By on July 10, 2010

Wasn’t Ford proud of not having stuffed themselves from the Great American Bailout Buffet? That didn’t stop them from (quietly) asking the Germans for money. And the answer is …

Nein.

You guessed it. Ford Cologne had applied for a $250m loan to the European Investment Bank (EIB). The EIB has “green” money, so officially, the loan was for building a factory that makes environmentally friendly three cylinder engines.

That factory is planned for Cologne. The EIB wants a loan guarantee, and that would have to come form the German government. Germany’s Handelsblatt laid its hands on the written answer of the German Wirtschaftsministerium (Ministry of Economics). “In light of the improved economic climate and the improved financial strength of Ford, there are no more reasons to support the carmaker,” says the paper from Rainer Brüderle’s ministry. Ford should build the factory with its own Money, recommends Berlin.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

54 Comments on “So Ford Wants Government Money After All...”


  • avatar
    Z71_Silvy

    Ford talks out of both sides of their mouths.

    They took money from the US Government. $5.9 billion of it. All while claiming they didn’t take Government money.

    • 0 avatar
      wmba

      Yup, and GM and Chrysler took their share of that “green” fund as well, then went bankrupt. Following that they took over $70 billion of your and my money to restructure. I guess that’s talking out of your rear end instead of both sides of your mouth.

      In any other country, GM and Chrysler would be known as wards of the state, government corporations run by civil servants. That’s what Big Ed is after all the smoke and mirrors and chest thumping.

    • 0 avatar
      ott

      “I guess that’s talking out of your rear end instead of both sides of your mouth.”

      Actually, as a taxpayer, it’s more like taking it up the rear end than talking out of it…

    • 0 avatar
      Steven02

      wmba,
      Actually, GM was denied before bankruptcy. I am pretty sure that Chrysler was too. After bankruptcy, I am pretty sure they got them.

  • avatar
    Cammy Corrigan

    Oh well, since we’re going down this road…

    http://www.am-online.com/news/story/360m-loan-guarantees-for-Ford/42901761

  • avatar
    RickM

    Ford is not talking out of both sides of their mouth because they never bragged about not taking loans.
    And these DOE loans are actually loans that Ford will need to pay back, not debt that will be wiped out by the feds. Telsa and other automakers also received DOE loans. Ford does not deserve to be lumped together with GM & Chrsyler for the DOE loans (DOE loans refers to the 5.9 billion that commenter Z71 Silva mentioned)

    • 0 avatar

      Thank you RICK for pointing out that these were “BRIDGE LOANS” not, “BAILOUTS”.

      When you watch to much Fox News or Republineocon TV, you end up using their talking points incorrectly. Then again, no one on Conservative media ever worried about telling the truth anyway.

    • 0 avatar
      TrailerTrash

      Yes, thanks RickM.

      I am starting to wonder if writers on TTAC have as much hidden agenda as CNN!
      If anybody can’t see the difference here, then you should try to read more, or keep silent.

      What really bothers me in the decision is the “logic”. Give financial advantage to the less qualified, and punish the successful.
      A “green” loan to support a direction for the environment should NOT be offered to ONLY the unqualified or less successful.

      That’s plain manipulation, or socialistic madness.

    • 0 avatar
      ronin

      They are bailouts, not loans, because the citizens of America are not banks. Banks would not loan a cent to deadbeats. Thus taxpayers are forced to. If banks WERE to loan, the interest rates would be out of sight. The USA is not the last resort lender to deadbeats. Not to mention wink wink no one expects the ‘loan’ to be repaid.

      If a mere loan, why is the USA a major owner of the GM corporation? Since when is debt the same as equity? If a mere loan, why was the UAW given the unprecedented position of ownership over and above the actual bond holders- you know, the ones who took the risk?

      What does being a republican or not being a republican have to do with any of this, when the overwhelming majority of Americans in poll after poll was against any such bailout?

    • 0 avatar
      Z71_Silvy

      Thank you RICK for pointing out that these were “BRIDGE LOANS” not, “BAILOUTS”.

      NO ONE said they were. You made that up.

      But it most certainly is ‘Government Money’…unless you don’t consider the US Department of Energy not part of the Government.

      Your readers were accidentally (or intentionally?) mislead into correlating all government money with save-from-failure bailout dollars.

      FALSE!

      I did not post what I did based on a misconception on my part after reading the article…I posted what I did because Ford is arrogant and selfish and has thumped their chest for not taking GOVERNMENT money. Which is false…Ford HAS taken Government money ($5.9 BILLION) and secures NINE BILLION ($9,000,000,000) in government bailouts ‘just in-case’. Remember, Ford was begging at the bailout buffet right along side GM and Chrysler.

    • 0 avatar

      THE RIGHT WING AGENDA IS TO BREAK THE UNIONS…PERIOD.

      The auto union, and the teacher’s union.

      Problem is, they know that teachers and auto workers are LARGE constiituencies, so they can’t run that rhetoric as easily in front of union workers as they can THE UNEMPLOYED TEA BAGGERS showing up at rallies.

      They can call it whatever they want:

      #1 There was no way I’d want Obama to allow the auto makers to fail under his administration. Sure the right wingnuts attack him for bailing them out – but they’d be attacking him even more if those companies had all failed and those constituents were out of a job.

      #2 OTHER GOVERNMENTS GAVE THEIR CAR MAKERS MONEY TO HELP THEM WEATHER THE CREDIT CRUNCH. Why shouldn’t ours?

      #3 Bush started the bailouts. It was nothing more than reaching into the cash register and taking what you could before you made your way out the door.

      WHY AREN’T THE TEA BAGGERS SCREAMIG ABOUT BUSH or PAULSON?

      WHY?

      And then that idiot Micheal Steele tries to blame Obama for Afghanistan <_<

    • 0 avatar
      golden2husky

      “…..#1 There was no way I’d want Obama to allow the auto makers to fail under his administration. Sure the right wingnuts attack him for bailing them out – but they’d be attacking him even more if those companies had all failed and those constituents were out of a job…..”

      That is certainly true. I was no fan of any of the bailouts, but what would be the state of affairs today if no bailouts or stimulus took place? It is a pretty good bet that we would be in much worse shape than we are. But if you are on the other side of the political spectrum, you have to come up with something. So the Tea baggers are focusing on the borrowing. Except that the baggers are having trouble staying focused…they are bogging down with a lot of infighting.

  • avatar
    mdensch

    The bigger story here would be if you could an automaker anywhere in the world that has never taken any kind of government money in any form. (And I would include in that any local tax incentives to build a factory.)

    Must be an awfully slow news day.

  • avatar
    NulloModo

    There are huge differences between taking DOE or EIB funds offered to promote green technolog, and then using it for that, and begging for money because if you don’t get it your entire mismanaged company is going to go down in flames, like GM and Chrysler did, and then went down in flames anyway.

    These targeted purpose loans are incentives to get private enterprise to do things that the politicians want. They wouldn’t offer the money up if they didn’t expect companies to bite, and take their stipulations along with the cash. These are no different than when US southern states offered low interest loans or tax breaks to Mercedes or Honda to build factories – it’s financial incentive to choose to do business a certain way.

    Ford never said it took no government loans, it said it wasn’t a part of the bailout, which is entirely true. Every company, even perfectly healthy companies, occasionally take government loans when they make sense, and like Ford, they pay them back. The outrage over GM is that they had to beg for money, and we will never see most of it again. Then GM even had the audacity to lie about paying it back, when all they did was transfer debt from one column to another.

    BTW – In this particular case, I think the German government is just playing hardball. With the current Cologne V6 nearing the end of its life (no longer used in the Mustang, after this year no longer in the Explorer, and the Ranger’s days are numbered) the locals in Cologne would be very lucky to get a brand spanking new 3 cylinder engine operation. Germany obviously thinks they can still get Ford to build there without offering all the incentive money, and are trying to see how low they can go.

    • 0 avatar
      Cammy Corrigan

      According to this article (http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/jan2010/db2010017_094002.htm), Alan Mulally is quoted as saying:

      “The advantages of us doing this ourselves clearly outweigh any of the advantages of going through bankruptcy,” Mulally said. “The only disadvantage that we have right now is that we have a little more debt, but we’re paying that back.”

      This article (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=081219150605.tto9ush5) quotes Alan Mulally as saying:

      “We do not face a near-term liquidity issue, and we are not seeking short-term financial assistance from the government,”

      No assistance from the government? Explain the DoE loans.

    • 0 avatar
      NulloModo

      Cammy –

      I don’t see how those two quotes have anything to do with this situation. As for the first, Ford never went bankrupt, and is paying down their debt. I’m paying down my credit cards, that doesn’t mean that I don’t still occasionally use one. It makes sense to keep some cash reserves free for emergencies, so taking low interest loans when you can doesn’t go against the goal of paying off debt.

      As for the second quote, you are taking it out of context. It was clearly meant as a response to the government bailout money, which Ford didn’t take.

    • 0 avatar
      holydonut

      Good call NulloModo – thousands of businesses take advantage of government money in their operations. These companies aren’t on the verge of bankruptcy – they’re just being smart with their money. If a municipality/state/federal agency wants to promote spending in their area, they’ll often throw money out there or offer tax breaks. Taking advantage of these things is smart, not a sign of weakness.

      I’m sure there are people out there who decry companies for hiring dozens of accountants to find the best way to manipulate their tax liability. After all, if they’re making so much money they should be happy paying corporate taxes.

      It’s kind of disappointing how Bertel put that off-kilter title on the article instead of just saying Ford was turned down for a German government incentive. And he juxtaposes the article with some pauper begging for money. All because he is trying to link government perks with the “managed bankruptcy bailout money.” I am really surprised how extremely intelligent people still fail to differentiate between these concepts. Yes at the end of the day the Government is acting as a conduit to pass-through taxpayer money. But the circumstance behind it (and the issues facing the recipients) are vastly different.

      A typical government money program requires a company to apply and meet requirements – or that company has to commit millions of dollars in investment to get the discount. So the DOE loans to drive green investment were funds set aside to promote dozens of companies to develop green tech. Receiving the money was a means for the government to drive behavior that they felt was not being executed because companies saw no value/profit in that arena.

      An emergency bailout or government sponsored bankruptcy is not open to applicants. They were about to fail and needed emergency assistance. In this case the government is deciding to save specific jobs and supply chain impact by intervening. This is not an open application with a review process.

      If Ford were about to go bankrupt if not for this German loan – then you may have a point that they’re about to go under. But as it stands, this is just another attempt to save a few bucks. This does not warrant the comparison to the bailout buffet.

    • 0 avatar
      Z71_Silvy

      Then GM even had the audacity to lie about paying it back, when all they did was transfer debt from one column to another.

      They didn’t lie at all…where do you come up with these ideas.

      They paid the loans off…saving the US taxpayer BILLIONS in interest.

    • 0 avatar
      Z71_Silvy

      Alan Mulally as saying:

      “We do not face a near-term liquidity issue, and we are not seeking short-term financial assistance from the government,”

      No assistance from the government? Explain the DoE loans.

      Ford Motor Company lies and so does Alan Mulally. Here is a short list of their lies:

      The Flex would sell 100K units a year – LIE
      Ecoboost would cost $700.00 – LIE
      Ecoboost would get 20% better fuel economy – LIE
      Ecoboost would pay itself off in savings in 2.5 years – LIE
      Their stake in Mazda is NOT for sale – LIE
      Volvo is not for sale – LIE
      We have not taken government money – LIE

    • 0 avatar
      Gregg

      They paid it back with different TARP money. I don’t blame them, but it was sleight of hand.

    • 0 avatar
      NulloModo

      Z71 –

      Regarding the Flex – No one can predict sales exactly, it was an incorrect prediction, not a lie.

      Ecoboost @ $700 – Show me one official statement that said Ecoboost would cost $700. You can’t, because one was never made. The $700 price was a rumor based on an improperly understood comment.

      Ecoboost eficiency – The 20% figure is correct for the most part. Compare the Ecoboost vehicles to similar sized AWD or 4WD V8 vehicles and the fuel economy improvement is around 20%. Some vehicles have a greater than 20% gap, some less, but overall the figures are right.

      Mazda – I seem to recall a statement by Mazda that Ford wasn’t going to sell shares, but nothing from Ford, again, do you have any proof to back up your unfounded accusations? Ford did say it had no plans of backing away from strategic partnership with Mazda, and thus far that has been true.

      Volvo – Again, higher ups in Volvo seemed to deny rumors, but no one at Ford went out and said it wasn’t happening.

      Govt. Money – Ford has never said in context that it has never used government money. What Ford has said is that they have never taken bailout funds or had to use government money to stay afloat, which is true.

      Oh, and the GM thing –

      GM absolutely lied to the public about paying off the dept, don’t you remember that ridiculous commercial (that GM was later held over the fires about by a number of consumer groups)? GM paid off part of the government loans with TARP buyout money, which is in essence other government loans, so they paid off debt with debt, or just shifted some numbers around. It would be no different from someone making a car payment on their Visa card, all you’ve done is prolonged the inevitable.

  • avatar
    trk2

    Oh please. Why is that every six months we have to read about Ford taking advantage of a government program to receive discounted loans that are also available to its competitors and then listen to some nonsensical argument that this is somehow morally equivalent to the government giving a company money simply to continue functioning. I read TTAC because of the refreshing and honest reviews but could do without some the smug and snark tones in the editorial comments.

    Honestly, do you realize that using editorial spin to twist the story to make Ford appear hypocritical only exposes the hypocrisy in an online website called the TRUTH about cars?

  • avatar
    shaker

    Ahh – stirrin’ the poop again.

    Ford is just playing the same trick in Germany that Mercedes/Honda/Nissan et al are playing here. Nothing to see – move along.

  • avatar
    Dr Strangelove

    Ford has debt, so they need loans. Since loans can be hard to come by in the current economy, they are not averse to accepting loans from governments. So what?

  • avatar
    UnclePete

    Wow all the Ford haters are out again. Geez how hard is this? Ford took DoE loan money to invest in green technology. Ford was asking for loans in Cologne to invest in new engine technology. Here’s a simplified take on investments: companies are loaned money all the time. They use the money to make improvements to the business, which improve sales, allowing them to pay back the loan and improve profitability, market share (and hopefully stock price) of the company.

    If you don’t like Ford then don’t invest in Ford. Invest in GM or Chrysler… oh wait, you can’t. They were bailed out by the Government and have no stock to offer at this time.

    • 0 avatar
      ronin

      How is Ford taking free taxpayer money innocuous?

      Is free taxpayer money given to the barber down the streat, the dry cleaners, the donut shop, the auto garage? No, only the select few fat cats get free money from their buddies.

      This is free money taken by force from taxpayers and given to a handful of select buddy commercial enterprises. You don’t get to suck at that and then wave the flag of innocence and independence.

    • 0 avatar
      trk2

      First of all, it is not “free” money. It may be interest free or low interest but it is still a loan and Ford does have an obligation to pay it back.

      Secondly, yes the Government does have low interest loans available for small businesses. The states have their own loan programs as well. These loans are predicated on starting a business, or expanding a business, or ‘greening’ your business but the money is available to small businesses too.

      Look, I’m as big a Libertarian as they come, and I still recognize the difference between loaning a business money so they can grow and add jobs, and giving a failed company money so that it won’t go out of business.

  • avatar
    forditude

    So the Ford haters are out in full force again, led by the #1 Ford hater who I presume will be the next TTAC staff member. Nice to see Corrigan drop all pretense of being what passes for a ‘journalist’ and finally admit hatred for all things Ford. I thought even bloggers were supposed to hide their biases, but the Jaguar avatar suggests otherwise. Perhaps the Ford hate stems from their long-term relationship or the fact that Ford dumped them like the dead weight that they are.

    Does no full time staff member here get the fact that DOE/EIB loans are available to all manufacturers, and they are totally different from a bailout and being a ward of the state? Nissan took over 1 billion, yet we don’t get beat over the head with it in every Nissan thread. I swear, we have been explaining this since the Farago days, but apparently TTAC staffers are either too dense to understand or refuse to acknowledge it.

    • 0 avatar
      Cammy Corrigan

      OK, where do I begin?

      1. Where in this thread did I “admit” a hatred for all things Ford?

      2. Let’s assume what you said is true (which it isn’t), then I suppose it must have been another Cammy Corrigan who wrote “To be fair to Ford, they can’t impress the markets, no matter what they do. When they announced their $2.1 billion profits for Q1 of 2010, their share price fell 3.2 percent (46 cents) because the profits were “unsustainable“. What do the markets want? Blood?”*

      3. And I guess it must have been a different TTAC website who reported on Ford paying off a big chunk of their debt?**

      But hey, don’t let that get in the way of a personal attack against me. In fact, one might call it “flaming”?

      * = https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/question-of-the-day-is-ford-on-shaky-ground/

      **= https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/f-word-o-k-again/

  • avatar
    dkulmacz

    Ridiculous TTAC memes that just won’t die:

    1) Taking advantage of DOE loans is equivalent to a massive bailout.
    — WRONG —

    2) Having $20+bn in debt is a story . . . retiring $9bn of that debt within 6 months is NOT a story.
    — WRONG —

    3) Fleet sales are all equivalent to brand-destroying, residual-killing giveaways
    — WRONG —

    I really don’t understand why a few persistent ideas just won’t go away here. Funny that they all seem to be used as bludgeons against Ford, mostly. But seriously, TTAC . . . give these some thought and make the rational decision to stop trotting them out.

    • 0 avatar

      As for #2: may I turn your (selective) attention to this?

    • 0 avatar
      holydonut

      As for #1 you should consider changing the title of this entry. While you’re at it remove the correlations you’re trying to drive comparing Ford with beggars and the bailout buffet recipients.

      If you need any evidence to support the reason for an edit – look at the first comment posted by Z71_Silvy. Your readers were accidentally (or intentionally?) mislead into correlating all government money with save-from-failure bailout dollars. Based on your use of words and images, it is clear that some of your readers are unable to form important distinctions related to the topics at hand.

    • 0 avatar
      Z71_Silvy

      1) Taking advantage of DOE loans is equivalent to a massive bailout.
      — WRONG –

      No one has asserted that. People have foolishly assumed that…but no one has ever said that DOE money is equal to a bailout (which were loans too BTW…)

    • 0 avatar
      dkulmacz

      Bertel,

      I didn’t selectively ignore that article . . . in fact, I remembered it and thought it supported my point.

      You took until paragraph three (of a four paragraph article) to point out the actual newsworthy item . . . that Ford paid down a sizable chunk of debt. The first half of the article is still harping about a messy balance sheet and government ‘sugar daddies’.

  • avatar
    mdensch

    Since you brought up fleet sales . . .

    Ever notice that this web site never publishes fleet figures for Asian car makers. Judging from all the Asian cars I see on car rental lots, it must be a factor in their business model.

  • avatar
    Patrickj

    Since there are only two governments on the planet with actual money (Germany and China), it’s a lot better than than trying to get blood out of the turnip that is the U.S. Government.

  • avatar
    Strippo

    If Ford is so well off financially, why would the EIB even need a loan guarantee? If Junior needs a co-signer to borrow money from a certain bank, does that mean Junior is asking for a bailout? Really? If a company says, “Sure, I’ll take the incentive money that you’ve set up on your own initiative if you’ll loan it to me,” that’s equivalent to the taxpayer coercion that results from companies failing miserably while simultaneously being judged by Uncle Sugar as too big to fail?

    I’m not feeling the snark here. Don’t hate the playa. If governments would stop bribing companies to locate production within their borders there would be no game. As long as there is a game, ceteris paribus, Ford would be stupid not to play.

    • 0 avatar
      Arete

      I believe Ford is still not investment grade (though higher than it was in the past).

    • 0 avatar
      Dr Lemming

      Strippo, you imply that the ultimate problem is governments “bribing” automakers. Yes, in a manner of speaking that’s true, but automakers aren’t innocent bystanders here. It’s been pretty standard for virtually all major automakers to heavily press for various types of government incentives, particularly in siting plants. The reality is that multinational corporations possess enormous leverage in exacting concessions from governments, especially during economic downturns. No elected leader wants to be blamed for not bringing home the bacon — or even worse, not doing what it takes to keep a company from shipping jobs elsewhere.

      To suggest that governments stop providing various types of tax breaks and freebies is naive. That’s a political nonstarter almost regardless of a party’s stated ideology. Just look at the degree to which southern states gave away the store to bring home assembly plants from foreign automakers. These are the same states whose elected leaders tend to rail against Big Three bailouts and Obama the Socialist. Those politicians hope that no one notices their hypocrisy.

    • 0 avatar
      Strippo

      @Dr Lemming Actually I never implied that there was a problem at all. All I’m saying is there’s a big difference between the horse who is attracted to the quaint little trough you’ve set up just for that purpose and the nag who’s certainly going to die if you don’t built it a giant, ultra-expensive, unplanned trough. Yet TTAC writers since Farago days seem oblivious to that distinction. They have a point, but it’s an exceedingly minor one. What they’re beating Ford over the head about is really just business as usual.

    • 0 avatar
      Dr Lemming

      Strippo, thank you for clarifying. I agree with you. Regarding subsidies, this site tends toward an ideological purity that has a parallel universe quality.

  • avatar
    Arete

    Some more companies that have received European Investment Bank loan money:
    BMW
    Nissan
    Mercedes
    PSA
    Renault
    Ford UK
    Volvo Trucks
    Volvo Cars
    Saab
    Jaguar

    The whole list is here (make sure to show all):
    http://www.eib.org/projects/pipeline/index.htm?start=2009&end=2010&status=&region=european-union&country=&sector=industry

  • avatar
    ajla

    We need to see more fair Ford-based TTAC stories like this:

    1. Compliments on the hairstyle of Mark Fields.
    2. Comparisons of Alan Mulally to other great historical figures.
    3. Comparisons of Alan Mulally to heroic fictional characters like Batman, The Fonz, or Indiana Jones.
    3. Editorial explaining why the Lincoln MKT will one day go for $2 million at Barrett-Jackson and is worth at least $25K over the Enclave.
    4. Comparison test of the Mustang GT with nothing (because the new 5.0L is without compare).
    5. The start of a “Ford: The Last Great American Brand” editorial series.

  • avatar
    BDB

    The word “bailout” has jumped the shark, it has been misused as a poll-tested buzzword so much that it’s lost all meaning. If it means anything at all anymore it is “spending money on something I don’t like”. This isn’t limited to TTAC, the media, politicians, and even advertisers are doing this.

  • avatar
    stationwagon

    hey guys, remember when the American Auto industry was hugely successful and had billion dollar profits and almost no debt, when American cars were on the cutting edge of technology, way back when, it was the Detroit 3 that gave resources and money to the government. In 1955 General Motors became the first American company to pay over a billion in taxes, remember that was a billion 1955 dollars. Chrysler made tanks in World war II. Ford made airplanes in World War II. Now it is the Detroit 3 asking governments for loans. Back then, opening a new engine plant would have not necessitated a loan from the government.

    Oh How the mighty have fallen.

  • avatar
    AaronH

    Bailout = Stealing money from people who earned it and giving it to people who didn’t.

    The government has no money…It steals it from productive people using threats of political violence.

    Government’s Money = Mugger’s Money.

    Ford is a receiver of stolen loot just like GM and Chrysler.

  • avatar
    mkirk

    If Ford needs to build this plant for these engines, then rest assured, they will. However If I were building it without any incentive (IE, some sort of Government loan) then the European Union (or the US for that matter) is the LAST place I would build it. Think Mexico or China or a more business friendly country.

    This is the sort of thing that Governments do to encourage companies to build and attract jobs, or keep them in this case. Look at the sweetheart deal Toyota got for the truck plant in Texas. Furthermore, governments had to encourage this sort of thing to get carmakers to build these cars due to the fact than (at least in the US) no one wanted them.

    Lastly, Ford is not a failed company. The money was out there, they asked and were told no. Now Ford will weigh there options and either not build, build there anyway, or build elsewhere. They Will not go under and fall into bankrupcy and that is what makes this different. As a Ford shareholder I would be upset if they didn’t try to take advantage of existing ways to cut costs to include programs like this. If you dont like the money being offered then talk to your government, I know I plan to do just that come November.

  • avatar
    ez3276

    “Government Money” shows just how far we’ve slid into socialism.
    There is no such thing as Government Money ladies and gents, it’s OUR money that’s getting tossed around. We have veered so far away from real capitalism that it’s becoming almost a joke.

  • avatar
    Jimal

    Yawn. Pure Capitalism only works in a vacuum occupied only by the capitalists making money off each other. This line that we’ve become socialists is just so much tea party clap trap. Even the man himself, Ron Paul, will concede that some regulation, as little as it may be and where constitutionally appropriate, is not a bad thing.

    And Bert, the title of this article is way misleading.

  • avatar
    ez3276

    Tea party clap-trap? Not me pal, I’m non-denominational. I would just love to see this country abide by it’s own constitution. It seems to me the first 100 years of “pure capitalism” in this country was a bit more successful than the Soviet’s first 100 years of socialism.

    • 0 avatar
      Jimal

      Thanks for the red herring, a popular debating device in these here parts. What with all the slavery and child labor and sweatshops and whatnot, the first 100 years of “pure capitalism” was great for the industrialists of the day, not so much for anyone else. Back to today, It is deregulation that occurred during the Clinton and Bush years that allowed supposedly smart people to come up with the financial instruments and practices that have brought our economy to its knees. I sort of remember things humming along in the mid to late 90’s. When times are good it is easier to lobby for less regulation. I’m all for capitalism but I’m to naive to think that it can be left unchecked.

  • avatar
    cpmanx

    Meaning that you consider your understanding of the Constitution superior to that of the Roberts-led Supreme Court? I think a dose of modesty might be in order.

    And meaning that the second 100 years of “impure capitalism”–ie, the century after the Civil War, when the US rose to be the world’s greatest economic and military power–was not so successful?

    I think a dose of history might be in order as well. The first century of US economic development was not all peaches and cream, and not devoid of wrenching debates about the proper role of government in directing the economy. For instance:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1837

    Finally, the headline “company wants government money” is about as surprising and meaningful as “homeowner wants tax deduction for mortgage payments” or “college kid wants federal student loans.” BOR-ing.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • ToolGuy: “much better than the horror show that the Camaro is now” Will no one rise to defend the...
  • tankinbeans: I have pretty much the perfect spec in my car today. Finally pulled the trigger on a Mazda3 Turbo. Must...
  • tankinbeans: I briefly paid for a subscription to Sirius 10 years ago, but have the same problem with Sirius as I do...
  • Ol Shel: So, you just made sh!t up, and want people to believe it’s a fact. You sound like the jacka$$ at the...
  • nrd515: I agree with most of your list, with a few exceptions: I don’t drive enough miles to really care about...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber