Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Non-Tech : Cramer Touts -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John Carragher who wrote (362)	10/28/2005 9:50:29 AM
From: tsigprofit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 843

Having worked for both, they are uncompetitive in the world markets, and both in decline. It is irresponsible to buy a GM car. I was told flat out at a Pontiac dealer that to expect a GM car to last past 60,000 miles was folly. This was around 1996. Not 1979. He laughed out loud when I disagreed - and said I should buy a new one after that. That was after he said they wouldn't use the extended warranty I bought. After it conked out for the 3 time and had to be hauled in. Oh - and he pointed to the phone when I asked him to call about the warranty - a pay phone. Not just a lemon - this was typical of many GM cars. That's why I switched to Toyota, and will never go back to any US automobile. If you want to contribute to a charity, I can get you a better list than GM and Ford. I'm not paying my money to provide healthcare for someone there, sorry. They will have to renegotiate the union contracts to remove many of these inflated benefits, if they want to survive. I've seen healthy 48 year old men retired after 30 years with them, at home, playing golf all day - all because of Generous Motors. That is uncompetitive in the 21st century - and like I said, I'm not paying for them to do that. >> gm and ford are social corp. they work to provide for their employees health and income. perhaps it is socially responsible to buy a gm car.