No bailout: Ford earns $1.7b in 3Q, pays down health care debt

Onceler said:
Um, yeah; which is why I said that Ford was a better run company up until the time of the bailout.

This is getting silly. It's actually hard to watch you try to still spin this into something it's not....
Click to expand...

they were still hemorraging and in the same boat re sales, inventory and economic outlook...you want to ignore that and say they were totally different than gm and chrysler and that there is no comparison

yet, the experts and others in the field are all making comparisons and saying ford barely got away with not needing the bailout due to the FACT they slashed spending, negotiated with unions and restructured two years prior

what you are too stupid to grasp is that gm and chrysler could have done the same exact thing, but they did not....ford buckled down, refused to take the easy bailout money and has done just fine...if gm could not have cut costs and survived, screw them
 
Yurt said:
they were still hemorraging and in the same boat re sales, inventory and economic outlook...you want to ignore that and say they were totally different than gm and chrysler and that there is no comparison

yet, the experts and others in the field are all making comparisons and saying ford barely got away with not needing the bailout due to the FACT they slashed spending, negotiated with unions and restructured two years prior

what you are too stupid to grasp is that gm and chrysler could have done the same exact thing, but they did not....ford buckled down, refused to take the easy bailout money and has done just fine...if gm could not have cut costs and survived, screw them
Click to expand...

This is getting really embarassing.

I have already agreed that all 3 were hit with a huge decline in sales. If you look back, my main argument has been that Ford was in a BETTER position to handle that decline, because of how they ran themselves up to that point. They didn't need the bailout because financially, they were not on the brink.

And, I have stated quite a few times that Ford was a better run company overall leading up to the bailout, which is why they didn't need it.

You, on the other hand, kept trying to argue that all 3 were in the same boat; they weren't. Ford had available funding, so they weren't on the brink.

It's pretty amazing that you're not comprehending this....
 
good lord onceler....now you're changing your stance

you're the only claiming they are not in the same boat...don't forget ford actually went to capital hill to request a bailout, why --> because they were on the verge of bankruptcy --> so ford wanted this in his back pocket in case things got worse because they had no one else to borrow from --> which is what gm and chrysler were experiencing

ford, however, made better business decisions, didn't rely on government bailouts and restructered sans government

this is the last post i will make as you are just incapable of grasping the true reality of the economic situation....gm and chrysler could have made teh same decisions ford did, they did not....this is why ford is the better company and why the bailouts were not needed, gm should have been forced into chapter 11 for their stupid business decisions, gm did not do a major restructering like ford despite their bailouts and the new owner - uncle sam - requiring them to do so....gm shouldn't need the government telling them how to run their business

ford didn't and ford succeeded, i know you hate that, because only the almighty government can make things right in your eyes, lord knows those evil corps can't do anything
 
Yurt said:
good lord onceler....now you're changing your stance

you're the only claiming they are not in the same boat...don't forget ford actually went to capital hill to request a bailout, why --> because they were on the verge of bankruptcy --> so ford wanted this in his back pocket in case things got worse because they had no one else to borrow from --> which is what gm and chrysler were experiencing

ford, however, made better business decisions, didn't rely on government bailouts and restructered sans government

this is the last post i will make as you are just incapable of grasping the true reality of the economic situation....gm and chrysler could have made teh same decisions ford did, they did not....this is why ford is the better company and why the bailouts were not needed, gm should have been forced into chapter 11 for their stupid business decisions, gm did not do a major restructering like ford despite their bailouts and the new owner - uncle sam - requiring them to do so....gm shouldn't need the government telling them how to run their business

ford didn't and ford succeeded, i know you hate that, because only the almighty government can make things right in your eyes, lord knows those evil corps can't do anything
Click to expand...

Sorry, Yurtsie. You're the one who has changed your stance, pretty much completely. I've been arguing the same thing the whole time.

For most of the thread, your contention is that GM could have done the exact same thing as Ford at the TIME of the bailout, and refused it. They couldn't have; they didn't have access to any funding at all, as Ford did. As your own link stated, that is what allowed Ford to refuse the bailout.

Now, you've gone & co-opted what I was arguing; that Ford had that extra funding, because they ran themselves better up to that point. No disagreement here on that one (because, ya know, that's exactly what I've been arguing this whole time).

Again, pretty embarassing for you. Of course this is your last reply on this; frankly, I'm surprised that you've gone on this long. It was obvious that you realized you were wrong about 20 or so posts ago....
 
Yurt said:
i did not ignore your entire post...how could that be when you directly responded to my rebuttals of each of your points? lol...you're insane

i've given you evidence and opinions that show your claim ford was better run up until the time of the downturn is false and really has nothing to do with the way they handled their company after the downturn....but i know you want to ignore those facts and you can't present any of your own to counter them

you're right onceler, you're never wrong, you win
Click to expand...

LOL

Who changed their stance again?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top