If one of the Big 3 Automakers had to fail, who would you pick?

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by 02SE


Do you not understand that they all took taxpayer money, and were considered loans, regardless of which program they did it under? The Obama administration forgave and the taxpayers lost 10+ billion on GM's debt, Ford hasn't paid all of their loan back yet, it remains to be seen whether they will, and the taxpayers did lose 1.3 billion on the loan to FCA.


Regurgitating what I said and ignoring the difference between bankruptcy and non and then questioning my understanding of the situation is amusing. Ford didn't go bankrupt and is still on the hook for whatever part of the loan is remaining. The other two were taken over by the government where Chrysler was sold to FIAT at a loss of 1.3 billion and GM was dismantled, managed by the government and the loss was 11.3 billion.

Those two scenarios aren't even in the same ballpark, one went [censored]-up despite getting money, and ended up owned by the government, the other took a loan, managed to survive and continues to pay it back. The fact that you can mentally conflate those two situations shows clear bias against Ford and it isn't worth discussing any further, either you get it or you don't. You've made the conscious decision to not process it.

 

[02SE]

Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by 02SE


Do you not understand that they all took taxpayer money, and were considered loans, regardless of which program they did it under? The Obama administration forgave and the taxpayers lost 10+ billion on GM's debt, Ford hasn't paid all of their loan back yet, it remains to be seen whether they will, and the taxpayers did lose 1.3 billion on the loan to FCA.


Regurgitating what I said and ignoring the difference between bankruptcy and non and then questioning my understanding of the situation is amusing. Ford didn't go bankrupt and is still on the hook for whatever part of the loan is remaining. The other two were taken over by the government where Chrysler was sold to FIAT at a loss of 1.3 billion and GM was dismantled, managed by the government and the loss was 11.3 billion.

Those two scenarios aren't even in the same ballpark, one went [censored]-up despite getting money, and ended up owned by the government, the other took a loan, managed to survive and continues to pay it back. The fact that you can mentally conflate those two situations shows clear bias against Ford and it isn't worth discussing any further, either you get it or you don't. You've made the conscious decision to not process it.


You've clearly made the conscious decision to ignore the fact that they were all considered LOANS. Which is what I stated.

As a former successful business owner that never asked for or received a Government loan, and never declared bankruptcy to escape my financial responsibilities/liabilities, I understand all facets of running a business very well...

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by 02SE
You've clearly made the conscious decision to ignore the fact that they were all considered LOANS. Which is what I stated.

As a former successful business owner that never asked for or received a Government loan, and never declared bankruptcy to escape my financial responsibilities/liabilities, I understand all facets of running a business very well...


Bankruptcy after getting bailed out under a separate program is the monumental difference here. Divesting yourself of your loan responsibilities by going insolvent has ZERO parallels with getting a loan and paying it back. The fact that you continue to conflate the two by just continually blathering that they were "all considered loans" ignores the fundamental difference that keeps being pointed out and you keep ignoring.

As a former successful business owner before being hired on by one of my clients who also never asked or received a government loan, nor declared bankruptcy I apparently understand the nuance of this far better than you do

Ford didn't take the bailout money. Ford didn't go bankrupt. Ford was never owned by the government. These are three key facts that underline the fundamental difference between what transpired at Ford and what happened with the other two. The result was the loss of more than 10 billion under the government ownership of the companies they bailed out, versus a loan being paid back by the company that wasn't. The difference between the situations is massive and one needs to be willfully opposed to processing those facts to continue to claim they are the same.

 

[02SE]

Originally Posted by OVERKILL

Ford didn't take the bailout money. Ford didn't go bankrupt. Ford was never owned by the government. These are three key facts that underline the fundamental difference between what transpired at Ford and what happened with the other two. The result was the loss of more than 10 billion under the government ownership of the companies they bailed out, versus a loan being paid back by the company that wasn't. The difference in the situations is massive.


They DID however take a taxpayer funded Government LOAN.

Which is what I've stated multiple times now...

 

[dave1251]

Originally Posted by 02SE
Originally Posted by dave1251



Wow. You don't understand the difference between a bailout and a loan? A loan is when a person, business, ect borrows money and repays. Like Ford did. The government bought GM out and lost 9 billion dollars when it sold its ownership in the company.

What is your point? You needed a history lesson?


Do YOU need a history lesson?

They were ALL considered loans...

Auto Industry Bailout





GM did not pay the loan and there was no expectation old GM was going to repay because the company was literally not worth the paper stocks which they were printed on. Ford took a loan because they could not compete when it's foreign and domestic competition was subsidized by governments. Ford paid back the money borrowed. GM did not.

In short Ford did not take a bailout it borrowed money to compete with government backed competion and repaid it. GM took the money and was owned by the federal government until the government sold its stake at a loss. You can try to pull all the half truth fanboy websites you wish to support your limited worldview but it does not equate truth.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by 02SE
Originally Posted by OVERKILL

Ford didn't take the bailout money. Ford didn't go bankrupt. Ford was never owned by the government. These are three key facts that underline the fundamental difference between what transpired at Ford and what happened with the other two. The result was the loss of more than 10 billion under the government ownership of the companies they bailed out, versus a loan being paid back by the company that wasn't. The difference in the situations is massive.


They DID however take a taxpayer funded Government LOAN.

Which is what I've stated multiple times now...


The loan was under a completely different program however, NOT the bailout. The TALF program also provided funds to Nissan for example. Just trying to pass it off as "they all took loans" is a ridiculous blurring of the situation because it ignores what i pointed out and you've quoted, which is a huge thing. The results were also in no way comparable. The government would have made money on Ford and Nissan's loans under TALF, whilst they lost billions on GM and Chrysler when they both went bankrupt.

 

[PimTac]

I thought the GovMo loan was to the UAW? They seemed to have benefited the greatest from it.

The non union employees lost everything. Former Delphi employees will tell you.

 

[02SE]

Originally Posted by OVERKILL


The loan was under a completely different program however, NOT the bailout.


Really? Gee, I think I said that multiple times now too...

 

[02SE]

Originally Posted by dave1251
Originally Posted by 02SE
Originally Posted by dave1251



Wow. You don't understand the difference between a bailout and a loan? A loan is when a person, business, ect borrows money and repays. Like Ford did. The government bought GM out and lost 9 billion dollars when it sold its ownership in the company.

What is your point? You needed a history lesson?


Do YOU need a history lesson?

They were ALL considered loans...

Auto Industry Bailout





GM did not pay the loan and there was no expectation old GM was going to repay because the company was literally not worth the paper stocks which they were printed on. Ford took a loan because they could not compete when it's foreign and domestic competition was subsidized by governments. Ford paid back the money borrowed. GM did not.

In short Ford did not take a bailout it borrowed money to compete with government backed competion and repaid it. GM took the money and was owned by the federal government until the government sold its stake at a loss. You can try to pull all the half truth fanboy websites you wish to support your limited worldview but it does not equate truth.


Blah, blah, blah.

It was all taxpayer funded Government money. As I stated...

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by 02SE
Originally Posted by OVERKILL


The loan was under a completely different program however, NOT the bailout.


Really? Gee, I think I said that multiple times now too...




You keep trying to make it about "they all took loans" and completely blowing off the significance in how the situations differed as well as how they played out. You know, the part you omitted in your quote. But please, keep going, this is amusing.

 

[dave1251]

Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by 02SE


Do you not understand that they all took taxpayer money, and were considered loans, regardless of which program they did it under? The Obama administration forgave and the taxpayers lost 10+ billion on GM's debt, Ford hasn't paid all of their loan back yet, it remains to be seen whether they will, and the taxpayers did lose 1.3 billion on the loan to FCA.


Regurgitating what I said and ignoring the difference between bankruptcy and non and then questioning my understanding of the situation is amusing. Ford didn't go bankrupt and is still on the hook for whatever part of the loan is remaining. The other two were taken over by the government where Chrysler was sold to FIAT at a loss of 1.3 billion and GM was dismantled, managed by the government and the loss was 11.3 billion.

Those two scenarios aren't even in the same ballpark, one went [censored]-up despite getting money, and ended up owned by the government, the other took a loan, managed to survive and continues to pay it back. The fact that you can mentally conflate those two situations shows clear bias against Ford and it isn't worth discussing any further, either you get it or you don't. You've made the conscious decision to not process it.



The loan he is referring to has nothing to due with the loan Ford took during GM's and Chrysler's bailout. The loan he is referring to Ford is still paying is for at the time new fuel efficient research and to help pay for the research took the loan. GM applied for the same loan in 2009 at 10 billion dollars. In 2011 GM withdrew their request after the U.S. department of energy rejected several of GM's proposals on how GM was going to repay the loan. Ford has also made payments on this loan and has until 2022 to pay this off.

 

[dave1251]

Originally Posted by PimTac
I thought the GovMo loan was to the UAW? They seemed to have benefited the greatest from it.

The non union employees lost everything. Former Delphi employees will tell you.


I know this because I know several former Delphi employees. GM has done a fine job of cutting bait and running out of my hometown.

 

[DevilsRule]

Originally Posted by KrisZ
Pretty amazing seeing how many people want their home team to fail. Imports are propped up by their home governments and have stiff tariffs against American made iron.
American pickup trucks and big SUVs would actually do quite well in the old land with the well of people, if it weren't for the heavy duties. Other countries would be similar.


As an American.......its disgusting!!!! Alot of Americans have zero pride. It's on full display in this thread.

 

[ZZman]

Originally Posted by 4WD
Threads like this have zero value …


Why did you even bother responding but not answering the question?

These get people talking and giving opinions. Much like most of the posts on here.

 

[Warstud]

Being from Michigan.....I especially don't wish that upon any of the Big 3

 

[4WD]

No … All this does is whip up the bashing and trashing like you knew it would …

 

[02SE]

Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by 02SE
Originally Posted by OVERKILL


The loan was under a completely different program however, NOT the bailout.


Really? Gee, I think I said that multiple times now too...




You keep trying to make it about "they all took loans" and completely blowing off the significance in how the situations differed as well as how they played out. You know, the part you omitted in your quote. But please, keep going, this is amusing.


And you keep trying to imply I said more than I did.

But keep going, this is amusing.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by 02SE
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by 02SE
Originally Posted by OVERKILL


The loan was under a completely different program however, NOT the bailout.


Really? Gee, I think I said that multiple times now too...




You keep trying to make it about "they all took loans" and completely blowing off the significance in how the situations differed as well as how they played out. You know, the part you omitted in your quote. But please, keep going, this is amusing.


And you keep trying to imply I said more than I did.

But keep going, this is amusing.



Are you high?

Originally Posted by 02SE
All of them have taken taxpayer money. Ford was for the TARP bailout before they were against it, and they still took 5.9 billion in taxpayer dollars. Call it a bailout or not, the taxpayers ponied up just the same.


That's what you said. It's not the same. That's what this argument is about, the fact that you keep conflating the bailout, bankruptcy and the loss of north of 10 billion with Ford taking a loan, not going bankrupt and paying it back.

I don't need to imply anything, your words are in this thread and multiple people have taken issue with them because they misrepresent the situation.

 

[02SE]

Originally Posted by OVERKILL


Are you high?

Originally Posted by 02SE
All of them have taken taxpayer money. Ford was for the TARP bailout before they were against it, and they still took 5.9 billion in taxpayer dollars. Call it a bailout or not, the taxpayers ponied up just the same.


That's what you said. It's not the same. That's what this argument is about, the fact that you keep conflating the bailout, bankruptcy and the loss of north of 10 billion with Ford taking a loan, not going bankrupt and paying it back.

I don't need to imply anything, your words are in this thread and multiple people have taken issue with them because they misrepresent the situation.



Why are you trying to make it personal with insults? Is that how you talk to people in person?

Do you understand that it is taxpayer money we are talking about, regardless of how they came to receive that money?

It is.

I said so.

They all took loans in the form of taxpayer money. Yes, some differences in circumstance, but it's still taxpayer money. Which was my point...

For some reason you can't accept that very basic fact, and apparently wish to argue.

 

[Warstud]

Today's Forecast: Partly Sunny with a 90% chance of a LOCK