No Bailouts, Just Profits For Ford
In what seems a stinging rebuke to the federal policies of bailing out auto companies enacted by President Barack Obama last year, Ford Motor Company announced today that they managed to make a $2.7 billion profit in 2009.
Undoubtedly, the Cash For Clunkers program is going to get credit for Ford’s success – but the automaker posted profits in three of four quarters last year.
The 86 cent-a-share profit blew away predictions of a 31 cent loss for the year by Wall Street experts.
If Ford had lost money, you'd call it a stinging rebuke to Obama. But it made money, so it's, ummmm, a stinging rebuke to Obama. Warped, man.
If Ford had lost money, you'd call it a stinging rebuke to Obama. But it made money, so it's, ummmm, a stinging rebuke to Obama. Warped, man.
That's an uncommonly stupid comment, but I'll be charitable and explain.
It was Obama who directed TARP funds toward bailouts of GM and Chrysler, and rather than going to Washington with their hands out Ford cut expenses, tightened their ship and did what it took to become profitable LIKE A BUSINESS IS SUPPOSED TO. That it worked is a stinging rebuke to the president's failed policy of auto bailouts.
In a true free market unfettered by government meddling, Ford would have been rewarded with an even larger market share and substantially improved profits from the number they just posted because GM and Chrysler would have had to exit the field through liquidation or diminished operations – and an increased opportunity would exist for new automakers with better ideas to enter the market and compete for available share.
Now that I've explained this to you, you're welcome to do us the courtesy of explaining how it could have been a refutation of Obama's policies had Ford lost $2.7 billion last year…
The auto bailout was a Bush-initiated program.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16740.h…
That's an uncommonly stupid comment, but I'll be charitable and explain.
It was Obama who directed TARP funds toward bailouts of GM and Chrysler, and rather than going to Washington with their hands out Ford cut expenses, tightened their ship and did what it took to become profitable LIKE A BUSINESS IS SUPPOSED TO. That it worked is a stinging rebuke to the president's failed policy of auto bailouts.
In a true free market unfettered by government meddling, Ford would have been rewarded with an even larger market share and substantially improved profits from the number they just posted because GM and Chrysler would have had to exit the field through liquidation or diminished operations – and an increased opportunity would exist for new automakers with better ideas to enter the market and compete for available share.
Now that I've explained this to you, you're welcome to do us the courtesy of explaining how it could have been a refutation of Obama's policies had Ford lost $2.7 billion last year…
The auto bailout was a Bush-initiated program.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16740.h…
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12261627806531122…
You still never answered the question of how it could have been a refutation of Obama's policies for Ford to lose money in 2009. We're all anxiously awaiting that one.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12261627806531122…
You still never answered the question of how it could have been a refutation of Obama's policies for Ford to lose money in 2009. We're all anxiously awaiting that one.
"If Ford had lost money, you'd call it a stinging rebuke to Obama."
I didn't say the loss would have been a refutation. I said YOU would have called it that, because either way, make money or lose money, you'd have fashioned a reason to blame it on Obama. You know this to be true.
"If Ford had lost money, you'd call it a stinging rebuke to Obama."
I didn't say the loss would have been a refutation. I said YOU would have called it that, because either way, make money or lose money, you'd have fashioned a reason to blame it on Obama. You know this to be true.
I know no such thing, and find that assertion patently ridiculous. Which is why I challenge you to concoct a justification for why it could be made.
You're wrong on the facts, you're wrong on the theory and you're about what you think you know. Other than that, you're doing swell.
I know no such thing, and find that assertion patently ridiculous. Which is why I challenge you to concoct a justification for why it could be made.
You're wrong on the facts, you're wrong on the theory and you're about what you think you know. Other than that, you're doing swell.
It's ridiculous to say a conservative would blame Obama? Bad economy, therefore bad auto sales, therefore Obama's fault? Face it, you would have said that. You can act like it's beyond your comprehension, but it's just bad acting.
That is idiotic.
If you wanted to make a legitimate criticism, you could have said "You're only posting this because it makes Obama look bad," and challenged me to post something Obama has done that I actually agree with. That, I would have respected.
Instead, you came in with a comment that was pure swill and belied a total arrogance and condescension that you are still full of – and continued the tired old meme that "it's all Bush's fault" by attempting to pin the TARP auto bailouts on the former president when what he's guilty of is acceding to the will of Obama and his minions on Capitol Hill.
And even had your attempt to pin things on Bush been legitimate, you are greatly mistaken if you think this site has any interest in going to the mat on his behalf with respect to TARP or any other bailouts/stimulus packages/government meddling in the private economy. One reason W's final approval ratings were so low is that constitutional conservatives despised his betrayal of the free market and rightly abandoned him as a result.
Well, let's see. I've shown you a straightforward argument, which you asked for, to show how it's "Obama's fault" anyway if Ford LOSES money. I've shown you how Bush started the auto bailout. I'm not blaming anyone here for the industry's economic problems which have been generations in the making, just showing Bush's statement that he desired to protect the auto industry. And in response, you throw around — at me– offensive words like "stupid," "arrogant," "condescending," and "idiotic." I stand by my opinion that, had Ford Motors failed to make a profit, and had you taken an interest in that statistic and written about it, you would have blamed it on Obama's policies, rampant socialism, etc. In your heart, you know I'm right.
Once again you show your arrogance by professing to know my heart, and you do this after a trainload of non-sequiturs and disingenuous statements. Sorry. Not gonna cut it.
It's ridiculous to say a conservative would blame Obama? Bad economy, therefore bad auto sales, therefore Obama's fault? Face it, you would have said that. You can act like it's beyond your comprehension, but it's just bad acting.
That is idiotic.
If you wanted to make a legitimate criticism, you could have said "You're only posting this because it makes Obama look bad," and challenged me to post something Obama has done that I actually agree with. That, I would have respected.
Instead, you came in with a comment that was pure swill and belied a total arrogance and condescension that you are still full of – and continued the tired old meme that "it's all Bush's fault" by attempting to pin the TARP auto bailouts on the former president when what he's guilty of is acceding to the will of Obama and his minions on Capitol Hill.
And even had your attempt to pin things on Bush been legitimate, you are greatly mistaken if you think this site has any interest in going to the mat on his behalf with respect to TARP or any other bailouts/stimulus packages/government meddling in the private economy. One reason W's final approval ratings were so low is that constitutional conservatives despised his betrayal of the free market and rightly abandoned him as a result.
Well, let's see. I've shown you a straightforward argument, which you asked for, to show how it's "Obama's fault" anyway if Ford LOSES money. I've shown you how Bush started the auto bailout. I'm not blaming anyone here for the industry's economic problems which have been generations in the making, just showing Bush's statement that he desired to protect the auto industry. And in response, you throw around — at me– offensive words like "stupid," "arrogant," "condescending," and "idiotic." I stand by my opinion that, had Ford Motors failed to make a profit, and had you taken an interest in that statistic and written about it, you would have blamed it on Obama's policies, rampant socialism, etc. In your heart, you know I'm right.
Once again you show your arrogance by professing to know my heart, and you do this after a trainload of non-sequiturs and disingenuous statements. Sorry. Not gonna cut it.
"In your heart, you know I'm right" is a paraphrase of a famous political slogan penned by Karl Hess for Barry Goldwater. I'm sorry Barry's slogan offended your sensitive soul. Well, that is, we have to presume from your writings that you don't like the slogan. You might have just said that. But it could be your heart is elsewhere, waiting at the quick to act offended at anyone expressing a differing opinion.
"In your heart, you know I'm right" is a paraphrase of a famous political slogan penned by Karl Hess for Barry Goldwater. I'm sorry Barry's slogan offended your sensitive soul. Well, that is, we have to presume from your writings that you don't like the slogan. You might have just said that. But it could be your heart is elsewhere, waiting at the quick to act offended at anyone expressing a differing opinion.
How in the world is this a rebuke of Obama's auto policy? If he had done nothing with GM as we on the right wanted, GM and all of its jobs would be gone. It isn't like the government took-over GM, they kept it going. There was no strong arm tactics. Without federal intervention it would be gone. As a party Republicans backed the Chrysler bail out and in fact engineered TARP, a much more odious program (and more socialist as well). The Obama administration did the right thing by leaving Ford alone and simply making aid available, if needed and if asked for. That policy obviously worked, the unions didn't kill Ford, and cash-for-clunkers was a HUGE success. As an American, I want good effective policies. When I see blogs like this from either party, attacking successful policy, I know that particular blogger is more interested in Party success rather than American success. Take off the party blinders!
How in the world is this a rebuke of Obama's auto policy? If he had done nothing with GM as we on the right wanted, GM and all of its jobs would be gone. It isn't like the government took-over GM, they kept it going. There was no strong arm tactics. Without federal intervention it would be gone. As a party Republicans backed the Chrysler bail out and in fact engineered TARP, a much more odious program (and more socialist as well). The Obama administration did the right thing by leaving Ford alone and simply making aid available, if needed and if asked for. That policy obviously worked, the unions didn't kill Ford, and cash-for-clunkers was a HUGE success. As an American, I want good effective policies. When I see blogs like this from either party, attacking successful policy, I know that particular blogger is more interested in Party success rather than American success. Take off the party blinders!