them on the internet for free (and
>> soon, I hope, on my iPad - and, no - the iPad isn't an internet
>> feminine hygiene product).
>
> Have you actually gotten an iPad? Till now I have avioded Apple
> products for my own use. But the SO has an iPod Touch which she really
> likes. My son has a regular iPod Classic which he likes. I keep
> hearing the hype about the iPad and think I might get one, but I am
> not sure if I'd really use it. If you have one, I'd love to hear your
> thoughts.
>
> Ed

I had been planning on replacing my iPhone with the latest version when
it comes out over the summer. Now, I am thinking about getting the iPad
(just WiFi) and keeping the old version of the iPhone for another year
(I have a year-old 3G 16 GB version).

I won't be able to get 3G data on the iPad, but I am in places where I
can get WiFi enough (like my home and work), that that shouldn't be an
issue.

I wish I knew what the 4G iPhone will do when it comes out. I suspect
that only important thing I will be giving up is a better camera. I
shall live without it, I think.

Jeff

On 05/04/2010 9:20 AM, C. E. White wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 05/04/2010 6:02 AM, C. E. White wrote:
>>> I was watching CBS news last Friday. One segment was talking about
>>> the
>>> increase in car sales in April. They said the yearly rate would be
>>> something like 12 million cars assuming the sales increase is
>>> maintained. Later they were talking about car ads and the amount of
>>> money spent on ads. The segement claimed that in 2010 somewhere
>>> between 14 to 16 Billion dollars would be spent on car ads. They
>>> weren't clear on whether that included local dealership ads, but
>>> even
>>> if it does, it seems like a lot of money. It is over $1,100 per new
>>> car. I suppose you might spread it over used cars also, but still
>>> it
>>> seems like a lot of money per car in ads.
>>>
>>> Ed
>>
>> And think, much of it is taxpayers money from GM& Chrysler.
>>
>> Be interesting to see the actual per vehicle cost per model. Good
>> cars sell themselves an say 16 billion over 12 million cars,
>> knocking $1333 off the price might go further would be average. But
>> I suspect they advertise slow movers more.
>
> Another way to look at this - Car ads are paying for some of my
> favorite TV programs. I think Toyota alone paid enough to cover the
> cost of braodcasting the NCAA Final Four Basketball Games last
> Saturday. Seemed like every other commercial was from Toyota, with
> Ford covering at least another third. Throw in a few from GM and
> Subaru and there was no time left for deodarant commercials.
>
> It seems like Beer and Car Ads are paying for most of my "free"TV.
>
> Ed

But Toyota is value added.

You paid for GM. Ok, you haven't, but it is on your debt tab in DC.

--
Liberal-statism is an addiction to other peoples money.

Canuck57 wrote:
> On 05/04/2010 9:20 AM, C. E. White wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 05/04/2010 6:02 AM, C. E. White wrote:
>>>> I was watching CBS news last Friday. One segment was talking about
>>>> the
>>>> increase in car sales in April. They said the yearly rate would be
>>>> something like 12 million cars assuming the sales increase is
>>>> maintained. Later they were talking about car ads and the amount of
>>>> money spent on ads. The segement claimed that in 2010 somewhere
>>>> between 14 to 16 Billion dollars would be spent on car ads. They
>>>> weren't clear on whether that included local dealership ads, but
>>>> even
>>>> if it does, it seems like a lot of money. It is over $1,100 per new
>>>> car. I suppose you might spread it over used cars also, but still
>>>> it
>>>> seems like a lot of money per car in ads.
>>>>
>>>> Ed
>>>
>>> And think, much of it is taxpayers money from GM& Chrysler.
>>>
>>> Be interesting to see the actual per vehicle cost per model. Good
>>> cars sell themselves an say 16 billion over 12 million cars,
>>> knocking $1333 off the price might go further would be average. But
>>> I suspect they advertise slow movers more.
>>
>> Another way to look at this - Car ads are paying for some of my
>> favorite TV programs. I think Toyota alone paid enough to cover the
>> cost of braodcasting the NCAA Final Four Basketball Games last
>> Saturday. Seemed like every other commercial was from Toyota, with
>> Ford covering at least another third. Throw in a few from GM and
>> Subaru and there was no time left for deodarant commercials.
>>
>> It seems like Beer and Car Ads are paying for most of my "free"TV.
>>
>> Ed
>
> But Toyota is value added.
>
> You paid for GM. Ok, you haven't, but it is on your debt tab in DC.

The car sales pay for the ads, indirectly. Not the loans.

On 05/04/2010 9:30 AM, jim beam wrote:
> On 04/05/2010 08:20 AM, C. E. White wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 05/04/2010 6:02 AM, C. E. White wrote:
>>>> I was watching CBS news last Friday. One segment was talking about
>>>> the
>>>> increase in car sales in April. They said the yearly rate would be
>>>> something like 12 million cars assuming the sales increase is
>>>> maintained. Later they were talking about car ads and the amount of
>>>> money spent on ads. The segement claimed that in 2010 somewhere
>>>> between 14 to 16 Billion dollars would be spent on car ads. They
>>>> weren't clear on whether that included local dealership ads, but
>>>> even
>>>> if it does, it seems like a lot of money. It is over $1,100 per new
>>>> car. I suppose you might spread it over used cars also, but still
>>>> it
>>>> seems like a lot of money per car in ads.
>>>>
>>>> Ed
>>>
>>> And think, much of it is taxpayers money from GM& Chrysler.
>>>
>>> Be interesting to see the actual per vehicle cost per model. Good
>>> cars sell themselves an say 16 billion over 12 million cars,
>>> knocking $1333 off the price might go further would be average. But
>>> I suspect they advertise slow movers more.
>>
>> Another way to look at this - Car ads are paying for some of my
>> favorite TV programs. I think Toyota alone paid enough to cover the
>> cost of braodcasting the NCAA Final Four Basketball Games last
>> Saturday. Seemed like every other commercial was from Toyota, with
>> Ford covering at least another third. Throw in a few from GM and
>> Subaru and there was no time left for deodarant commercials.
>>
>> It seems like Beer and Car Ads are paying for most of my "free"TV.
>>
>> Ed
>>
>
> like the taxpayer is paying for your client to ship their jobs overseas?

It is inevitable autos are imported like PCs, TVs, iPods, furnature,
toys, kitchen anything...etc...

Two huge reasons. First is net household incomes are down big time.
Less money for autos. More taxes coming too. No pricing elasticity for
any NA auto maker.

Even GM will import most autos if they get away from being Government
Motors. DC will sell GM as DC is starting to feel the debts curse.

I know I will not buy UAW/CAW after they sold out fellow tax paying
workers with the bailout gouge.

Kia did real good in March sales too as people are discovering they are
good cars and more afordable than many a big names.

--
Liberal-statism is an addiction to other peoples money.

On 04/05/2010 10:04 AM, Canuck57 wrote:
> On 05/04/2010 9:30 AM, jim beam wrote:
>> On 04/05/2010 08:20 AM, C. E. White wrote:
>>> > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On 05/04/2010 6:02 AM, C. E. White wrote:
>>>>> I was watching CBS news last Friday. One segment was talking about
>>>>> the
>>>>> increase in car sales in April. They said the yearly rate would be
>>>>> something like 12 million cars assuming the sales increase is
>>>>> maintained. Later they were talking about car ads and the amount of
>>>>> money spent on ads. The segement claimed that in 2010 somewhere
>>>>> between 14 to 16 Billion dollars would be spent on car ads. They
>>>>> weren't clear on whether that included local dealership ads, but
>>>>> even
>>>>> if it does, it seems like a lot of money. It is over $1,100 per new
>>>>> car. I suppose you might spread it over used cars also, but still
>>>>> it
>>>>> seems like a lot of money per car in ads.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ed
>>>>
>>>> And think, much of it is taxpayers money from GM& Chrysler.
>>>>
>>>> Be interesting to see the actual per vehicle cost per model. Good
>>>> cars sell themselves an say 16 billion over 12 million cars,
>>>> knocking $1333 off the price might go further would be average. But
>>>> I suspect they advertise slow movers more.
>>>
>>> Another way to look at this - Car ads are paying for some of my
>>> favorite TV programs. I think Toyota alone paid enough to cover the
>>> cost of braodcasting the NCAA Final Four Basketball Games last
>>> Saturday. Seemed like every other commercial was from Toyota, with
>>> Ford covering at least another third. Throw in a few from GM and
>>> Subaru and there was no time left for deodarant commercials.
>>>
>>> It seems like Beer and Car Ads are paying for most of my "free"TV.
>>>
>>> Ed
>>>
>>
>> like the taxpayer is paying for your client to ship their jobs overseas?
>
> It is inevitable autos are imported like PCs, TVs, iPods, furnature,
> toys, kitchen anything...etc...
>
> Two huge reasons. First is net household incomes are down big time. Less
> money for autos. More taxes coming too. No pricing elasticity for any NA
> auto maker.

so how is it that toyota can manufacture vehicles in n.a., using locally
sourced n.a. componentry, and make a profit, but g.m. can't?

how is it that g.m. can manufacture in europe at a profit using european
sourced componentry, significantly higher labor costs and higher
infrastructure costs, but they can't in n.a.?

wtf do our politicians think they're doing bailing out a dinosaur that
can't manage their way out of a wet paper bag and who then turn around
and outsource their jobs and component supply to a communist
dictatorship that ignores human rights, slaughters political dissidents,
and steals our intellectual property?


>
> Even GM will import most autos if they get away from being Government
> Motors. DC will sell GM as DC is starting to feel the debts curse.
>
> I know I will not buy UAW/CAW after they sold out fellow tax paying
> workers with the bailout gouge.
>
> Kia did real good in March sales too as people are discovering they are
> good cars and more afordable than many a big names.
>


--
nomina rutrum rutrum

"jim beam" > wrote in message
t...

> so how is it that toyota can manufacture vehicles in n.a., using
> locally sourced n.a. componentry, and make a profit, but g.m. can't?

I believe that if you include only "direct" costs, GM does manufacture
vehicles at a profit. They just don't make enough per vehicle to cover
all the overhead costs (pensions, benefits, interest, etc.).

Not all Toyota are produced in the US and even the ones that are don't
use 100% US sourced componets. The highest domestic content Toyota is
the Sienna, which is about 85% doemstic content. The non-hybrid Camrys
are about 75% domestic content. Depsite all youer hyperbolic claims
with regards to out sourcing, GM still has the highest average
domestic content for US sold vehicles of any of the major auto
manufacturers. It is irrational for you to praise Toyota for the
domestic content of its US vehicle and then turn around a trash GM for
building vehicles with a higher average level of domestic content. It
is clear you have an axe to grind with GM. It is also clear that you
don't care about the truth.

In the US, Toyota has lower labor costs and is not saddled with the
pension costs for retired UAW workers. Toyota was not as dependent on
the revenues from SUVs and Trucks as was the case for GM. Neither is
Toyota as dependent on US revenue as is GM. When the SUV/Truck market
in particular, and the auto market in general, crashed, Toyota was not
as badly hit as GM, although like GM, they went to their home (Japan)
government for financial assistance. And like GM, Toyota benefited
immensely from various US and Local Government auto subsidies (cash
for clunkers, hybrid rebates, tax breaks for plants, etc).

Loaning money to GM was not a great idea. But even worse was the way
the US Government eventually nationalized GM and gave it to the UAW.
Maybe it will work out, but I can't see how it was legal. The
Government should have let GM go into bankruptcy. But they didn't.

> how is it that g.m. can manufacture in europe at a profit using
> european sourced componentry, significantly higher labor costs and
> higher infrastructure costs, but they can't in n.a.?

GM has been losing money in Eurpoe for at least the last 2 years .
Unfortunately it is hard to find the GM annual reports for 2009 and
2008 on line. They seem to be lost between the new "GM" and the old
"GM" (now Motors Liquidation Corp).

> wtf do our politicians think they're doing bailing out a dinosaur
> that can't manage their way out of a wet paper bag and who then turn
> around and outsource their jobs and component supply to a communist
> dictatorship that ignores human rights, slaughters political
> dissidents, and steals our intellectual property?

How is GM any different than Toyota? Toyota and it subsiduaries have
set up numerous plants in China. Why is it OK for Toyota to operate in
China and not for GM to do the same? Have you checked the labels on
many things you buy lately? Do you trash any manufactuer who uses
Chinese made parts in the items they sell? If so, the list of
comapnies you are attacking must be very long indeed.

Ed

On 04/05/2010 11:44 AM, C. E. White wrote:
> "jim > wrote in message
> t...
>
>> so how is it that toyota can manufacture vehicles in n.a., using
>> locally sourced n.a. componentry, and make a profit, but g.m. can't?
>
> I believe that if you include only "direct" costs, GM does manufacture
> vehicles at a profit. They just don't make enough per vehicle to cover
> all the overhead costs (pensions, benefits, interest, etc.).
>
> Not all Toyota are produced in the US and even the ones that are don't
> use 100% US sourced componets. The highest domestic content Toyota is
> the Sienna, which is about 85% doemstic content. The non-hybrid Camrys
> are about 75% domestic content. Depsite all youer hyperbolic claims
> with regards to out sourcing, GM still has the highest average
> domestic content for US sold vehicles of any of the major auto
> manufacturers. It is irrational for you to praise Toyota for the
> domestic content of its US vehicle and then turn around a trash GM for
> building vehicles with a higher average level of domestic content. It
> is clear you have an axe to grind with GM. It is also clear that you
> don't care about the truth.
>
> In the US, Toyota has lower labor costs and is not saddled with the
> pension costs for retired UAW workers. Toyota was not as dependent on
> the revenues from SUVs and Trucks as was the case for GM. Neither is
> Toyota as dependent on US revenue as is GM. When the SUV/Truck market
> in particular, and the auto market in general, crashed, Toyota was not
> as badly hit as GM, although like GM, they went to their home (Japan)
> government for financial assistance. And like GM, Toyota benefited
> immensely from various US and Local Government auto subsidies (cash
> for clunkers, hybrid rebates, tax breaks for plants, etc).
>
> Loaning money to GM was not a great idea. But even worse was the way
> the US Government eventually nationalized GM and gave it to the UAW.
> Maybe it will work out, but I can't see how it was legal. The
> Government should have let GM go into bankruptcy. But they didn't.
>
>> how is it that g.m. can manufacture in europe at a profit using
>> european sourced componentry, significantly higher labor costs and
>> higher infrastructure costs, but they can't in n.a.?
>
> GM has been losing money in Eurpoe for at least the last 2 years .
> Unfortunately it is hard to find the GM annual reports for 2009 and
> 2008 on line. They seem to be lost between the new "GM" and the old
> "GM" (now Motors Liquidation Corp).
>
>> wtf do our politicians think they're doing bailing out a dinosaur
>> that can't manage their way out of a wet paper bag and who then turn
>> around and outsource their jobs and component supply to a communist
>> dictatorship that ignores human rights, slaughters political
>> dissidents, and steals our intellectual property?
>
> How is GM any different than Toyota? Toyota and it subsiduaries have
> set up numerous plants in China. Why is it OK for Toyota to operate in
> China and not for GM to do the same? Have you checked the labels on
> many things you buy lately? Do you trash any manufactuer who uses
> Chinese made parts in the items they sell? If so, the list of
> comapnies you are attacking must be very long indeed.
>
> Ed
>
>

oh ed, i'm so flattered you're condescending to shine some of your best
truth twisting and bull****ting resources on me.

but let's keep this short:

1. your client is importing significant chinese-made components for use
here in the u.s.

2. that's robbing u.s. suppliers of business, and u.s. taxpayers of jobs.

3. the u.s. taxpayer is paying for #1 & #2.

4. toyota manufactures in china FOR THE CHINESE MARKET, NOT THE U.S. MARKET.

5. toyota has not been sucking at the u.s. taxpayer's teat for the last
20 years.

now, you go tell your clients and your buddies that work inside the
beltway, that the taxpayer is ****ed and is going to pay back for this
deceit and robbery. you can't fool all the proles all the time ed.
astroturfing shill.

--
nomina rutrum rutrum

"jim beam" > wrote in message
t...

> 1. your client is importing significant chinese-made components for
> use here in the u.s.

I don't have a client, so this statment is ridiculous.

How many US companies aren't importing at least some items from China?
Do you attack any company doing buisness in China? I'll bet
significant portions of the very computer you are using to post to
usenet were made in China. Maybe you should stop supporting the
Chinese by smashing your computer now...

> 2. that's robbing u.s. suppliers of business, and u.s. taxpayers of
> jobs.

Robbing is bit strong. Are you for or against free trade? Should the
US Government erect trade barrier to prevent the importation of
foreign auto components?

On the one hand you attack GM for bad management and taking US
Government loans. On the other hand you don't want them to source
components form the low cost suppleirs. Do you think GM buys parts in
China becasue they like the Chinese?

I'd prefer to buy US made items and do so when possible. Unfortunately
it is very difficult to do in many cases (clothes, electronics).

I still don't see how you can attack GM and then praise Toyota, when
Toyota is repsonible for moving far more jobs offshore than GM is.

> 3. the u.s. taxpayer is paying for #1 & #2.

I am not in favor of this. However, as I keep pointing out Toyota has
also benefited from US government subsidies.

> 4. toyota manufactures in china FOR THE CHINESE MARKET, NOT THE U.S.
> MARKET.

And you know this how? I see you finally found your caps shift key.
Printing something in all caps doesn't make it true. But even if true,
it is a difference without a distinction. Both companies are operating
in China. Both companies are supporting all the horrors you associate
with China. Whether some of the parts Toyota is making in China are
shipped to the US or not is irrelevant (but I think it is very
unlikely that Toyota is not importing parts from China). Toyota's
operations in China are supporting the same country you trash GM for
supporting. Your position on this (ie. Toyota's actions compared to
GM's) is both hypocritical and irrational. .

> 5. toyota has not been sucking at the u.s. taxpayer's teat for the
> last 20 years.

And GM has? I am pretty sure that for most of the last 20 yers GM has
paid significant US income taxes. GM dealers have paid more. Income
and SS Taxes on GM workers have been significant. Sales taxes on GM
vehciles are significant, etc., etc., etc. I suspect if you add up all
the government revenue associated with GM produced vehicles it exceeds
the recent loans to GM. I can't prove it, but I know you cannot prove
the opposite.

And Toyota has been getting significant tax breaks for at least the
last 14 years if you include all the incentives from various states to
Toyota to induce Toyota to locate plants in their jurisdictions. The
recentl hybrid tax credits were essentially a subsidy to Toyota. The
cash for clunkers program was a nother subsidy that benefited Toyota
greatly.

> now, you go tell your clients and your buddies that work inside the
> beltway, that the taxpayer is ****ed and is going to pay back for
> this deceit and robbery. you can't fool all the proles all the time
> ed. astroturfing shill.

I should know better than to respond to you comments, but I just
can't stand to sit by and watch you spew your vennon without
commenting.. I know you'll never admit your comments are inspired by
some sort of insane and itrrational hatered of GM, but at least others
might understand you are spiteful, irrational (at least with regards
to GM) and narrow minded.

Ed

On 05/04/2010 11:02 AM, dr_jeff wrote:
> Canuck57 wrote:
>> On 05/04/2010 9:20 AM, C. E. White wrote:
>>> > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On 05/04/2010 6:02 AM, C. E. White wrote:
>>>>> I was watching CBS news last Friday. One segment was talking about
>>>>> the
>>>>> increase in car sales in April. They said the yearly rate would be
>>>>> something like 12 million cars assuming the sales increase is
>>>>> maintained. Later they were talking about car ads and the amount of
>>>>> money spent on ads. The segement claimed that in 2010 somewhere
>>>>> between 14 to 16 Billion dollars would be spent on car ads. They
>>>>> weren't clear on whether that included local dealership ads, but
>>>>> even
>>>>> if it does, it seems like a lot of money. It is over $1,100 per new
>>>>> car. I suppose you might spread it over used cars also, but still
>>>>> it
>>>>> seems like a lot of money per car in ads.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ed
>>>>
>>>> And think, much of it is taxpayers money from GM& Chrysler.
>>>>
>>>> Be interesting to see the actual per vehicle cost per model. Good
>>>> cars sell themselves an say 16 billion over 12 million cars,
>>>> knocking $1333 off the price might go further would be average. But
>>>> I suspect they advertise slow movers more.
>>>
>>> Another way to look at this - Car ads are paying for some of my
>>> favorite TV programs. I think Toyota alone paid enough to cover the
>>> cost of braodcasting the NCAA Final Four Basketball Games last
>>> Saturday. Seemed like every other commercial was from Toyota, with
>>> Ford covering at least another third. Throw in a few from GM and
>>> Subaru and there was no time left for deodarant commercials.
>>>
>>> It seems like Beer and Car Ads are paying for most of my "free"TV.
>>>
>>> Ed
>>
>> But Toyota is value added.
>>
>> You paid for GM. Ok, you haven't, but it is on your debt tab in DC.
>
> The car sales pay for the ads, indirectly. Not the loans.

GM would not be having ads if it were not for our taxpayer funded debt.

--
Liberal-statism is an addiction to other peoples money.

On 05/04/2010 11:40 AM, jim beam wrote:

>> Two huge reasons. First is net household incomes are down big time. Less
>> money for autos. More taxes coming too. No pricing elasticity for any NA
>> auto maker.
>
> so how is it that toyota can manufacture vehicles in n.a., using locally
> sourced n.a. componentry, and make a profit, but g.m. can't?

Good question. Better management, less union, better design, better
reputation making for better pricing.

> how is it that g.m. can manufacture in europe at a profit using european
> sourced componentry, significantly higher labor costs and higher
> infrastructure costs, but they can't in n.a.?

Lack of NA management and no UAW/CAW. More automation. Better local
business practices with suppliers. Stricter (although still inadaquate)
pension and benefits maangement.

> wtf do our politicians think they're doing bailing out a dinosaur that
> can't manage their way out of a wet paper bag and who then turn around
> and outsource their jobs and component supply to a communist
> dictatorship that ignores human rights, slaughters political dissidents,
> and steals our intellectual property?

Don't ask me. I only have a theory and it goes like this. Lots of the
heads of these are Harvard boys.

Barack Obama - US President, head of the biggest debtor of them all.
Michael Ignatieff - LPC Leader, wants more debt and taxes, pro bailout.
Rick Wagoner - Former GM CEO, bankrupt.
Robert Nardelli - Chrysler CEO, bankrupt.
Stephen Feinberg - Cerberus/Chrysler and GMAC, bankrupt.

I call them the Harvard Bailout Boyz. All were very much all for
bailouts. But to know why I believe there is a link is Carlyle's client
list. Remember Carlyle also got Lehmann assets at firesale prices which
had a GM component to it. What is with Carlyle?

Bush Sr. and Dan Quayle come to mind for starters. But there are others
but the names escape me. But one important one is Osama Bin Laden's
brother in Saudi Arabia. Ever wonder why Osama, sorry, Obama bowed so
perfectly when in Saudi Arabia? Or perhaps why Bush never could get
Osama Bin Laden? Maybe why Obama doesn't go after Osama?

Unions, they were just pawns, used like pawns too. They get a lot of
heat, but willing they were to sellout fellow taxpayers for the
perception of jobs. Sure helped the Canadian third string NDP
(socialist/union) party try to bribe the Bloc party for their votes in
parliament for a NDP/Lib/Bloc coupe d'etat. Fortuantely that failed as
Harpo Conservative caved in and added to GM's & Chrysler's bailout.
Also wrote off $500M of Chryslers tax debt, pretty heavly load of
corruption for the Canadian tax base.

I do believe there are influences going on revolving around money. Ask
yourself why some banks got bailouts and others didn't? Who were their
clients? Heck, if I have a billion on deposit with a bankrupt bank you
can bet your boots I would be calling senators, congress people and the
president. I am sure if my last name was Buffet, Gates, Rockerfeller,
Walton and a list of others I would get the presidents ear for 5
minutes. And what is $2 million to "contribute" around to assure your
uninsured bank account does not discipate in DC red ink.

Bush Jr started this (remember his dad's ties with Carlyle and needing a
job post election), Obama was swiftly brought in as Mr Fast Track to the
top and carried the bailout torch well... can't let honest Palin see the
book, OMG... What would happen if internal DC bad doings went public?

Then there is the masonic thing, but will leave it up to you.

Just a theory, would make a good fiction suspense movie though.

>> Even GM will import most autos if they get away from being Government
>> Motors. DC will sell GM as DC is starting to feel the debts curse.
>>
>> I know I will not buy UAW/CAW after they sold out fellow tax paying
>> workers with the bailout gouge.
>>
>> Kia did real good in March sales too as people are discovering they are
>> good cars and more afordable than many a big names.
>>
>
>


--
Liberal-statism is an addiction to other peoples money.