9 MPG '98 Durango with plenty of HP and torque along with Brother-in-Law's restored RR.
Yeah...it was St Patrick's day and I was wearing a kilt. FUGM! and Chrysler too for that matter!
Posted on 06/07/2011 12:24:15 PM PDT by NoLibZone
General Motors CEO Dan Akerson said his company and his industry would be helped, not hurt, if consumers paid higher gas taxes.
In an interview published in Tuesday's Detroit News, Akerson floated the idea of a $1 a gallon increase in the gas tax as a way to encourage buyers to purchase smaller, more fuel efficient cars. Greg Martin, spokesman for GM's Washington office, confirmed that the quotes reflect Akerson's and GM's view.
Akerson said he would support a jump in the gas tax if it came instead of tighter fuel economy regulations that GM (GM, Fortune 500) and other automakers will have to meet in coming years. By the year 2025, automakers could be forced to hit fuel economy averages of as much as 62 mpg.
Akerson said that a higher gas tax, including an immediate 50-cent-a-gallon increase to take advantage of recent declines in gas prices, would probably make some of his Republican friends "puke." But he said it would do more to help the environment than the pending fuel economy rules.
(Excerpt) Read more at money.cnn.com ...
“Boycott Government Motors.”
No problem here.
In fact I will be sending this bs out to all of our potential heirs, noting that if they buy any new GM product from this date on, not to expect any thing from our trust.
9 MPG '98 Durango with plenty of HP and torque along with Brother-in-Law's restored RR.
Yeah...it was St Patrick's day and I was wearing a kilt. FUGM! and Chrysler too for that matter!
WTF? Then I read further:
...if [that tax hike] came instead of tighter fuel economy regulations...
In other words, screw you, Mr. and Ms. Consumer. Let's send more of your money to Washington and throw it down yet another sink hole. Hmmm...think I'll pass on a GM car...FOREVER!
I will never own a GM product EVER. If I have to ride a bike I will not patronize that POS company.
Last GM car I owned was a Chevy Monte Carlo back in the late 70’s. It was such a pile of junk, had to spend on repairs, kept breaking down, etc. Nearly caused to me to have to drop out of college.
Done and DONE! Thanks for the tip!
“This is a great idea...”
Especially if that increased tax revenue lines your own pockets as the CEO of Government Motors. (Not including the increase in sales of your failed VOLT car).
Those of us in our so-called peak buying years (that term may not apply in the present market) grew up not with Bel Airs and Corvettes but with Malibus, Citations, Chevettes and the rest of the dreck GM foisted on the market from 1970 on.
We saw a parade of cheap plastic interiors; knobs, handles and controls falling off/apart; windows that wouldn’t align properly in order to close; air conditioning that failed its task miserably; aggressive body rust; and of course some of the most hideous ‘styling’ ever conceived.
If a dealership replaced all the Lexus badges on its vehicles with GM ones (but not cars) we still wouldn’t go near a GM product, so vivid are our memories of the bad old days.
Government Motors with de facto CEO Barack Obama is an absolute non-starter but for many of us GM has been in that category for decades.
“He’s got a point there. The higher gas taxes would be bad. The fuel economy rules are worse.”
I disagree. If I had to choose between the two, I would choose fuel economy rules over higher gas prices. Higher gas prices cause inflation and cause all goods to rise in pirce and costs me money. Higher fuel economy rules may not cost us anything if they are not too unreasonable (i.e., feasible). I am usually not for government regulations, but I think we do need to downsize our vehicles to some reasonable degree. I see lots of people driving huge SUVs and trucks who do not need them, and it is wasting a lot of fuel and putting out a lot of extra pollution. I know conservatives balk at this idea, but there are only two ways to get people to drive smaller cars (higher gas prices or fuel standards). I would choose reasonable fuel standards.
Speaking like someone who never ran a business before.
Oh, it is gubmint motor.
Like I said, no business experience.
So he wants the gas to cost more, and he wants to keep building the gas guzzlers?
CEO of GM? I thought obama was CEO of GM.
Seriously, how did an idiot like this reach this high a position in business? Does he not know that the more people are taxed the less likely they can afford a new car? If this is his answer he now has the solution for anytime there is a shortage on ANYTHING. Not enough antibiotics to go around? Tax them. Not enough corn? Tax it. etc etc
I bought a FORD last week and will NEVER buy another GM product.
Akerson said he would support a jump in the gas tax if it came instead of tighter fuel economy regulations that GM (GM, Fortune 500) and other automakers will have to meet in coming years. By the year 2025, automakers could be forced to hit fuel economy averages of as much as 62 mpg.
As long as this Marxist is GM’s president, I am with you and I currently own four GM cars. Between a long list of AH’s that have run GM since the ‘50, the UAW and the govt., the domestic automakers, and GM in particular have all been headed for the trash heap of history. That’s sad, because American cars used to be uniquely American. Now they all look like Jappo/Euro sheistboxes. When you are behind a car today, you can’t tell who made it.
On the other hand, what else could one expect from one who, in the words of Thomas Jefferson, has "hired" himself to "rivet" the government's chains on the necks of his fellow Americans. (See complete Jefferson quotation below)
"To preserve [the] independence [of the people,] we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debts as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses, and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they now do, on oatmeal and potatoes, have no time to think, no means of calling the mismanagers to account, but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:39
Hannity complains about the bail out then takes money from GM for advertising on his show. That means Hannity’s show is subsidized by the tax payer. And he’s not so stupid that he doesn’t know this.
I’m not sure just how stupid a person can be.
GM CEO Dan Akerson Gets $9 Million Compensation Package
General Motors newest CEO Dan Akerson will receive a $9 million compensation package that includes an annual $1.7 million in cash, $5.3 million in salary stock delivered over three years starting on September 30, 2011, as well as $2 million in restricted stock.
Filing Shows Dan Akerson Received $2.5M During Last Four Months Of 2010
Is he insane? How can a CEO not know that would finish off the economy?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.