• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Harry Reid: Auto Bailout Probably Saved Ford

apparently either you didnt read, or didnt understand the post.....if you take away a sizable chunk of business from the suppliers, many would go out of business....nowhere did i say anything about gm parts being used in fords, or vice versa.


Ahhhh, so these parts manufactures make parts for both? I see, so what would stop them from continuing to make parts for Ford? Sure they'd have to downsize until another company took over say a GM, but they could make it.


j-mac
 
Ahhhh, so these parts manufactures make parts for both? I see, so what would stop them from continuing to make parts for Ford? Sure they'd have to downsize until another company took over say a GM, but they could make it.


j-mac

Volume. Would likely cost Ford more. Would reduce work force for those making the products.
 
The premise of this "Ford benefited" is that the part suppliers create parts for all three companies, and if Chevy and GM went under these companies would have been unable to readjust to just supplying for Ford and thus without the wisdom of Obama Ford would have been left with no parts for it's CARS!

Which is patently absurd to say the very least.

Close. Has nothing to do with the wisdom of Obama. Ford made the case, and not Obama.
 
Let's see, you throw out there that Ford benefits indirectly from the other two getting the bailouts, you supply no proof of this, you then instead of backing up that ridiculous claim, continue to tout it as a fact merely because you uttered it, and viola! It's a fact?!!! I think not, what is a fact though is your utter misunderstanding of free markets, and capitalism.


j-mac

Actually, somewhere I did throw evidence out there. Use the nortorious WSJ. But if you like, you can google it yourself. Ford made the case.

j, I always try to support my claim, but I don't think I need to put the link in every post. Do you think I need to?
 
Volume. Would likely cost Ford more. Would reduce work force for those making the products.


Yep, probably would in the short run. But GM and Chrysler would have restructured, not disappeared, so your argument has a false premise to begin with.


j-mac
 
Actually, somewhere I did throw evidence out there. Use the nortorious WSJ. But if you like, you can google it yourself. Ford made the case.

j, I always try to support my claim, but I don't think I need to put the link in every post. Do you think I need to?


Yep, I do. See, I am on the road and when I come back there are usually pages, and pages of argument concerning the subject. So, when you make an argument over, you need to cite so that people can see your proof. Otherwise anyone can say anything, doesn't make it true.

j-mac
 
Yep, I do. See, I am on the road and when I come back there are usually pages, and pages of argument concerning the subject. So, when you make an argument over, you need to cite so that people can see your proof. Otherwise anyone can say anything, doesn't make it true.

j-mac

Well, i don't. I think I need to post it once. But it is an easy search.


Ford Will Likely Benefit From Bailout - WSJ.com
 
Yep, probably would in the short run. But GM and Chrysler would have restructured, not disappeared, so your argument has a false premise to begin with.


j-mac

No, not really. The pain would have been real, and better Ford in both the short and long term.
 
Back
Top Bottom