Locate an Auto Repair Shop in Federal Way, Washington

Federal Way, WA Car Consumer Discussions

no title

by euphonium on Tue Nov 18 09:42:29 PST 2008

Does anybody out there have any memory of the reason given for the establishment of the DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY during the Carter Administration? Anybody? Anything? No? Didn't think so. Bottom line . . we've spent several hundred billion dollars in support of an agency the reason for which not one person who reads this can remember. Ready? It was very simple, and at the time everybody thought it very appropriate. The Department of Energy was instituted 8-04-1977 TO LESSEN OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL. HEY, PRETTY EFFICIENT, HUH? AND NOW IT'S 2008, 31 YEARS LATER, AND THE BUDGET FOR THIS NECESSARY DEPARTMENT IS AT $24.2 BILLION A YEAR, THEY HAVE 16,000 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, AND APPROXIMATELY 100,000 CONTRACT EMPLOYEES AND LOOK AT THE JOB THEY HAVE DONE! THIS IS WHERE YOU SLAP YOUR FOREHEAD AND SAY 'WHAT WAS I THINKING?' Ah yes, good ole bureaucracy. And now we are going to turn the Banking system & the Little Three auto makers over to them? God Help us. :sick:

Re: UAW contract... [kdhspyder]

by grbeck on Tue Nov 18 07:59:41 PST 2008

kdhspyder: Congress cannot put a string attached to the bailout that the UAW must renegotiate. It doesn't have the legal power to cancel a valid contract. Congress can tell UAW leadership, "Reopen the contract and make concessions or there won't be a bailout package." There is no law saying that the federal government MUST bail out any automaker. That is what Congress did regarding the original Chrysler bailout.

Re: [dpalka]

by burdawg on Tue Nov 18 07:15:02 PST 2008

I have to take these kind of lists with a grain of salt. The bias of the person creating it has to considered. That shows through here with the SUV's and large engine complaints. These were being produced since that is what the feedback from the public showed that there would be a demand for at that time. American manufacturers have pretty much produced what Americans want to buy - large SUV's while gas was relatively cheap - crappy little fuel economizers when it's not. It has to really frustrating trying to predict what a fickle public will be interested in a few years out. A good example is the EV1, which many people demonize GM over now. GM jumped into it with there own money under the illusion that California would come through with their part of the equation and have public recharging stations available along with incentives for private industry to do the same, and the federal government would follow suit later on. None or very little of that ever materialized. I remember seeing maps in the LA Times of where these public charge stations would be located. Time moved on, fuel prices stayed low, which led to the outcome that is now history.

What’s Good for G.M. Is Good for the Army

by rockylee on Mon Nov 17 20:10:18 PST 2008

AMERICA'S automobile industry is in desperate trouble. Financial instability, the credit squeeze and closed capital markets are hurting domestic automakers, while decades of competition from foreign producers have eroded market share and consumer loyalty. Some economists question the wisdom of Washington's intervening to help the Big Three, arguing that the automakers should pay the price for their own mistakes or that the market will correct itself. But we must act: aiding the American automobile industry is not only an economic imperative, but also a national security imperative. When President Dwight Eisenhower observed that America's greatest strength wasn't its military, but its economy, he must have had companies like General Motors and Ford in mind. Sitting atop a vast pyramid of tool makers, steel producers, fabricators and component manufacturers, these companies not only produced the tanks and trucks that helped win World War II, but also lent their technology to aircraft and ship manufacturing. The United States truly became the arsenal of democracy. During the 1950s, advances in aviation, missiles, satellites and electronics made Detroit seem a little old-fashioned in dealing with the threat of the Soviet Union. The Army's requests for new trucks and other basic transportation usually came out a loser in budget battles against missile technology and new modifications for the latest supersonic jet fighter. Not only were airplanes far sexier but they also counted as part of our military "tooth," while much of the land forces' needs were "tail." And in those days, "more teeth, less tail" had become a key concept in military spending. But in 1991, the Persian Gulf war demonstrated the awesome utility of American land power, and the Humvee (and its civilian version, the Hummer) became a star. Likewise, the ubiquitous homemade bombs of the current Iraq insurgency have led to the development of innovative armor-protected wheeled vehicles for American forces, as well as improvements in our fleets of Humvees, tanks, armored fighting vehicles, trucks and cargo carriers. In a little more than a year, the Army has procured and fielded in Iraq more than a thousand so-called mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicles. The lives of hundreds of soldiers and marines have been saved, and their tasks made more achievable, by the efforts of the American automotive industry. And unlike in World War II, America didn't have to divert much civilian capacity to meet these military needs. Without a vigorous automotive sector, those needs could not have been quickly met. More challenges lie ahead for our military, and to meet them we need a strong industrial base. For years the military has sought better sources of electric power in its vehicles — necessary to allow troops to monitor their radios with diesel engines off, to support increasingly high-powered communications technology, and eventually to support electric propulsion and innovative armaments like directed-energy weapons. In sum, this greater use of electricity will increase combat power while reducing our footprint. Much research and development spending has gone into these programs over the years, but nothing on the manufacturing scale we really need. Now, though, as Detroit moves to plug-in hybrids and electric-drive technology, the scale problem can be remedied. Automakers are developing innovative electric motors, many with permanent magnet technology, that will have immediate military use. And only the auto industry, with its vast purchasing power, is able to establish a domestic advanced battery industry. Likewise, domestic fuel cell production — which will undoubtedly have many critical military applications — depends on a vibrant car industry. To be sure, the public should demand transformation and new standards in the auto industry before paying to keep it alive. And we should insist that Detroit's goals include putting America in first place in hybrid and electric automotive technology, reducing the emissions of the country's transportation fleet, and strengthening our competitiveness abroad. This should be no giveaway. Instead, it is a historic opportunity to get it right in Detroit for the good of the country. But Americans must bear in mind that any federal assistance plan would not be just an economic measure. This is, fundamentally, about national security. Wesley K. Clark, a retired Army general and former supreme allied commander of NATO, is a senior fellow at the Burkle Center for International Relations at the University of California at Los Angeles. -Rocky

Re: Anyone notice Honda opened a new plant today in Indiana? [aspesisteve]

by imidazol97 on Mon Nov 17 17:10:05 PST 2008

http://questionitnow.com/blog/2006/05/entitlement-mentality.html You may want to check on the tax breaks and benefits paid for by the State of Indiana... Do a google search on the discussion. I recall when Ford built a plant in Ohio the governor forgave the $500,000 tap in fee for the water system. That cost, of course, was carried by the rest of us in the water district. But that wasn't paid for by the federal government... but it was paid for by the people.

rocky...rocky..rocky...

by iluvmysephia1 on Mon Nov 17 15:58:20 PST 2008

all right. Here's the deal. I don't like what's going on. Congress will offer a bailout, GM, Ford and Chrysler can't fail. Well, maybe Chrysler-Cerberus will. But I, if you will recall, have been laid off twice from a company called The Boeing Company. And, I have pulled myself up by my bootstraps and re-trained for a totally different career, the Allied Health field. So, I had to tie all of the bureacracy and red tape together, study hard, and I mean study hard, and I made it. I can't help but think internally on this one. I can tell you from personal experience that there is life after a manufacturing job. rock, tell me the truth here. Do you, in your heart of hearts, think GM can pull out of their large Depression with a, oh, let's say $50 Billion dollar Federal Government bailout? Or are we just going to be prolonging everyone's misery. I remember 2002 at Boeing, everyone's productivity was being shot to hell because all everyone wanted to do was put down Phil Condit and Harry Stonecipher(two Boeing CEO's of that era). I mean, SPEEA got all the socialist juices going, but they also stirred the pot so that working on real Boeing jet aircraft drawings became a background hobby for us. I am saying that the healthcare industry is hiring, you've just got to go out and line up some trianing for yourself. It's honest work, though, sure, my college tuition and books were paid for by The Trade Act, but it was done honestly and in view of all authorities. This GM bailout is starting to smell of lobbyist-disease and pork-barrel large corporate hand-wringing and handouts. It's starting to really smell. I'm saying these people who are UAW can find another way out than working for GM. And why not large numbers of them? Huh?