• 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

Yes, more than unions would have been effected by their collapse, but that is the same of any business, and no reason for the government to save them.



This is a truly sad statement.

In the democrats and Obama's eyes the unions must be saved they are important in democrat elections
 
Ford and Japanese automakers would probably take over the business that GM and Chrysler would lose them.

Over the long run absolutely. But that takes time. Time to build new plants. Time to line up new suppliers (especially in the case of the Japanese manufacturers considering how they operate). Time to hire new workers. In the mean time, the supply chain would have effectively died off with too little demand coming from just Ford. Lord Tammerlain is 100% correct on this and ptif219 has utterly failed to grasp the concept of. The immediate effets of GM and Chrysler going down would be immense and not easily recoverable from.

That said, GM is still fracked up and Chrysler even more so. GM should spin off its North American branch and focus on where it makes money: every where else.
 
i would disagree....they would have let them fail if anything to cripple the unions
If they would have let them fail it woud have been because, long term, it is better for these probelems to fix themselves than to have the government do it.

The unions are doing more than enough to kill themselves; they do not ned any help from the GOP.
 
Yes, more than unions would have been effected by their collapse, but that is the same of any business, and no reason for the government to save them.



This is a truly sad statement.

Maybe not but the more effected, the less likely the government will allow it to fall and the more likely people will vote them out of office if they do. Our system has its draw backs this way.
 
correction. Certain republicans would have done them, yes McCain so you are right there. but nah, if they cant hang they should fold

Enough would have that it would have been done. It doesn't matter if they should of or not, the fact is history shows us they would have bailed them out. Remember, this isn't the first bailout.
 
You use a 2008 article that it could help? Is that because there is no proof it helped.

Ford did not take the bailout because they did not want government control over their business.

Ford did what it had to do and GM could have done the same.

No, it is because this is why Ford was arguing for the aid and why. The proof it did help was that those concerns did not materialize because of the bailout. All you have to do is look at the concerns and see if those were prevented. Not rocket science.
 
Enough would have that it would have been done. It doesn't matter if they should of or not, the fact is history shows us they would have bailed them out. Remember, this isn't the first bailout.




Is there a point to this red herring?
 
Is there a point to this red herring?

Yes, being angery at democrats for doing what all politiicans and parties would have done seems pointless. Until you understand the problem, and the consequences to our leaders if they don't do the bailout, your anger is misdirected and ultmiately fruitless. What they face for giving the bailout is nothing compared to what they would have faced if they hadn't.

BTW, you might want to investigate what a red herring actually is. Just saying you have it wrong.
 
Enough would have that it would have been done. It doesn't matter if they should of or not, the fact is history shows us they would have bailed them out. Remember, this isn't the first bailout.


Fallacy: Red Herring


:shrug:


We are talking about harry ried and his gaffe, your talking about McCain and republicans as usual.
 
Fallacy: Red Herring


:shrug:


We are talking about harry ried and his gaffe, your talking about McCain and republicans as usual.

His gaft is meaningless. But I was actually speaking to someone else about something specific. You entered the discussion. Discussions often move from the meaningless to something deeper and vice versa. You always have a choice to participate or ignore. But, it is not a red herring. Go back and try to follow the discussion you entered into. ;)
 
His gaft is meaningless. But I was actually speaking to someone else about something specific. You entered the discussion. Discussions often move from the meaningless to something deeper and vice versa. You always have a choice to participate or ignore. But, it is not a red herring. Go back and try to follow the discussion you entered into. ;)




Uhm I started the thread, you entered my discussion with a red herring regarding republicans. please go back and try to not fail so hard.



:failpail:

You're gonna need a bigger bucket.
 
Uhm I started the thread, you entered my discussion with a red herring regarding republicans. please go back and try to not fail so hard.



:failpail:

You're gonna need a bigger bucket.

You don't control the discussion. Nor was I talking to you. You entered into another sub discussion. Gafts are uninteresting and unimportant. Others started talking about the bailouts, a better discussion IMHO.
 
You don't control the discussion. Nor was I talking to you. You entered into another sub discussion. Gafts are uninteresting and unimportant. Others started talking about the bailouts, a better discussion IMHO.


That is as usual a retarded response boo, you responded in post #2 to my post #1, who the hell did you think you were talking to chuckles?


Are admitting to hijacking my thread?


Perhaps if you want to whine about republicans you go get yer own thread.


fixed.jpg


I disagree "Gafts" are interesting and important. :doh
 
That is as usual a retarded response boo, you responded in post #2 to my post #1, who the hell did you think you were talking to chuckles?


Are admitting to hijacking my thread?


Perhaps if you want to whine about republicans you go get yer own thread.


fixed.jpg


I disagree "Gafts" are interesting and important. :doh

That's true.

However, I was having a nice discussion with others. Gafts and gottcha politics don't do much for me. I prefer substance. Sue me. ;)
 
Over the long run absolutely. But that takes time. Time to build new plants. Time to line up new suppliers (especially in the case of the Japanese manufacturers considering how they operate). Time to hire new workers. In the mean time, the supply chain would have effectively died off with too little demand coming from just Ford. Lord Tammerlain is 100% correct on this and ptif219 has utterly failed to grasp the concept of. The immediate effets of GM and Chrysler going down would be immense and not easily recoverable from.

That said, GM is still fracked up and Chrysler even more so. GM should spin off its North American branch and focus on where it makes money: every where else.

Most of the supply chain would die off, but Ford and Japan's business isn't going away. This also doesn't take into account that the remains of GM and Chrysler would also go somewhere. The demand for cars is still there, and others would fill the gap.
 
Most of the supply chain would die off, but Ford and Japan's business isn't going away. This also doesn't take into account that the remains of GM and Chrysler would also go somewhere. The demand for cars is still there, and others would fill the gap.

The supply chain is the issue


Ford uses many of the same suppliers as GM and Chrysler. A bankrupt GM unable to buy new parts and pay for ones already delievered means those suppliers go broke. That means Ford does not get any parts to manufacture its cars for a few months
 
The supply chain is the issue


Ford uses many of the same suppliers as GM and Chrysler. A bankrupt GM unable to buy new parts and pay for ones already delievered means those suppliers go broke. That means Ford does not get any parts to manufacture its cars for a few months

It does not mean that they go broke. It means that they have to downsize.
 
Back
Top Bottom