• 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

Benefited in the short-term - yes.
But did they learn something? Highly unlikely.

Did anyone learn anything? Highly unlikely.

The only way to *truly* call it a benefit is if it forces them or others to change their failed business setup, plans and so forth.

Will ANY auto company fix their selves? Absolutely not - there's no reason to. They've been screwing people for years and loving it. . . and getting away with it.
 
Benefited in the short-term - yes.
But did they learn something? Highly unlikely.

Did anyone learn anything? Highly unlikely.

The only way to *truly* call it a benefit is if it forces them or others to change their failed business setup, plans and so forth.

Will ANY auto company fix their selves? Absolutely not - there's no reason to. They've been screwing people for years and loving it. . . and getting away with it.

True. Again, bailing them out isn't new. It's been done before. And it will likely be done again.
 
True. Again, bailing them out isn't new. It's been done before. And it will likely be done again.

Absolutely - sadly so.

They never seem to learn a lesson and it seems that the only reason why they're continually given a slap on the wrist with a handfull of G's is because they employ a lot of people.

(They as in *all of them* - not just Ford)

Hmm - since we bail them out so routinely you'd think that we'd have more of a say in what they do and how they do it - they take our money in more ways than one but our opinions?
 
Absolutely - sadly so.

They never seem to learn a lesson and it seems that the only reason why they're continually given a slap on the wrist with a handfull of G's is because they employ a lot of people.

(They as in *all of them* - not just Ford)

Hmm - since we bail them out so routinely you'd think that we'd have more of a say in what they do and how they do it - they take our money in more ways than one but our opinions?

Can't have a government take over, don't ya know. Free market. just give them the money.


Sad.
 
Benefit is benefit. No way around it. It would have hurt Ford if the others had folded. Now, you can be silly about it, pretend if you want, but the facts are the facts. Nothing more. nothing less.

No, it wouldn't have hurt Ford... they'd be the "Last American Motor Company" standing and played off it.

Your logic is faulty. Let's say three people on my street used a "Gov't Loan" to keep their house instead of defaulting. Does that mean "I" benefited from the Gov't bailout too?
 
Can't have a government take over, don't ya know. Free market. just give them the money.


Sad.

But I can write a mean letter!

And let it get thrown away with the rest of them. :rofl
 
No, it wouldn't have hurt Ford... they'd be the "Last American Motor Company" standing and played off it.

Your logic is faulty. Let's say three people on my street used a "Gov't Loan" to keep their house instead of defaulting. Does that mean "I" benefited from the Gov't bailout too?

What they meant was that if GM and Chrysler closed some suppliers that supply all three would have to close the doors and Ford would have lost that line of supply some indirectly they did benefit but that was not their fault. They didn't take money and they sold their cars so they are still around.

Why would anybody attack Ford for something that was out of their control?

If three houses were forclosed on and the fourth wasn't then somebody bought the first three to save the property values, you could say the fourth benmefited from the purchase of the three houses but they had nothing to do with the transaction, so why attack them?

It seems nowadays it is OK to attack big business with or without cause. They are all evil.
 
What they meant was that if GM and Chrysler closed some suppliers that supply all three would have to close the doors and Ford would have lost that line of supply some indirectly they did benefit but that was not their fault. They didn't take money and they sold their cars so they are still around.

Why would anybody attack Ford for something that was out of their control?

If three houses were forclosed on and the fourth wasn't then somebody bought the first three to save the property values, you could say the fourth benmefited from the purchase of the three houses but they had nothing to do with the transaction, so why attack them?

It seems nowadays it is OK to attack big business with or without cause. They are all evil.

I'm not attacking Ford, I'm attacking this lame defense of Harry Reid's commentary that the Bailout probably saved Ford. Boo's logic is weak.
 
I'm not attacking Ford, I'm attacking this lame defense of Harry Reid's commentary that the Bailout probably saved Ford. Boo's logic is weak.

It's just a fact; not a defense.
 
Defending Reid had NOTHING to do with your "fact" did it... nah.

Talking points, so transparent.

No, I could care less about Reid. The fact however is a fact. Nothing more; nothing less.
 
Doesn't matter if you do or not. The fact is still a fact. ;)


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
 
I'm not attacking Ford, I'm attacking this lame defense of Harry Reid's commentary that the Bailout probably saved Ford. Boo's logic is weak.

mason is right....ford did indirectly benefit from the bailout of the other two, because the bailout helped to keep the existing supply chain intact...if the other 2 went under, they would have taken quite a few suppliers with them, suppliers whom supplied all 3, ford, gm, chrysler. if those suppliers went under, where does ford get its parts? if ford can't get parts, ford can't make cars, if ford can't make cars, for can't sell cars, if ford can't sell cars, ford closes up shop.
 
mason is right....ford did indirectly benefit from the bailout of the other two, because the bailout helped to keep the existing supply chain intact...if the other 2 went under, they would have taken quite a few suppliers with them, suppliers whom supplied all 3, ford, gm, chrysler. if those suppliers went under, where does ford get its parts? if ford can't get parts, ford can't make cars, if ford can't make cars, for can't sell cars, if ford can't sell cars, ford closes up shop.

Ford had a demand for parts.

Do you people REALLY believe that the suppliers, seeking to keep making money, wouldn't restructure for Ford? The fallacy of the argument is that there is a limited resource (parts suppliers) that was too big to fail.

Business, like Nature, abhors a vacuum.
 
SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV): "Isn't it a good thing today in America that we have an automobile manufacturing sector? If it had been up to them [Republicans], General Motors would be gone. If it were up to them, Ford Motor Company would probably be gone. Chrysler definitely would be gone."

RealClearPolitics - Video - Harry Reid: Auto Bailout Probably Saved Ford


I swear, you can't make this **** up.....:lamo What a buffoon!


j-mac
I hope he starts explaining ObiKare... that oughta be fun.

PeteEU:
Generalizing about age is pretty useless, though I wouldn't mind seeing the voting age be as high as the drinking age (21), with the only way you could vote before is if you served in a branch of the military or intel services before that time.

.
 
Ford had a demand for parts.

Do you people REALLY believe that the suppliers, seeking to keep making money, wouldn't restructure for Ford? The fallacy of the argument is that there is a limited resource (parts suppliers) that was too big to fail.

Business, like Nature, abhors a vacuum.
i'm afraid you don't understand, its not as simple as a 'restructuring'...i work for a part supplier, and we typically bid outwards of up to 3yrs on jobs, and spend several months working the 'bugs' out of the process to make good parts before a new part for us goes into full production....sample parts are produced, sent back to the customer for approval, several test runs are done to make sure we are producing a 'consistent' parts....alot of time is put into setting up the jobs to run good parts, and is not something as simple as throwing the tooling in and saying 'GO!!!'.

Also part suppliers are different in what they make/produce....they are not 'cookiecutter'
 
i'm afraid you don't understand, its not as simple as a 'restructuring'...i work for a part supplier, and we typically bid outwards of up to 3yrs on jobs, and spend several months working the 'bugs' out of the process to make good parts before a new part for us goes into full production....sample parts are produced, sent back to the customer for approval, several test runs are done to make sure we are producing a 'consistent' parts....alot of time is put into setting up the jobs to run good parts, and is not something as simple as throwing the tooling in and saying 'GO!!!'.

Also part suppliers are different in what they make/produce....they are not 'cookiecutter'


And I'm telling YOU that parts suppliers would have adjusted. Would it have been a flawless transition? No, but it's like the Part Supply flow would have ended with the demise of Chevy and GM. New companies would have cropped up, old ones would adjust. You act as if the situation is completely inflexible, unable to adjust to change.
 
i'm afraid you don't understand, its not as simple as a 'restructuring'...i work for a part supplier, and we typically bid outwards of up to 3yrs on jobs, and spend several months working the 'bugs' out of the process to make good parts before a new part for us goes into full production....sample parts are produced, sent back to the customer for approval, several test runs are done to make sure we are producing a 'consistent' parts....alot of time is put into setting up the jobs to run good parts, and is not something as simple as throwing the tooling in and saying 'GO!!!'.

Also part suppliers are different in what they make/produce....they are not 'cookiecutter'


Can you give us a few examples of parts that are made for all three that would have gone out of business as a result of GM and Chrysler going under, and include how the hell a GM part is used in a Ford?


j-mac
 
Can you give us a few examples of parts that are made for all three that would have gone out of business as a result of GM and Chrysler going under, and include how the hell a GM part is used in a Ford?


j-mac
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.
 
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.


You're right...Wouldn't a bankruptcy only have been a restructure for these companies first off? And even if they did disappear, doesn't this country have a history of some other company filling the void?

To try and say that Ford who did things honorably would suffer if the others went under is indeed absurd.


j-mac
 
And I'm telling YOU that parts suppliers would have adjusted. Would it have been a flawless transition? No, but it's like the Part Supply flow would have ended with the demise of Chevy and GM. New companies would have cropped up, old ones would adjust. You act as if the situation is completely inflexible, unable to adjust to change.
when the majority of these part suppliers provide parts to all 3, taking away the business that gm, chrysler supplied, would have crippled these suppliers, forcing many to shut their doors. these suppliers close, and ford isnt getting any parts either. even if a handful survived, plant capacity would likely become an issue, as you can only produce so many parts, so fast.
 
Can you give us a few examples of parts that are made for all three that would have gone out of business as a result of GM and Chrysler going under, and include how the hell a GM part is used in a Ford?


j-mac

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom