EyeballKid: Oh, wait.....

It's a NewsBusters link.

NewsBusters is about the worst out there. I think only eclipsed by American Stinker.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.