Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 95
  1. #41  
    Quote Originally Posted by rjwerth View Post
    You raise an excellent example of why the government should NOT bail out corporations. They bailed out Chrysler in the 70's....and again in the 21st century?? And now look at them still...they are by far the worst of the big 3. They weren't worth bailing out then, and they aren't now. Government should not be in the business of bailing anyone out.
    Case closed.

    Quote Originally Posted by rjwerth View Post
    I was with you until the end. Last time I checked, Testla hasn't made a dollar yet.
    What would they do if they got subsidies that some corporations get, like Exxon and such??

    What would they do if they had hundreds of billions of bailout money that the inefficient corporations got??

    Quote Originally Posted by rjwerth View Post
    Don't forget that the majority of "foreign" cars are made right here in the US, with US workers who have the same heath insurance issues as "domestic" workers." The real cost is with workers who are no longer working. This is the biggest problem.
    Precisely why it wouldn't be such a big deal to let some foreign guys buy out the failed U.S. companies. Foreign agencies inside the U.S. are required to pay taxes, so there's really no downside at all to letting them takeover. Benefits all around, really.

    The "real cost" being the workers who are no longer working isn't really such a problem, because they'd be forced to find new work or start a new business. Guys with mechanical skills can start building/selling motorized bicycles, while some foreign company keeps a lot of the workers and shows us how to run a business that's too big not to be efficient... and things would be better for everyone.

    Quote Originally Posted by rjwerth View Post
    Ironically (compared to your experience) I have had the best luck with our Subaru. Incredible car in terms of performance and durability. Not the most "refined" car in the world...but man, does it get it done.
    I can't wait until I can get a good deal on a 5-spd Subaru w/ AWD. Just so uncommon here in the Dirty South. Not a whole lotta point in having AWD if you don't have snow. But I still want one.
  2. #42  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    Please show the quote of mine where I said unions should be outlawed or baned. Can you find that comment? I actually agree with you that if a company bends to the demands of unions and agrees to what they demand, then that should be their perogative. However, if said expenses and benefits cause them to not be as profitable then that business should suffer the consequences.....simple capitalistic system. If you run an efficient business, you survive....if you don't run an efficient business, you die. So you disagree with that?
    i never implied you said that they should be banned or outlawed. I agree, with your entire statement. However, I will add, that if you make a deal to sell a product at a given price based on certain costs, and you screw up, or someone else produces the same product at a lesser price, it does not give you the right to unilaterally lower wages to union or for that matter nonunion employees. Nor do I believe that unions are the bane of all companies. I worked both sides of that fence for a number of years. Union side and management side. If you have a good working relationship with a union or the management you can make money. The whole concept of Unions bad, companies good is such bs. I have seen both sides. I have seen companies that literally line up employees, walk down the line firing people because they make too much money, at least in the eyes of the owner. On the flip side, i have seen unions go out on wildcat strikes because the owner took his family to Disneyland. As I said a good working relationship is absolutely mandatory.
    Life is short, Play hard, and enjoy every moment as if it was your last.
  3. #43  
    Quote Originally Posted by rjwerth View Post
    You raise an excellent example of why the government should NOT bail out corporations. They bailed out Chrysler in the 70's....and again in the 21st century?? And now look at them still...they are by far the worst of the big 3. They weren't worth bailing out then, and they aren't now. Government should not be in the business of bailing anyone out.

    Though, I guess I should amend that based on the comment someone made about CAFE...government should not bail anyone out they didn't help sink. I'll try not to wander too far off topic, but I was for the government helping out the airlines after 9/11 since they grounded them for days. But now the airlines are not getting taxed on fees like they are ticket prices and you can see how they are reacting to that policy.....



    I was with you until the end. Last time I checked, Testla hasn't made a dollar yet.



    Don't forget that the majority of "foreign" cars are made right here in the US, with US workers who have the same heath insurance issues as "domestic" workers." The real cost is with workers who are no longer working. This is the biggest problem.



    Oh how right you are.....



    I have owned several Toyotas. The last one (a Tacoma) was "bought back" for 1.5x the blue book value due to a rusty frame. Prior to that, I had to have nearly every sensor replaced on it. I wasn't very impressed with the quality of the vehicle. I was, however, very impressed with the response of the company (buying it back for WAAYYY more than it was worth). No domestic would have ever done that.

    On the flip side. I now am the owner of a GMC. The initial quality STINKS. I've had the battery, driver-side mirror, door interior, and radio replaced. I have had nearly every panel around the dash re-installed due to excessive rattling. The car is big, quick, drives like a dream and looks incredible...but the quality???? Yikes.

    Ironically (compared to your experience) I have had the best luck with our Subaru. Incredible car in terms of performance and durability. Not the most "refined" car in the world...but man, does it get it done.
    I would humbly suggest, if the banks and the auto industry had been allowed to fail, that the entire economy would have failed. When you have dominoes as large as GM, Chrysler, AIG, etc etc knocked over, all going down at once, it would not have mattered that Honda, Toyota, Kia, etc etc were making cars here. The knock off effect of that collapse would have been catastrophic. Fact, average number of indirect jobs is about 1-7, so very every GM job lost 7 indirect jobs would have been lost. To that end, it goes to 1-4 for the indirect jobs. For every 1 indirect job lost 4 more are lost.
    Real simple, now, stopping there, who the hell is gonna buy Toyota, Honda, etc etc if one of the largest parts of the BUYING public is out of work. I would suggest, that Honda, Toyota, etc etc would have closed their doors inside of 6 months in the States. Throwing more people out of work, with more indirect jobs lost.

    I am not for the bailouts, we did it up here in Canada as well. GM paid us back in full yesterday. Yes jobs were lost, but more jobs were created with new lines coming out. I live just east of what is considered the best auto plant in the world, yes it is GM. Productivity etc etc were all considered the best. By any standards.

    To say that the bailouts should not have happened without looking at what would have happened if they had been allowed to fail is short sighted. If you really believe, that you would not have been effected by their shut down, you need to really open your eyes. Frankly, if those companies had been allowed to fail the whole world would have take a hit like no one has seen EVER.
    I will add this, Obama, and yes I am going to give some credit to Bush as well here, both those men and their staff did the run out of what would have happened if the bail outs did not happen. I am betting, that even what I have put here, is pale in comparison to what their scenarios worked out. Think about it, LA, population, no food, no infrastructure, all leaving the city. Inside of weeks you would have had millions and millions of people on the road. Not only looking for work, more importantly they would have been looking for food. I doubt very much your armed forces, considering the demographic the vast majority come from, would have stopped them from rioting. In fact, you would have probably had the vast majority joining them. Just a thought or two.
    Last edited by xForsaken; 04/22/2010 at 05:03 AM.
    Life is short, Play hard, and enjoy every moment as if it was your last.
  4.    #44  
    Quote Originally Posted by rjwerth View Post

    On the flip side. I now am the owner of a GMC. The initial quality STINKS. I've had the battery, driver-side mirror, door interior, and radio replaced. I have had nearly every panel around the dash re-installed due to excessive rattling. The car is big, quick, drives like a dream and looks incredible...but the quality???? Yikes.

    Ironically (compared to your experience) I have had the best luck with our Subaru. Incredible car in terms of performance and durability. Not the most "refined" car in the world...but man, does it get it done.
    My new SUV is about four months old and is as solid as any vehicle I've owned. It has been off-road, driving through mud and rocks, and has no squeaks, rattles or problems whatsoever. This is the fourth GMC vehicle in a row I have driven and I need a heavy duty vehicle for my weekends. After two used GMC pick-ups and one prior used SUV, I have had way fewer problems with GMC vehicles than with my wife's Subaru, which had no lights working when we drove it off the lot and has had the front brake pads replaced twice since October (luckily the second time under warranty two days ago). My daughter's Subaru has been better but rattles and squeaks like a '50's Ford. My best friend and partner has a 15 year old Suburban that is a tow vehicle and it has over 260,000 miles on it and we still take long trips in it on weekends. OTOH my son has a PT Cruiser that he got for little money that is a piece of junk. It's always a crap shoot but I've had real good luck with large GMC vehicles.
  5. #45  
    Quote Originally Posted by RPFTW View Post
    The largest legitimate objection to the "loan" of taxpayer dollars to a company is that a legitimate business that makes smart decisions would never need it...

    Theories about control over GM are secondary to the fact that all we accomplished was a propping up of a failed company...

    Anyone that supports this needs to answer the following questions...

    Why don't we bail out every large business that makes ****ty decisions and investments?

    What would happen if we did that?

    To support the bailout of a business via taxpayer dollars is the epitome of free market logic fail.
    I dunno man, the US doesn't have many exports, to suddenly have no car manufacturers could've weakened us beyond repair...
  6. Habious's Avatar
    Posts
    245 Posts
    Global Posts
    887 Global Posts
    #46  
    I feel like jumping into this one with some of my own opinions...feel free to flame on.

    CAFE standards - The worst part about the government CAFE standards is that, not only do they punish the manufacturer, but they punish the manufacturer for what the consumer CHOOSES! CAFE standards are fuel-efficiency standards. But, it's not a formula based on the average fuel economy of the cars they offer...it's a formula based on the average fuel economy of the cars they SELL. If consumers choose to purchase large, gas-guzzling vehicles (which is their right - my car has a 4.3L V-8), the manufacturer gets dinged for not selling enough fuel-efficient vehicles. Let me know if that makes sense to ANYONE.

    Letting GM "Fail" - Lets be clear here...when we talk about "They should have let GM fail." we're NOT talking about simply shutting the factory doors, firing everyone, and all buying Hondas. The company would have gone into bankruptcy. They would have been allowed to restructure their debt and, most importantly, bankruptcy protection allows them to RENEGOTIATE LABOR CONTRACTS. That's right...they could have said "Hey, you know what...these marginally-skilled workers are costing us a fortune. We can do something about that!" THAT'S why GM was "saved" by the government...the unions put pressure on the government, because they knew that if GM went into bankruptcy protection, the party was over for them.

    Increased quality at GM - I don't know that the American car companies are now making high-quality cars. I do know that they DID make some truly awful cars. I got stuck with a few of them in my earlier years...and have no interest in trying again. I'm not sure that "We're GM - We used to make some really sh*tty cars...but now, they're much better!" is a good advertising tagline. Also, the vast majority of rental car companies use domestic vehicles for their fleets...so I've had the opportunity to drive a pretty decent variety of late-model domestic vehicles. I don't see the "Quality is Job 1", I just don't.

    How does a 14-foot long domestic boat have less leg room in the front seat than my little 2-seat import sports car? Also, the control ergonomics are just terrible. It seems to clear to me that whoever designed these interiors...walks to work. There's just no way they ever drove one of their own cars.

    For example...there's no "Cancel" on the cruise control. There's an "On" and an "Off" button (not an "On/Off"...it's got 2 separate buttons). But there's no way to tell if the system is on or off other than to set it and, if the car keeps going at that speed, apparently it was on. So, you're driving down the highway, cruise set, and you need to disengage the cruise. No, I'm not going to step on the brakes, light up my brake lights, and freak out the guy behind me doing 65 MPH. I just want to cancel the cruise. Too bad. You have to turn it off...loosing your set-speed memory. Oh, and don't forget to turn it back on before you try to set it again. Of course, there's no way to tell if it's actually on or off...no indicator. There's just no way that the guy who designed that system ever used it. If he did, the first time he went to use it, he'd be like "Oh...wait! Crap, we forgot something!"
  7. thornev's Avatar
    Posts
    326 Posts
    Global Posts
    329 Global Posts
    #47  
    Quote Originally Posted by grndslm View Post
    Basically, a corporation, known as THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, is co-owner to yourself, your spouse, your parents, your children, your vehicles, your land, etcetera. Does that not bother you? Does it not bother you that this corporation is taking money from you and giving it to the rich, when we could have spent 1/5th of that money so that every home in America would be self-sufficient in terms of energy and food?!?

    It p!sses me the flip off.
    Yes it bothers me that Uncle Sam mis-manages our tax dollars. It's the power we give the government when we agree to live in the US. How do you suggest we change the way our government works? Voting doesn't help as the prime candidates know they have no chance of winning if they don't uphold most ideology of what most of the population has come to accept as "normal." thorne
  8. #48  
    Funny observation to all of this...

    The "conservatives" on these boards all seem to be driving foreign cars while us "socialist liberals" seem to be driving American... (I drive an 05 Jeep Grand Cherokee)
    "Brace yourself, you beautiful *****. I am about to **** you up with some truth!" - Kenny Powers

    "I don't mind paying taxes. With taxes, I purchase civilization."
    - H.L. Mencken
  9. #49  
    Quote Originally Posted by thornev View Post
    Yes it bothers me that Uncle Sam mis-manages our tax dollars. It's the power we give the government when we agree to live in the US. How do you suggest we change the way our government works? Voting doesn't help as the prime candidates know they have no chance of winning if they don't uphold most ideology of what most of the population has come to accept as "normal." thorne
    I could give you a thousand ways we could fix the government, but on top of that, even more importantly, is that people need to understand we don't have to do what the government tells us. We really don't. You do, if you're a U.S. Citizen, an agent of the U.S. Federal Government (as opposed to the U.S. National Government), and paying into your corporate employer's (Fed Gov, again) pension plan (SSI).

    You don't have to be a Citizen is the key thing for people to realize. You live in a free society, and it's completely legit for you to step outside of that free society [but not the land] and remain JUST a U.S. National, and not a Citizen (a term created just for those who were only considered 3/5ths of a person, but the concept spread farther than intended). Read this 128 page PDF and then you'll understand why you're a U.S. National and not a U.S. Citizen.

    Anyway, as to some suggestions I have considered for quite some time now is:

    - INSTANT RUNOFF VOTING!!! This is so ridiculously easy to implement, and provides actual results that reflect the will of the people. If you truly wanted your government to do what you want, you'd stop voting for a left-authoritarian or a right-authoritarian... and start voting for non-authoritarians like Ron Paul, Jesse Ventura, etc.
    - Turn U.S. Citizens into "Internet Voters", who make up a Third House of Congress. All three houses must vote in lockstep, otherwise the legislation doesn't pass. The idea is that we need more gridlock, and we need more gridlock in the favor of your average American.
    - I've imagined such a platform that require you to answer, say, 10 random questions (from a pool of 50?), no matter how many times, until you get a certain amount right; this will ensure those who want to vote, actually understand the bill.
    - The platform could prevent rider bills, or essentially, bills that x amount of voters/legislators do not have the capacity to understand; for example, the 570,000 lines of Internal Revenue Code would have never been passed with such a platform, because the laws, written for the Citizens, are not legible by the Citizens, and if they can't understand it... it's inherently unconstitutional.
    - If you are capable of voting, you should be required to document WHY you voted a certain way, since the government is supposed to be transparent.

    There's all kinds of "Checks and Balances for the Third Millennium" that we should be using to make sure our government is doing it's job. Harnessing the technology available to us today to provide such checks and balances that are, well, unchecked today is something that our Forefathers would have been proud of, I'm sure.
  10. #50  
    Quote Originally Posted by xForsaken View Post
    i never implied you said that they should be banned or outlawed. I agree, with your entire statement. However, I will add, that if you make a deal to sell a product at a given price based on certain costs, and you screw up, or someone else produces the same product at a lesser price, it does not give you the right to unilaterally lower wages to union or for that matter nonunion employees. Nor do I believe that unions are the bane of all companies. I worked both sides of that fence for a number of years. Union side and management side. If you have a good working relationship with a union or the management you can make money. The whole concept of Unions bad, companies good is such bs. I have seen both sides. I have seen companies that literally line up employees, walk down the line firing people because they make too much money, at least in the eyes of the owner. On the flip side, i have seen unions go out on wildcat strikes because the owner took his family to Disneyland. As I said a good working relationship is absolutely mandatory.
    Sounds like you've had far more experience with unions than I have. Being from the South, we don't have too many of them thar folks (union folks) around these parts. In fact, one reason we just landed (no pun intended) a large Boeing plant here (Dreamliner!) is largely due to the lack of unions in our area. So, in our case, we will be having some very good paying jobs in our area soon (they have begun building the facility) that we likely wouldn't have had if we had unions involved. I certainly understand the concept of unions, but from what I've seen and heard about unions in the auto industry, sounds like they got a little out of hand. Perhaps they do work better for other industries.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  11. #51  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    Funny observation to all of this...

    The "conservatives" on these boards all seem to be driving foreign cars while us "socialist liberals" seem to be driving American... (I drive an 05 Jeep Grand Cherokee)
    It's like the funny observation I've made before that "Conservatives" tend to give more to charity while you "socialist liberals" seem more comfortable giving to your favorite charity, the government. Funny.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  12.    #52  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    It's like the funny observation I've made before that "Conservatives" tend to give more to charity while you "socialist liberals" seem more comfortable giving to your favorite charity, the government. Funny.
    Except his comment is based on what people have said in this thread, not on some methodology which may or may not be correct. Additionally, donating money to charity is the easy way out. Doing something for somebody takes a lot more work.
  13. thornev's Avatar
    Posts
    326 Posts
    Global Posts
    329 Global Posts
    #53  
    Quote Originally Posted by grndslm View Post
    I could give you a thousand ways we could fix the government, but on top of that, even more importantly, is that people need to understand we don't have to do what the government tells us. We really don't. You do, if you're a U.S. Citizen, an agent of the U.S. Federal Government (as opposed to the U.S. National Government), and paying into your corporate employer's (Fed Gov, again) pension plan (SSI).
    OK, well that leaves me out. I've worked for a major corporation for 27 years and I like what the income affords me. That makes me a US Citizen and I take the bad with the good. I would bet that the "thousand ways" you could cite have their consequences just as any mass ideology/societal thought does. But your points interest me and I plan to do some reading. Maybe I can make a little difference as an armchair politician. =:-) thorne
  14. #54  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Except his comment is based on what people have said in this thread, not on some methodology which may or may not be correct. Additionally, donating money to charity is the easy way out. Doing something for somebody takes a lot more work.
    Like when my Rotary Club packs food for school kids to have on the weekends or when we have kids to a shoe store for free shoes or when we do Habitat for Humanity or when we do our adopt-a-highway activity? You mean things like that? I'm not a doctor and so I can't very well do medical things....but I have applauded you for your efforts.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  15.    #55  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    Like when my Rotary Club packs food for school kids to have on the weekends or when we have kids to a shoe store for free shoes or when we do Habitat for Humanity or when we do our adopt-a-highway activity? You mean things like that? I'm not a doctor and so I can't very well do medical things....but I have applauded you for your efforts.

    Yes...exactly those things. And guess what? None of them count as donations, do they? There are lots of things that people do that are much better than donating money....but that is what was measured in those surveys.
  16. rjwerth's Avatar
    Posts
    16 Posts
    Global Posts
    23 Global Posts
    #56  
    Quote Originally Posted by grndslm View Post
    Case closed.

    The "real cost" being the workers who are no longer working isn't really such a problem, because they'd be forced to find new work or start a new business. Guys with mechanical skills can start building/selling motorized bicycles, while some foreign company keeps a lot of the workers and shows us how to run a business that's too big not to be efficient... and things would be better for everyone.
    :
    I should clarify: I wasn't referring to workers who were let go, I was referring to retirees-a HUGE expense to the automakers (also known as "legacy costs")

    Quote Originally Posted by xForsaken View Post
    I would humbly suggest, if the banks and the auto industry had been allowed to fail, that the entire economy would have failed. When you have dominoes as large as GM, Chrysler, AIG, etc etc knocked over, all going down at once, it would not have mattered that Honda, Toyota, Kia, etc etc were making cars here. The knock off effect of that collapse would have been catastrophic. Fact, average number of indirect jobs is about 1-7, so very every GM job lost 7 indirect jobs would have been lost. To that end, it goes to 1-4 for the indirect jobs. For every 1 indirect job lost 4 more are lost.
    You are making a couple of assumptions that would not likely happen.

    1) If the government did not intervene, GM would just disappear. Certainly not. GM would have gone through bankruptcy reorganization like they did under the government. Granted, it would not have been as quick and easy (though the government COULD have helped out the process w/o owning them) but they would have come out better than when they went in.

    2) All the companies were about to fail at once. Well, no. For years, the automakers were playing the awful game of who can run out of money last (rather than make the radical changes they now have made). GM was winning that game. Chrysler was going to fail (and probably still will). This is why there were all the rumors of GM buying Chrysler. If Chrysler failed, the hole left behind would be quickly be filled by the remaining companies and they would be stronger than they are today.
  17. #57  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Yes...exactly those things. And guess what? None of them count as donations, do they? There are lots of things that people do that are much better than donating money....but that is what was measured in those surveys.
    I agree that doing work for charities is very good, but these same charities need money. More people should get involved in Rotary. I always hear people joke that it is a bunch of old retired folks, but our group is fairly young, fun, and quite active in the community. So while volunteering is important, the volunteers wouldn't be needed if the charities had no money. I will congratulate Joe Biden.....per his 2009 tax return, he gave about 5 or 6 times to charity what he averaged the prior 10 years. With an income of $333,000, he gave $4600 to charities! Granted, only 1.4% of his income, but more than he usually gives.

    Another funny thing....as I was leaving the meeting yesterday I was talking to 2 members and one commented that is was odd that our club was probably 80% - 90% Conservative/Republican, and yet we do so much for the community. Odd, huh?
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  18.    #58  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    Another funny thing....as I was leaving the meeting yesterday I was talking to 2 members and one commented that is was odd that our club was probably 80% - 90% Conservative/Republican, and yet we do so much for the community. Odd, huh?
    And your comparison group is?
    I can tell you that our Habitat group in my town has not been real effective at recruiting republicans....except the less well-off ones that donate their plumbing and electrical experience. And interestingly, most of the republican electricians are IBEW members. Not seen a whole lot of Rotary folks out there. They may donate more money, but they don't roll their sleeves up as much around here. Maybe it's too hot.
  19. #59  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    I don't agree. What would replace GM is almost certainly an overseas sinkhole of US dollars. Those "other companies" will not be hiring GM workers unless they move to Asia. Unfortunately the advantages that would be realized by the automakers from a real health plan was snuffed out by concern about universal (non-employee based) coverage. When GM has to pay $2000-2500 off the top of each car it sells to cover health insurance for it's workers, and Japanese carmakers spend closer to $100, the playing field is not very level.
    Most of that cost for GM is due to their retirees, not the current workers. Also, the Japanese automakers in the US do not have to deal with unions and their insane demands.
  20. rjwerth's Avatar
    Posts
    16 Posts
    Global Posts
    23 Global Posts
    #60  
    Quote Originally Posted by Habious View Post
    How does a 14-foot long domestic boat have less leg room in the front seat than my little 2-seat import sports car? Also, the control ergonomics are just terrible. It seems to clear to me that whoever designed these interiors...walks to work. There's just no way they ever drove one of their own cars.
    You are comparing the interior space of a 5 passenger vs 2 passenger vehicle? Really?

    For example...there's no "Cancel" on the cruise control. There's an "On" and an "Off" button (not an "On/Off"...it's got 2 separate buttons). But there's no way to tell if the system is on or off other than to set it and, if the car keeps going at that speed, apparently it was on. So, you're driving down the highway, cruise set, and you need to disengage the cruise. No, I'm not going to step on the brakes, light up my brake lights, and freak out the guy behind me doing 65 MPH. I just want to cancel the cruise. Too bad. You have to turn it off...loosing your set-speed memory. Oh, and don't forget to turn it back on before you try to set it again. Of course, there's no way to tell if it's actually on or off...no indicator. There's just no way that the guy who designed that system ever used it. If he did, the first time he went to use it, he'd be like "Oh...wait! Crap, we forgot something!"
    I'm not sure what cars you are referring to, but every GM car that I've driven over the last few years has one really big *ss cancel button.....
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions