From: Employee@MilVeh.com
Date: Tue Aug 26 2003 - 10:21:22 PDT
--- Steve Grammont <islander@midmaine.com> wrote:
> You are missing the point of the deal made between
> AM General and the US Gov't. It isn't about public
safety, but rather a means of protecting the economic
viability of the contractor (AM General) by ensuring
that...
Then I think the point is wrong!
The right point is, if a civilian contractor wants to
do business with the government, then they don't
engage in "protectionist practices" at the cost of
squandering taxpayer money. They play it straight or
take a hike.
Where would AM general be without the military?
You want to talk economic viability, they would be
broke without government contracts. Better to settle
for a fair share of profit than rape the taxpayers by
forcing gov. to crush such surplus, like HMMWVs.
I believe the gov. totally holds the cards on this
one. They didn't have to agree to that stupid
stipulation, but because its our money and not theirs,
they had not problem playing ball with the corporation
and letting us get screwed once again.
Bottom line: If the military wants to sell whatever
surplus vehicles they have, it's not the g-damn
business of the manufacturer to dictate government
pollcy.... this ought to be up to the people who pay
for it.
Corp. greed is no substitution for what is best for
the country. Selling surplus makes sense. Besides, I
seriously doubt the corp. concerns were realistic. I
don't believe a surplused HMMWV would affect the sales
of the DUMMER, this is like mixing apples with
oranges, two different markets entirely!
But then this is all just my opinion, what do I know?
Jack
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat May 07 2005 - 20:23:37 PDT