If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NewsBusters)   Ford is back as the number five most profitable company in the country right now thanks to Obama's bailout. Oh, wait.....,   (newsbusters.org) divider line 75
    More: Unlikely, President Obama, John Heilemann, Automotive industry in the United States, big bets, Mulally, rescue, False Claims Act  
•       •       •

1862 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 May 2012 at 9:46 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



75 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-10 09:36:44 AM
Well, if you ignore the widely held assumption that if the other two weren't bailed out, the part suppliers would have folded, and Ford would have followed.
 
2012-05-10 09:38:27 AM
Is there no Newsbusters link that won't get greenlit at 9am?
 
2012-05-10 09:43:10 AM
 
2012-05-10 09:47:31 AM
Ford CEO Alan Mulally on the bailouts:

""This could be upwards of 13% of the U.S. GDP if they were to go into freefall," Mulally said. "We believed [seeking the bailout] was the right thing for the industry, the right thing for the United States of America.... I'd do the same thing today." Link

Alan Mulally's testimony to Congress:

Despite this downturn, Ford does not anticipate a near-term liquidity crisis. In fact, we expectour automobile business to be profitable in 2011. But we do support a government bridge loanbecause it is critically important to the U.S. auto industry.

Specifically, Ford requests access to $9 billion in bridge financing - something we hope we willnot need to use. Instead, as we continue to drive change in our company, this line of credit willserve as a critical safeguard, if events require it. And if we did need to access this loan, we woulduse the money to continue our aggressive transformation and restructuring Link

So yeah. The CEO of Ford things the auto bailout saved his company
 
2012-05-10 09:48:25 AM
Oh, wait.....

It's a NewsBusters link.
 
2012-05-10 09:48:58 AM
Submitter you can't possibly be suggesting that the supply chains of industries that make similar products are completely independent can you?

What you think there's a few hundred acres of Michigan owned by Ford where they grow Fords and next door there's another few hundred dedicated to the cultivation of Chevrolets?
 
2012-05-10 09:52:48 AM
Yet their products still suck. I guess McDonald's is profitable too, eh?

Not sure why anyone would ever willingly drive an American car.
 
2012-05-10 09:54:10 AM
I just don't see how this relates to pie.
 
2012-05-10 09:55:39 AM
Fact: Ford didn't take a bailout.
Fact: Chris Matthews said they did.

Yet... people are somehow disputing the above. Seriously guys?
 
2012-05-10 09:55:45 AM

Aarontology: So yeah. The CEO of Ford things the auto bailout saved his company


WTF would he know about it?!
 
2012-05-10 09:56:05 AM
Ford got their bail out, it was just private due to being in much worse shape prior to credit locking up.
 
2012-05-10 09:56:44 AM

Outtaphase: Well, if you ignore the widely held assumption that if the other two weren't bailed out, the part suppliers would have folded, and Ford would have followed.


Yes. We all know that liberals believe that retarded assumption. No company, nor industry, has ever survived a bankruptcy reorganization. Ever.
 
2012-05-10 09:56:46 AM
Oh nice, so now it's being spun that it's a good thing that Ford didn't take the bailout, the bailout is still bad, and TARP was an Obama administration initiative. Because last week it was, "Hrm, well, Ford didn't take a bailout, but they still asked for money anyway!"

Conservatives. You flip flop so much you need to carry around a tube of Bengay for all the bruises.
 
2012-05-10 09:57:56 AM

HotWingConspiracy: WTF would he know about it?!


I know right? Probably nothing.

MyRandomName: Yes. We all know that liberals believe that retarded assumption. No company, nor industry, has ever survived a bankruptcy reorganization. Ever.


The CEO of Ford says otherwise. I'm more inclined to believe him over you.
 
2012-05-10 09:58:18 AM

FlashHarry: not quite as cut-and-dried as you might think, douchemitter.


I don't disagree with the premise of this argument, but don't you think GM and Chrysler are the douches in this situation (rather than subby)? Saying that Ford is guilty by its benefiting from the bailout is kind of like saying that every homeowner is guilty by benefiting from the home loan bailouts. Sure, my home value didn't collapse as much as it could have had the government not stepped in, but the fault lies with shady lenders and buyers who thought a $600,000 mortgage on a $50,000 salary was a good idea.
 
2012-05-10 09:59:01 AM
So now it's Obama's fault that a company that didn't need a bailout is doing well?
 
2012-05-10 09:59:09 AM

Shaggy_C: Yet their products still suck. I guess McDonald's is profitable too, eh?

Not sure why anyone would ever willingly drive an American car.


Waitaminnit--I thought we were all supposed to be USA! USA! Rah! Rah! Buy American! Oh, wait--only when it supports your guy.

Why do you hate America?
 
2012-05-10 09:59:21 AM
Technically, Ford went through a self managed 'liquidation' prior to the collapse which eliminated the direct crisis for them.

Remember, Ford sold off Jaguar, Volvo, and Range Rover. They made the tough decisions before they had to.

Also, they had some great models to sell and reliability seriously improved on their primary vehicles.

And yes, the next vehicle I plan to buy is a supercharged I3 Fiesta. Never bought a Ford before, but they make a good product and I am happy to support good management and design.
 
2012-05-10 10:00:51 AM

MyRandomName: Outtaphase: Well, if you ignore the widely held assumption that if the other two weren't bailed out, the part suppliers would have folded, and Ford would have followed.

Yes. We all know that liberals believe that retarded assumption. No company, nor industry, has ever survived a bankruptcy reorganization. Ever.


A lot don't. In any case, we're not talking about every company ever in the history of mankind, we're just talking about the largest employers in the Midwest in the middle of the biggest financial debacle of nearly a century.
 
2012-05-10 10:01:28 AM

MyRandomName: Outtaphase: Well, if you ignore the widely held assumption that if the other two weren't bailed out, the part suppliers would have folded, and Ford would have followed.

Yes. We all know that liberals believe that retarded assumption. No company, nor industry, has ever survived a bankruptcy reorganization. Ever.


You are aware that the auto bailout directly aided the parts suppliers, including those that served Ford, aren't you?
 
2012-05-10 10:02:24 AM

Lucky LaRue: but don't you think GM and Chrysler are the douches in this situation (rather than subby)?


I don't see any management or employees of either Chrysler or GM posting bullshiat troll headlines from NewsBusters, so it's pretty much all on subby.
 
2012-05-10 10:02:39 AM

madgonad: Technically, Ford went through a self managed 'liquidation' prior to the collapse which eliminated the direct crisis for them.

Remember, Ford sold off Jaguar, Volvo, and Range Rover. They made the tough decisions before they had to.

Also, they had some great models to sell and reliability seriously improved on their primary vehicles.

And yes, the next vehicle I plan to buy is a supercharged I3 Fiesta. Never bought a Ford before, but they make a good product and I am happy to support good management and design.


I'm still waiting for them to make an AWD sedan that's at a comparable price and gas mileage to Subaru.
 
2012-05-10 10:03:22 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: MyRandomName: Outtaphase: Well, if you ignore the widely held assumption that if the other two weren't bailed out, the part suppliers would have folded, and Ford would have followed.

Yes. We all know that liberals believe that retarded assumption. No company, nor industry, has ever survived a bankruptcy reorganization. Ever.

You are aware that the auto bailout directly aided the parts suppliers, including those that served Ford, aren't you?


He probably is, but it conflicts with The NarrativeTM.
 
2012-05-10 10:04:09 AM
A company that didn't need a bailout didn't take one? DAMN YOU OBAMA!
 
2012-05-10 10:06:05 AM

MyRandomName: Outtaphase: Well, if you ignore the widely held assumption that if the other two weren't bailed out, the part suppliers would have folded, and Ford would have followed.

Yes. We all know that liberals believe that retarded assumption. No company, nor industry, has ever survived a bankruptcy reorganization. Ever.


How is that a retarded (or, for that matter, liberal) assumption? I don't know of any industry-wide bankruptcies that were survived without a government bailout.
 
2012-05-10 10:07:01 AM
Watching the leftists here attack FORD and defend the bailouts as successful is funny.

/
If you are a taxpayer, you were screwed by Obama because the reason we bailed out the companies was because they were "too big to fail". It is obvious that Obama didn't do well in economics because to define bankruptcy as success is idiocy.

The US could have done nothing and let market forces take over GM and Chrysler without having to put the taxpayers on the rack to pay for the union bailouts.
 
2012-05-10 10:08:04 AM

verbaltoxin: I'm still waiting for them to make an AWD sedan that's at a comparable price and gas mileage to Subaru.


Don't count on it. Subaru is a niche player in the auto industry that serves a very particular market. There aren't many consumers in that market, so it makes little sense for Ford to try to go head to head with a much loved brand like Subaru. It is all about risk/reward. Big risks in that venture with little reward.
 
2012-05-10 10:09:30 AM

EnviroDude: Watching the leftists here attack FORD and defend the bailouts as successful is funny.

/
If you are a taxpayer, you were screwed by Obama because the reason we bailed out the companies was because they were "too big to fail". It is obvious that Obama didn't do well in economics because to define bankruptcy as success is idiocy.

The US could have done nothing and let market forces take over GM and Chrysler without having to put the taxpayers on the rack to pay for the union bailouts.


Who attacked ford?
 
2012-05-10 10:09:40 AM

EnviroDude: Watching the leftists here attack FORD and defend the bailouts as successful is funny.

/
If you are a taxpayer, you were screwed by Obama because the reason we bailed out the companies was because they were "too big to fail". It is obvious that Obama didn't do well in economics because to define bankruptcy as success is idiocy.

The US could have done nothing and let market forces take over GM and Chrysler without having to put the taxpayers on the rack to pay for the union bailouts.


And then we would have been on the hook for benefits for hundreds of thousands of unemployed autoworkers AND for retired autoworkers pension benefits.
 
2012-05-10 10:10:56 AM
EnviroDude, can you just once stop posting dumbshiat rhetoric and engage in a conversation for once? Blah blah unions Fartbama leftists blah blah. God, does it get old.
 
2012-05-10 10:11:35 AM

theorellior: Waitaminnit--I thought we were all supposed to be USA! USA! Rah! Rah! Buy American! Oh, wait--only when it supports your guy.

Why do you hate America?


I like some American products. Food, consumer goods, clothes, even electronics. But as far as cars go, American car companies went into the shiatter in the late 1970s and never came back. There's just a lot of institutionalized backwards thinking in the industry, looking back to the glory days of the 1950s and 1960s. They're completely fearful of innovation now.

That, and Americans are fat, lazy people who need big huge cars with gadgets and lots of plastic to protect the interiors from their greasy fast food that they buy through drive thrus. I feel bad for the marketing and design people at a company like Ford. Your target market is a disgusting creature with few redeeming qualities; you can't really market anything nice to them because they won't appreciate it.
 
2012-05-10 10:12:25 AM

CPennypacker: Who attacked ford?


Wasn't me. If I didn't love my little Subie (that niche market mentioned above) I'd probably consider a Focus. First time I've actually felt like buying American.
 
2012-05-10 10:12:41 AM

MyRandomName: Outtaphase: Well, if you ignore the widely held assumption that if the other two weren't bailed out, the part suppliers would have folded, and Ford would have followed.

Yes. We all know that liberals believe that retarded assumption. No company, nor industry, has ever survived a bankruptcy reorganization. Ever.


EWreckedSean?
 
2012-05-10 10:13:16 AM

EnviroDude: Watching the leftists here attack FORD and defend the bailouts as successful is funny.

/
If you are a taxpayer, you were screwed by Obama because the reason we bailed out the companies was because they were "too big to fail". It is obvious that Obama didn't do well in economics because to define bankruptcy as success is idiocy.

The US could have done nothing and let market forces take over GM and Chrysler without having to put the taxpayers on the rack to pay for the union bailouts.


The market forces?! Since you so readily mock Obama's economic skills (as if any president is not going to rely on the best economic advisors), I am sure you are aware that if we had let GM and Chrysler go into liquidation, the courts would still be trying to figure out which creditor gets what. As for the "market forces" taking over the companies? Maybe someone would find some value in the leftover scraps after the real assets were sold off.
 
2012-05-10 10:14:46 AM

EnviroDude: Watching the leftists here attack FORD and defend the bailouts as successful is funny.

/
If you are a taxpayer, you were screwed by Obama because the reason we bailed out the companies was because they were "too big to fail". It is obvious that Obama didn't do well in economics because to define bankruptcy as success is idiocy.

The US could have done nothing and let market forces take over GM and Chrysler without having to put the taxpayers on the rack to pay for the union bailouts.


Not a single thing you wrote is true.
 
2012-05-10 10:15:02 AM

Lucky LaRue: Saying that Ford is guilty by its benefiting from the bailout is kind of like saying that every homeowner is guilty by benefiting from the home loan bailouts.


well, it's not like every homeowner went in front of congress and begged them for the bailout like ford CEO allen mullaly did.
 
2012-05-10 10:16:52 AM

EnviroDude: Watching the leftists here attack FORD and defend the bailouts as successful is funny.

/
If you are a taxpayer, you were screwed by Obama because the reason we bailed out the companies was because they were "too big to fail". It is obvious that Obama didn't do well in economics because to define bankruptcy as success is idiocy.

The US could have done nothing and let market forces take over GM and Chrysler without having to put the taxpayers on the rack to pay for the union bailouts.


You just don't know anything, do you?

The world economy was in freefall. The banks didn't have the money for anything like that. It would have ended in a liquidation. All the factories would outright close. The many parts suppliers would close as well because they would never get their AR and they wouldn't have enough sales to stay liquid. So the parts suppliers would go too. That means that Toyota, Honda, and Ford would lose key parts for their supply chains and have to cease operations until they filled in the holes. The fear of losing a million jobs in a month weren't just made-up numbers. It was probably a very conservative estimate.
Oh, and the reason for the bankruptcy and the elimination of management was to both fix the company and to punish the investors for their poor choices. That protected the government's investment as well. You really should take an economics class or two so you know how finance works.
 
2012-05-10 10:17:39 AM

EnviroDude: Derp.


Wait wait, now the bailouts are good thing again? Or are they bad?

I keep getting confused. The reluctant Romney cheerleaders keep saying opposing things.
 
2012-05-10 10:18:15 AM

Shaggy_C: I like some American products. Food, consumer goods, clothes, even electronics. But as far as cars go, American car companies went into the shiatter in the late 1970s and never came back. There's just a lot of institutionalized backwards thinking in the industry, looking back to the glory days of the 1950s and 1960s. They're completely fearful of innovation now.

That, and Americans are fat, lazy people who need big huge cars with gadgets and lots of plastic to protect the interiors from their greasy fast food that they buy through drive thrus. I feel bad for the marketing and design people at a company like Ford. Your target market is a disgusting creature with few redeeming qualities; you can't really market anything nice to them because they won't appreciate it.


Not gonna dispute anything about the state of the industry up until maybe 1997. Things started shifting then, albeit slowly. But Ford has really turned things around in the last 5 years. Surprisingly, so has Chevy, to a point. I test drove a Volt just for funsies, it's not a bad car. And Ford's design aesthetic is much much better.
 
2012-05-10 10:23:17 AM

theorellior: Surprisingly, so has Chevy, to a point. I test drove a Volt just for funsies, it's not a bad car.


Thing is, I can buy a "not a bad car" for half the price, even after the government rebates.
 
2012-05-10 10:24:46 AM

Lucky LaRue: EnviroDude: Watching the leftists here attack FORD and defend the bailouts as successful is funny.

/
If you are a taxpayer, you were screwed by Obama because the reason we bailed out the companies was because they were "too big to fail". It is obvious that Obama didn't do well in economics because to define bankruptcy as success is idiocy.

The US could have done nothing and let market forces take over GM and Chrysler without having to put the taxpayers on the rack to pay for the union bailouts.

The market forces?! Since you so readily mock Obama's economic skills (as if any president is not going to rely on the best economic advisors), I am sure you are aware that if we had let GM and Chrysler go into liquidation, the courts would still be trying to figure out which creditor gets what. As for the "market forces" taking over the companies? Maybe someone would find some value in the leftover scraps after the real assets were sold off.


He's using conservative imaginary hindsight talking points. It's easy to claim everything would have been better had an action not occurred, after it's already a done deal. they only use this talking point because they know the past isn't going to change, so they can safely substitute their fantasies for what 'could' have happened.
 
2012-05-10 10:25:04 AM

dittybopper: Thing is, I can buy a "not a bad car" for half the price, even after the government rebates.


Well, I'm not buying one, but it shows that someone at Chevy is trying something new. Baby steps, people!
 
2012-05-10 10:26:39 AM
Your point, subby?
 
2012-05-10 10:30:28 AM

Outtaphase: Well, if you ignore the widely held assumption that if the other two weren't bailed out, the part suppliers would have folded, and Ford would have followed.


And done in one.

/Thanks for not making me actually link on a Nutclusters link.
 
2012-05-10 10:30:43 AM

dittybopper: theorellior: Surprisingly, so has Chevy, to a point. I test drove a Volt just for funsies, it's not a bad car.

Thing is, I can buy a "not a bad car" for half the price, even after the government rebates.


Flat screen TVs, even small ones, were thousands of dollars when they first came out.
 
2012-05-10 10:31:38 AM

MyRandomName: Outtaphase: Well, if you ignore the widely held assumption that if the other two weren't bailed out, the part suppliers would have folded, and Ford would have followed.

Yes. We all know that liberals believe that retarded assumption. No company, nor industry, has ever survived a bankruptcy reorganization. Ever.


Would you buy a car from a company that was going through bankruptcy without government protection? I know I wouldn't.
 
2012-05-10 10:33:15 AM

theknuckler_33: dittybopper: theorellior: Surprisingly, so has Chevy, to a point. I test drove a Volt just for funsies, it's not a bad car.

Thing is, I can buy a "not a bad car" for half the price, even after the government rebates.

Flat screen TVs, even small ones, were thousands of dollars when they first came out.


And thank goodness THAT particular expensive failed boondoggle of a product never caught on.
 
2012-05-10 10:39:31 AM

Jackson Herring: And thank goodness THAT particular expensive failed boondoggle of a product never caught on.


Boondoggle keychains, however, are this season's fashion accessory of choice.
 
2012-05-10 10:48:06 AM

theorellior: Shaggy_C: I like some American products. Food, consumer goods, clothes, even electronics. But as far as cars go, American car companies went into the shiatter in the late 1970s and never came back. There's just a lot of institutionalized backwards thinking in the industry, looking back to the glory days of the 1950s and 1960s. They're completely fearful of innovation now.

That, and Americans are fat, lazy people who need big huge cars with gadgets and lots of plastic to protect the interiors from their greasy fast food that they buy through drive thrus. I feel bad for the marketing and design people at a company like Ford. Your target market is a disgusting creature with few redeeming qualities; you can't really market anything nice to them because they won't appreciate it.

Not gonna dispute anything about the state of the industry up until maybe 1997. Things started shifting then, albeit slowly. But Ford has really turned things around in the last 5 years. Surprisingly, so has Chevy, to a point. I test drove a Volt just for funsies, it's not a bad car. And Ford's design aesthetic is much much better.


The American auto industry is good at making adequate cars by committee. They don't make great cars. A great American car would be an affordable version of a BMW 3, 5 or 7 series sedan with wagon option, that doesn't have a high cost of ownership, and has a proper horsepower/displacement ratio. A great American auto industry would have lots of wagons, not crossovers, that perfectly suit the needs of American families, and have none of the size creep and bloat. Pickup trucks would be bare bones and relegated to mostly fleet and commercial sales, not be overloaded, road-hogging grocery getters with Browning logo stickers on the back window.

American car consumers are indeed, by and large, farking morons who think they need something as huge as a Ram 1500 or Chevy Tahoe, when they only want that because it's what we've all convinced each other a "real car" looks like for 50 years. Our car interiors are all plastic because we think that's what having a practical interior is supposed to be.

Ford did a lot of things right to save its business, but one thing you'll notice is their best-reviewed models today are all European. I'm not saying that's good or bad. What I mean is Ford knew that its American division wasn't capable of keeping its business alive.
 
2012-05-10 10:59:53 AM

theknuckler_33: EnviroDude: Watching the leftists here attack FORD and defend the bailouts as successful is funny.

/
If you are a taxpayer, you were screwed by Obama because the reason we bailed out the companies was because they were "too big to fail". It is obvious that Obama didn't do well in economics because to define bankruptcy as success is idiocy.

The US could have done nothing and let market forces take over GM and Chrysler without having to put the taxpayers on the rack to pay for the union bailouts.

Not a single thing you wrote is true.


At least he's consistent.
 
Displayed 50 of 75 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report