• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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

ReverendHellh0und

I don't respect you.
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
79,903
Reaction score
20,981
Location
I love your hate.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Republicans would have done the bailout as well. No one was going to let them fold.
 

randel

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 24, 2009
Messages
5,758
Reaction score
2,093
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Republicans would have done the bailout as well. No one was going to let them fold.
i would disagree....they would have let them fail if anything to cripple the unions
 

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
i would disagree....they would have let them fail if anything to cripple the unions
No, I don't believe they would have. History tells another story. While I do agree they would not help unions, the fact is failure would effect far more than the unions. We have always bailed out the auto industry and there is little to suggest anyone would have done anything different today. They would merely have tried to tar the unions with the need for the bailout.
 

randel

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 24, 2009
Messages
5,758
Reaction score
2,093
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
No, I don't believe they would have. History tells another story. While I do agree they would not help unions, the fact is failure would effect far more than the unions. We have always bailed out the auto industry and there is little to suggest anyone would have done anything different today. They would merely have tried to tar the unions with the need for the bailout.
i believe that they would have seen at least 1 of the 3 fail, just for, as you said, to 'tar' the unions with the need for the bailout.
 

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
i believe that they would have seen at least 1 of the 3 fail, just for, as you said, to 'tar' the unions with the need for the bailout.
Too bad we can't have a reply to see for sure. It would be interesting. But I suspect they would have thrown the money at them without any realistic effort to recoup the money. But, like I said, I do wish we could see what they would have done and how supporters would have framed it. ;)
 

ptif219

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 15, 2009
Messages
13,156
Reaction score
1,038
Location
melbourne florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
How does a bailout that Ford did not take save ford?

Reid Says this after he said Illegals do not work construction in Nevada. He also says his energy bill is not cap and trade and that is not in his vocabulary. Reid is showing he can not be trusted and he is not believable.
 

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
How does a bailout that Ford did not take save ford?

Reid Says this after he said Illegals do not work construction in Nevada. He also says his energy bill is not cap and trade and that is not in his vocabulary. Reid is showing he can not be trusted and he is not believable.
Actually, the bailout did benefit Ford.

At the same time, the Dearborn, Mich. car company is likely to benefit from many of the concessions that General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC exact from the suppliers, unions, dealers and debt holders shared by all three companies.

(snip)

Still the company needed the Bush Administration to rescue GM and Chrysler because of fears that a failure of one or both of those companies could imperil their shared base of auto-part suppliers. "The U.S. auto industry is highly interdependent, and a failure of one of our competitors would have a ripple effect that could jeopardize millions of jobs and further damage the already weakened U.S. economy," Mr. Mulally said.

Ford Will Likely Benefit From Bailout - WSJ.com
 

ptif219

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 15, 2009
Messages
13,156
Reaction score
1,038
Location
melbourne florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Actually, the bailout did benefit Ford.

At the same time, the Dearborn, Mich. car company is likely to benefit from many of the concessions that General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC exact from the suppliers, unions, dealers and debt holders shared by all three companies.

(snip)

Still the company needed the Bush Administration to rescue GM and Chrysler because of fears that a failure of one or both of those companies could imperil their shared base of auto-part suppliers. "The U.S. auto industry is highly interdependent, and a failure of one of our competitors would have a ripple effect that could jeopardize millions of jobs and further damage the already weakened U.S. economy," Mr. Mulally said.

Ford Will Likely Benefit From Bailout - WSJ.com
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.
 

Lord Tammerlain

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2010
Messages
20,610
Reaction score
8,983
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Actually, the bailout did benefit Ford.

At the same time, the Dearborn, Mich. car company is likely to benefit from many of the concessions that General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC exact from the suppliers, unions, dealers and debt holders shared by all three companies.

(snip)

Still the company needed the Bush Administration to rescue GM and Chrysler because of fears that a failure of one or both of those companies could imperil their shared base of auto-part suppliers. "The U.S. auto industry is highly interdependent, and a failure of one of our competitors would have a ripple effect that could jeopardize millions of jobs and further damage the already weakened U.S. economy," Mr. Mulally said.Ford Will Likely Benefit From Bailout - WSJ.com
The auto parts suppliers is the key here.
 

Lord Tammerlain

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2010
Messages
20,610
Reaction score
8,983
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
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 they couldnt

Ford when Mullay took over mortgaged everything. It had a massive amount of credit avaliable during the downturn, GM and Chyrsler did not have the credit avaliable which is why they went cap in hand to the government, while Ford did not
 

ptif219

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 15, 2009
Messages
13,156
Reaction score
1,038
Location
melbourne florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
No they couldnt

Ford when Mullay took over mortgaged everything. It had a massive amount of credit avaliable during the downturn, GM and Chyrsler did not have the credit avaliable which is why they went cap in hand to the government, while Ford did not
Thats why Bankruptcy would have saved them. Obama did not want this for it would hurt the unions
 
Last edited:

Lord Tammerlain

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2010
Messages
20,610
Reaction score
8,983
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Tahta wht Bankruptcy would have saved them. Obama did not want this for it would hurt the unions
GM and Chrysler were very unlikely to get bankruptcy financing at the time of the crisis, meaning bankrupcty could have meant shutting down, not reorganizing
 

Lord Tammerlain

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2010
Messages
20,610
Reaction score
8,983
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I doubt that but nice try
Not a nice try but the truth. That you doubt something does not make it true

General Motors was financially vulnerable before the automotive industry crisis of 2008-2009. It came close to insolvency and bankruptcy after falling sales caused a US$4.45 billion loss in 1991.[citation needed] Cost-cutting and management changes restored profitability for the next 10 years.[citation needed] In 2005 the company posted a loss of US$10.6 billion.[16] In 2006, its attempts to obtain U.S. government financing to support its pension liabilities and also to form commercial alliances with Nissan and Renault failed. For fiscal year 2007, GM's losses for the year were US$38.7 billion,[17] and sales for the following year dropped by 45%.[18]

On November 7, 2008 General Motors reported it had projected it would run out of cash around mid-2009 without a combination of government funding, a merger, or sales of assets.[19] Ten days later General Motors representatives, along with executives from Ford and Chrysler testified about their need for financial aid at a Congressional hearing in Washington D.C. All three companies were unsuccessful in their attempts to obtain legislation to authorize U.S. government aid, and were invited to draft a new action plan for the sustainability of the industry.[20] On December 2, 2008, General Motors submitted its "Restructuring Plan for Long-Term Viability" to the Senate Banking Committee and House of Representatives Financial Services Committee.[21] Congress declined to act, but in December 2008 the Bush administration provided a "bridge loan" to General Motors with the requirement of a revised business plan.[22] It said it needed $4.6 billion in loans within weeks, from the $18 billion it had already requested, and an additional $12 billion in financial support in order to stave off bankruptcy. On Feb. 26, 2009, General Motors announced that its cash reserves were down to $14 billion at the end of 2008. G.M. lost $30.9 billion, or $53.32 a share, in 2008 and spent $19.2 billion of its cash reserves. Mr. Wagoner met with President Obama’s auto task force, and the company said that it could not survive much longer without additional government loans.

On the March 30, 2009 deadline President Barack Obama declined to provide financial aid to General Motors, and requested that General Motors produce credible plans, saying that the company's proposals had avoided tough decisions, and that Chapter 11 bankruptcy appeared the most promising way to reduce its debts, by allowing the courts to compel bondholders and trade unions into settlements.[23] GM Chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner was also forced to resign.[24] GM bondholders rejected the government's first offer, but the unions agreed to the preferential terms.[25] A bondholder debt to equity counteroffer was ignored.[26]
General Motors Chapter 11 reorganization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Auto companies came to the government begging for money, they would have gone to the private debt markets if they could have,
 

ptif219

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 15, 2009
Messages
13,156
Reaction score
1,038
Location
melbourne florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative

Lord Tammerlain

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2010
Messages
20,610
Reaction score
8,983
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
People will lend money if you are in bankruptcy because of the renogtiations
Normally yes, but at the height of a credit crisis, with auto sales tumbling? US auto sales went from around 15 million in 2006 to less then 10 million last year. Given the amount of money that GM and Chrysler needed, the uncertainty of the auto industry in general during that time and the credit crisis still being a major issue such lending was unlikley to occur. Which is why GM and Chrysler went to the government for money rather then Citigroup, or BoA or MS. You know the banks which were getting money from the government at the same time to cover credit loss's
 

lizzie

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
28,580
Reaction score
31,551
Location
between two worlds
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Although Reid is an idiot, he may be right, just not in the way he believes. Because the government didn't bail out Ford, they probably got a good deal of business from people like me who would not buy GM because they were bailed out. My next car purchase will definitely not be from a government-owned business. If it's American, it will be Ford.
 

ptif219

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 15, 2009
Messages
13,156
Reaction score
1,038
Location
melbourne florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Normally yes, but at the height of a credit crisis, with auto sales tumbling? US auto sales went from around 15 million in 2006 to less then 10 million last year. Given the amount of money that GM and Chrysler needed, the uncertainty of the auto industry in general during that time and the credit crisis still being a major issue such lending was unlikley to occur. Which is why GM and Chrysler went to the government for money rather then Citigroup, or BoA or MS. You know the banks which were getting money from the government at the same time to cover credit loss's
Nice opinion and justification but I see more bias than fact in your post
 

Lord Tammerlain

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2010
Messages
20,610
Reaction score
8,983
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Nice opinion and justification but I see more bias than fact in your post
What bias.

Are the following facts or not?
Auto sales did collapse did they not?

There was a credit crisis at the time was there not

The financial institutions that GM could have gotten debtor in financing from were getting bailout by the government at the time were they not.



The only question would be.

Who could GM and Chrysler have gotten debtor in financing from at that time?
 

ReverendHellh0und

I don't respect you.
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
79,903
Reaction score
20,981
Location
I love your hate.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Republicans would have done the bailout as well. No one was going to let them fold.



correction. Certain republicans would have done them, yes McCain so you are right there. but nah, if they cant hang they should fold
 

DrunkenAsparagus

Devourer of Poor Children
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 2, 2009
Messages
4,496
Reaction score
1,878
Location
DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Ford and Japanese automakers would probably take over the business that GM and Chrysler would lose them.
 

ptif219

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 15, 2009
Messages
13,156
Reaction score
1,038
Location
melbourne florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
What bias.

Are the following facts or not?
Auto sales did collapse did they not?

There was a credit crisis at the time was there not

The financial institutions that GM could have gotten debtor in financing from were getting bailout by the government at the time were they not.



The only question would be.

Who could GM and Chrysler have gotten debtor in financing from at that time?
Do not know Obama did not let that happen and stopped GM from filing bankruptcy. Instead Obama took control which in my mind is wrong. It is not the governments job to control private business. But with the new finance bill Obama signed yesterday you may see more of this socialist type of government take overs
 

Goof Noodle

Active member
Joined
May 12, 2010
Messages
257
Reaction score
60
Location
Omaha, NE
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Reid is telling his gullible puppets a blatant lie for a chance at reelection. Ford motor and credit were never in trouble and was only going to take money in the chance that they needed it as a last resort. Also, the auto industry would have benefited greatly from GM and Chrysler folding.
 

NolaMan

Well-known member
Joined
May 5, 2010
Messages
808
Reaction score
203
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
No, I don't believe they would have. History tells another story. While I do agree they would not help unions, the fact is failure would effect far more than the unions.
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.

We have always bailed out the auto industry and there is little to suggest anyone would have done anything different today.
This is a truly sad statement.
 
Top Bottom