Interesting reading and video.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091102/.../us_earns_ford

 

And THAT is why we didn't need to have the stimulus package. They can take care of themselves, thanks.

 

I guess a lot of you young guys don't remember the Chrysler bailout of 1980. I guess they just didn't learn from past mistakes. Go Ford!!! Almost all of my relatives now drive Ford. I'll be switching back to Ford in 2011, although most of my past cars were Ford. I'll never stray away again.

 

Awesome...

 

Not taking bailout money has been the biggest boost for Ford's reputation and provided them some great PR.

 

Except for the $5.9B in taxpayer money that Ford took via the DoE for building "fuel efficient" cars...

The last time they posted a profit, the "profit" came from reducing fees associated with its loans.

 

But if you're concerned about that, then the blame rests solely on politcians, not jointly politicians and auto mfgrs like the recent, famed, bailout program.

 

I'm not blaming anyone, Ford still took taxpayer money but people don't realize that and keep raving about how Ford is doing so good and never took any taxpayer dollars.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I still say there's a big difference between asking congress for money and taking advantage of a program that's already out there.

It's kind of like the difference betwen being at work and signing up for extra duty vs asking your boss for a salary advance. Am I wrong?

 

You are confusing two separate issues. Ford was not part of the TARP bailout funds.

The TARP bailout required GM & Chrysler to give up a percentage of ownership & control to the Gov in the form of preferred shares (which drastically diluted [harmed] the common shareholders - which include millions of private citizens that held GM common. Chrysler was privately held by Cerberus at the time.). This is how Obama could force Rick Wagoner out of his CEO post. The Gov has no such control over Ford's Mulally at this time because no Ford shares have been given to the Gov as security.

Ford participating in - or should I say being forced to invest in new technologies by EPA (and goodness knows how many other agencies that dictate to the automotive industry) - and then those agencies making venture capital available - is a night and day difference between giving up ownership and control of your company to Obama socialist bureaucrats.

 

It looks like 2011 is going to be a good year for Ford!

 

Ford participating in - or should I say being forced to invest in new technologies by EPA (and goodness knows how many other agencies that dictate to the automotive industry) - and then those agencies making venture capital available - is a night and day difference between giving up ownership and control of your company to Obama socialist bureaucrats. [/QUOTE]

But encouraging fuel efficient technology is probably a good thing, right? Even if it is "socialist bureaucrats" encouraging it? Actually, high gas prices encourages it best, but that's political suicide for any bureaucrat, socialist or otherwise.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by cdynaco

Ford participating in - or should I say being forced to invest in new technologies by EPA (and goodness knows how many other agencies that dictate to the automotive industry) - and then those agencies making venture capital available - is a night and day difference between giving up ownership and control of your company to Obama socialist bureaucrats.

I think you are misconstruing my comments.

Government steering private industry (such as for better fuel efficiency) is one thing.

Giving up control of your company to Obama's socialism - that fires your CEO, forces closure of thousands of independently owned businesses (Dealerships) that employed thousands of families and vendors, and tells you what you can and cannot earn at your job - is another thing entirely.

 

Yes it is. Ludicrous. And any company... well, any CEO, anyway... that does that deserves to be fired.

Government should NOT run business. Period. Look at Amtrak.

But that's another thread. Seriously. This used to be a 'Way to go Ford' thread and now, again, it's degenerated.

 

Moving to 'Other Fords' section . . .

 

The first Chrysler bailout was a far cry from what happened this year. That was a loan, a loan that was not only paid back, but paid back ahead of schedule. The 2009 bailouts are going to blow up in someones face eventually. I actually like Chryslers long-term outlook as a division of Fiat better than I do American Leyland, I mean GM.

 

Right. Back in the day when Iaccoca got a loan, he did not cede ownership or control to Government. He was still in charge of the company and shareholders still owned their stake. Just like Ford today.

 

A) This had a lot to do with cash for clunkers, so I would take it with a grain of salt.

B) The Union is ALREADY looking at this as an excuse to stick their slimy hands out again, so best of luck to Ford keeping those numbers.

 

Which is why Mullaly did not predict profits until 2011.

 

They can not remain competitive with 2 government controlled companies who FORCED their union employees to take concessions, without their own employees abiding by the same rules. They are not just fighting GM/Chrysler, they are fighting the Obama Administration who have a massive vested interest in GM/Chyrsler staying afloat. The UAW needs to go.