From: Employee@MilVeh.com
Date: Tue Aug 26 2003 - 10:58:20 PDT
This is an absolutely brilliant analogy... thank you
Aaron! You made my point better than I ever could.
--- "Horrocks, Aaron" <ACHb@pge.com> wrote:
>
>
> What if civilian car makers made the same contracts
> with consumers?
>
> "You can only buy this car if you agree to have it
> destroyed after you're done with it, after all, we
> don't want all those used cars out their hurting our
> profits on sales"
> Think of all the muscle cars - The few that didn't
> crash, would have all been crushed!
> When HMMWVs are phased out by a newer product, there
> won't be many around and will unfortunately fade
> from existence, perhaps faster than many WWII
> vehicles.
>
>
> Mandatory MV Content:
>
> I want to get my springs re-arched so that my jeep
> sits right. (M38A1) What measurements do I need to
> know, or to tell the spring shop? Like original
> eye-to-eye length? What's it supposed to be anyhow?
> I guess the springs' eye to eye should be slightly
> less than the frames, right? Currently the driver's
> side sags down too far, and I think the jeep sits to
> low overall.
>
>
> Aaron Horrocks
> 1952 M38A1
>
> On a positive note, I found a used engine in great
> condition out of a '53! That's one more giant step
> to getting this bucket of bolts road trip worthy!
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Employee@MilVeh.com
> [mailto:milveh@sbcglobal.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2003 10:21 AM
> To: Military Vehicles Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [MV] HMMWV v. idiots in government
>
>
>
> --- 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
>
>
>
>
>
> ===Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list===
> To unsubscribe, send e-mail to:
> <mil-veh-off@mil-veh.org>
> To switch to the DIGEST mode, send e-mail to
> <mil-veh-digest@mil-veh.org>
> To reach a human, contact <ack@mil-veh.org>
>
> ===Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list==To
> unsubscribe, send e-mail to:
> <mil-veh-off@mil-veh.org>
> To switch to the DIGEST mode, send e-mail to
> <mil-veh-digest@mil-veh.org>
> To reach a human, contact <ack@mil-veh.org>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat May 07 2005 - 20:23:37 PDT