Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

1863 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 11:11:47 AM  
I wonder how things would have been different in 2008 if Carter had let Chrysler go bankrupt in 1980.

/Yes, I know Chrysler paid back the loan, but maybe the Big 2 automakers would have been more profitable than the Big 3, especially in the face of Japanese competition.
 
2012-05-10 11:14:14 AM  

quatchi: 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.


some parts suppliers probably would have gone under or downsized production. Ford isn't exactly a small operation, however. I'd imagine some parts suppliers would have remained in business by supplying them with parts. It's like saying semiconductor companies would go out of business if Dell and HP failed. Many would. Pretty sure there'd be some still making chips though.
 
2012-05-10 11:16:18 AM  
Ford lobbied hard for the bailouts because they knew the North American suppliers would be out of business in a day without GM and Chrysler getting bailed out, which would cause Ford to go bankrupt as well.

Stop fighting facts, conservatives. Nobody believes you outside of your little cocoon no matter how many times you insist success was failure. The auto bailouts were a smashing success and your intransigence on the issue has lost you the state of Michigan for the next 20 years at least.
 
2012-05-10 11:22:22 AM  

skullkrusher: quatchi: 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.

some parts suppliers probably would have gone under or downsized production. Ford isn't exactly a small operation, however. I'd imagine some parts suppliers would have remained in business by supplying them with parts. It's like saying semiconductor companies would go out of business if Dell and HP failed. Many would. Pretty sure there'd be some still making chips though.


Early 2009 in the Alternate Universe without the bailouts...

"Mr. Skullkrusher I'm sure you and the Mrs. are going to love your new Ford Taurus. Now you may have heard that some of our suppliers went bankrupt in the recent unpleasantness. I want to assure you that we were still able to get 95% of the parts required for your car. Many of the parts we weren't able to get were the annoying ones like brake pads that need maintenance, so not having them is really a bonus, if you think about it. Now let me show you how to hotwire the car since we don't have a couple of parts in the ignition system....."
 
2012-05-10 11:29:37 AM  

EyeballKid: Oh, wait.....

It's a NewsBusters link.


NewsBusters is about the worst out there. I think only eclipsed by American Stinker.
 
2012-05-10 11:34:13 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: quatchi: 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.

some parts suppliers probably would have gone under or downsized production. Ford isn't exactly a small operation, however. I'd imagine some parts suppliers would have remained in business by supplying them with parts. It's like saying semiconductor companies would go out of business if Dell and HP failed. Many would. Pretty sure there'd be some still making chips though.

Early 2009 in the Alternate Universe without the bailouts...

"Mr. Skullkrusher I'm sure you and the Mrs. are going to love your new Ford Taurus. Now you may have heard that some of our suppliers went bankrupt in the recent unpleasantness. I want to assure you that we were still able to get 95% of the parts required for your car. Many of the parts we weren't able to get were the annoying ones like brake pads that need maintenance, so not having them is really a bonus, if you think about it. Now let me show you how to hotwire the car since we don't have a couple of parts in the ignition system....."


C-
 
2012-05-10 11:54:19 AM  

Lucky LaRue: 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.


I'm pretty sure you don't know what industry-wide means.
 
2012-05-10 11:55:15 AM  
So, since Ford succeeded without a bailout, we should have let GM and Chrysler go out of business and take our economy with them?

BRILLIANT!

/just more of the childish rationale we've come to expect from the t-derpers
 
2012-05-10 11:56:23 AM  
Ford recieved $15.9 billion from the Federal Reserve during the crisis

Link
 
2012-05-10 12:10:45 PM  

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.


Not to mention cash for clunkers boosting their sales dramatically.
 
2012-05-10 12:25:06 PM  

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.


rlv.zcache.com
 
2012-05-10 12:34:22 PM  

PanicMan: Would you buy a car from a company that was going through bankruptcy without government protection? I know I wouldn't.


I didn't at the time. But I bought Ford stock @ $1.89. I have a 2013 Shelby GT50 on order right now thanks to that move.
 
2012-05-10 12:48:19 PM  

Outtaphase: PanicMan: Would you buy a car from a company that was going through bankruptcy without government protection? I know I wouldn't.

I didn't at the time. But I bought Ford stock @ $1.89. I have a 2013 Shelby GT50 on order right now thanks to that move.


Hahahahaha goddamnitsomuch I bought GM. Hate you! Just kidding.

I owned a mid-80's Ford which was so awful they were off my list ever since. But that was ... 30 years ago? Time to forgive and at least reconsider.
 
2012-05-10 12:52:24 PM  

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.



Dunno how you're going to do that.

(it's turbocharged, not supercharged)
 
2012-05-10 12:54:06 PM  

Outtaphase: I have a 2013 Shelby GT50 on order right now thanks to that move.


Does that have that supercharged three cylinder?
 
2012-05-10 01:00:33 PM  

StopLurkListen: Hahahahaha goddamnitsomuch I bought GM. Hate you! Just kidding.


I also bought GM at ~ 0.79, but bailed out at 3.something. My philosophy at the time was that I only needed one of them (along w/ GE and some banks) to survive to make a profit.

Roy_G_Biv: Outtaphase: I have a 2013 Shelby GT50 on order right now thanks to that move.

Does that have that supercharged three cylinder?


Dammit, I knew I should have been suspicious when the brochure talked about hamster food under fuel type!
 
2012-05-10 01:19:37 PM  

Outtaphase: StopLurkListen: Hahahahaha goddamnitsomuch I bought GM. Hate you! Just kidding.

I also bought GM at ~ 0.79, but bailed out at 3.something. My philosophy at the time was that I only needed one of them (along w/ GE and some banks) to survive to make a profit.

Roy_G_Biv: Outtaphase: I have a 2013 Shelby GT50 on order right now thanks to that move.

Does that have that supercharged three cylinder?

Dammit, I knew I should have been suspicious when the brochure talked about hamster food under fuel type!


So it's a hybrid, which means preferred parking or carpool lane? Sweet!

Seriously though, congrats on the purchase. WANT!

But Ford should have renamed it the GT650, if you ask me.
 
2012-05-10 01:28:27 PM  
It's the Union's fault!
 
2012-05-10 01:49:18 PM  

CPennypacker: Who attacked ford?


Squeaky Fromme.
 
2012-05-10 03:22:23 PM  

Fluxinator: act: Ford didn't take a bailout.
Fact: Chris Matthews said they did.

Yet... people are somehow disputing the above. Seriously guys?


This. Newsbusters can suck my ass, but that point was valid.

Chris Mathews was blatantly and inexusably factually incorrect, and no one there corrected him.

That being said, This shouldn't be shocking to anyone who has any familiarity with broadcast news.
 
2012-05-10 03:25:04 PM  

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.


Which is 100% true, Delphi, Delco, Johnson Controls, and half a dozen others were goners if GM and Chrysler went down and that would have left for in an impossible position, and unable to keep making cars
 
2012-05-10 07:22:07 PM  

CPennypacker: 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?


Well, he FEELS like libs, libs, LIBS! attacked Ford. And, really, aren't his feelings more important than reality. To him.
 
2012-05-10 07:25:37 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Fluxinator: act: Ford didn't take a bailout.
Fact: Chris Matthews said they did.

Yet... people are somehow disputing the above. Seriously guys?

This. Newsbusters can suck my ass, but that point was valid.

Chris Mathews was blatantly and inexusably factually incorrect, and no one there corrected him.

That being said, This shouldn't be shocking to anyone who has any familiarity with broadcast news.


Are you sure it was a BLATANT lie? Or, you know, really a lie at all?

Sure, Mathews is a dick. No question there. But that sure looks like a bailout to me.
 
2012-05-10 09:39:07 PM  

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.


Idiocy is it, my fine feathered friend?

If GM and Chrysler had gone out of business (and no matter what you allege there was a very real possibility of that happening) what do you think would have been the result?

All of their suppliers would have followed them down the sink hole. Ford depends on those suppliers so Ford would also be gone. I'm not sure which of the Japanese automakers make cars in the US (Honda and Toyota perhaps) but they would also rely on those suppliers so their US operations would be gone.

So what have we after that? How many extra people are on the unemployment line competing for the limited supply of jobs - and no longer contributing to the income tax receipts?

And those jobs would be gone forever. All cars purchased in the US after that would be imports.

So unemployment higher, tax receipts lower and welfare dependency higher = a higher budget deficit and deeper recession.

And for what reason? Simply to pursue some ludicrous idealogical pissing match? Or is it that the worse the recession is allowed to become the more likely Obama is to lose the next election? The first option is idiocy - all ideologues are idiots whi can't think fir themselves. The second option is treason.

And now for the icing on the cake. You claim the taxpayer is screwed by Obama's auto bailouts. But it was Bush not Obama who initiated the bailouts. And furthermore he has recently said he would do the same again.

Idiocy indeed. You may want to learn some critical thinking skills and do some fact checking before calling people idiots.
 
2012-05-11 04:00:24 PM  

DeaH: Are you sure it was a BLATANT lie? Or, you know, really a lie at all?


I think it's worth acknowledging that anyone who says Ford got NO assistance from the Fed is wrong.

But it is still factually innacurate to say that Ford took part in the Auto Bailout.

1) Ford Auto =/= Ford's Credit arm.

2) Selling the government your assets is certainly beneficial, but is not a "bail-out" in the same sense that loaning massive federal funds is. And this is clearly a different size, scope, and situation than the "bail-out" that the other American Automakers took.

3) "Ford spokeswoman Christin Baker said the two programs "addressed systemic failure in the credit markets, and that neither program was designed for a particular company, or even a particular industry." Ford Credit has disclosed through SEC filings and conference calls with media and investors that it was taking part in both programs.

So it's still a blatant lie to convey to the American public that Ford took the same assitance as the others.
 
Displayed 25 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 »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report