Thursday, December 24, 2009

Ford; Rising from the Wreckage

The "Detroit 3" domestic auto makers have all "survived" what was arguably the worst year in their collective history. Chrysler and General Motors declared bankruptcy. Chrysler was basically told by the Obama administration to merge with foreign automaker Fiat. GM now has the Obama administration sitting on their Board and "advising" them how to run their business and telling them what products they can and cannot build.

The only domestic automaker to avoid some level of government control is Ford Motor Company. Ford had the forsight to line up $23.5 billion in private financing in 2006, before the mortgage/banking collapse that dried up commercial credit. While Chrysler and GM tried to avoid bankruptcy by seeking government guaranteed loans, Ford was able to "ride out the storm" and avoid the "pact with the devil" that both GM and Chrysler entered into with the Obama Administration. The downside to Ford not filing bankruptcy is that their 2 domestic competitors were able to shed BILLIONS of dollars in debt that Ford is still carrying and will have to pay off.

The irony for GM and Chrysler was the fact that after accepting the conditional government loans, they had to file for bankruptcy after all, prompting alot of people, including myself, to say "They should have just declared bankruptcy without accepting a dime from the government" They'd be much better off.


  1. Brian,
    Is this the response/correction to my comment on your last post?

  2. Christopher said...
    Is this the response/correction to my comment on your last post?
    Christopher, You can take it that way if you want ... I think you're a little too quick to condemn fellow conservatives if they don't "toe the ideological line". If you read my profile you'll see that I say right up front "I am a conservative, NOT an ideologue"
    Guy's like you that want to condemn other conservatives if they only agree with you 9o% of the time is one of the reasons the Republican party has been shrinking. I think I am principled, just not ideologically rigid. Is that O.K. Christopher ?

  3. Wow, Brian, if you are no longer welcome in the conservative tent, surely conservatives are doomed.

    Conservatives have the smallest tent ever.

    You are an ideologue, by the way. Maybe not pure enough for the Tea Party, but an ideologue nonetheless.

  4. Bruce the "lurker" reveals himself. Hey Lurker, what do atheists do on Christmas ? Spread hatred as usual I guess, eh ?

    The Democrat party will be shrinking quite a bit this coming year, capped by a 40 seat reduction in the U.S. House after next November's elections.

    Happy New Year "Lurker" !

  5. Brian, you really are a first class putz.

    I'm having a nice holiday, thanks for your "kind" thoughts. I'm spending it with my family, my granddaughter. Thanks for asking.

    I wouldn't count your chickens before they're hatched, Brian. The Republican party embracing the teabaggers will not be helpful for conservatives, at least not the ones they still let in the GOP. Apparently you aren't conservative enough for the teabaggers, so I guess you'll have to vote Republican.

  6. thank god that GM and chrysler did not file wirthout the government loans as the economy of michigan would bhave been even more depressed. We'd be worse off but the companies would be better. lol

    Your the same guy who wanted to re-vote on a contract that gave even more of our wages and benefits away to a company making a billion dollars profit and rewardin g supervisors with bonus's.

    Have you rethought your position on the last re-opening of the contract yet? Or are you sticking with doing whatev er we can to help Mulally give more money to everyone but us. Remember you make the parts not them.

  7. I feel bad for Bruce's family, being forced to spend it with that loser ranting and raving. That's a lot of hate, but I'm sure they are used to it.

    Joey, first off I am not up on the contract that was voted down, but as I understand it Gettle (Gettel?)finger was all for it. Unless he was so full of sh*t that he was secretly working behind the scenes to take it down. So I was just curious about why the president of the UAW would be for it.

    I don't understand why anyone has a problem with a company making profit. Don't you work to make a profit?! Doesn't the company have profit-sharing with the employees?!! I know they did when I worked there, and it always blew me away when employees would literally sabotage equipment and do things that decrease production. As I said before, I supervised production AND maintenance, and believe you me I WORKED MY ASS OFF. Sure it was glorified babysitting, but if you think it's so easy you should try taking a walk in someone else's shoes. If all of you union workers didn't need babysitting then it would be a glorious place indeed. But with the union watching out for every low-life and literally screwing over the good workers, sadly supervisors are a necessary element. Do you think things would work better without supervisors?!? ROFLMAO

    One question for you union-workers; do you think it would be any different if the union had their own car-company to run? I don't understand why the union doesn't just form their own company and do it right. If they did they would be shedding all the losers from their payroll in no time flat, believe you me.

  8. "condemn fellow conservatives"?

    Just who is being quick here?

    I am simply pointing out the obvious. You were the one in YOUR OWN video condeming REAL Conservatives as they did NOT tow YOUR union line. Then turn around and amend it?

    I would advise that if you want to hold the Conservative tag,act like it.

  9. By the by, in your video you play the liberal card by using regional/class envy card? That is something that a REAL Conservative would never do as we are all Americans and NOT seperated.

    A RINO might do that as they align themselves with the left,but certainly NOT a Conservative.

    I see you are working closely with the MI Republican Party but in no uncertain terms qualifies you as a Conservative.

  10. Oh and by the way,,agree 90%?


    I will settle for 100% of real personal responibility thank you very much.

  11. You know Brian you really got me going with your response.

    I will not stop pointing to obvious betrayals of conservative, constitutional thought wherever they occur and that includes this blog.

    If you wish to attack me I welcome it as it will shed light as to who exactly are or are not Conservatives.

  12. Ya know Brian, my wife just said something about this.

    She reminded me that both you and Bruce are confused, but at least you may be trying to find your way.

    With Gods' help I hope you do.

  13. Brian, What is it with you?

    I am a UAW member but by default, meaning i did not vote in favor. You,also a UAW member claiming conservativism,
    extole federal moneny? Then decry federal control?

    This by no means is consistent which conservatism demands.

  14. Christopher, Boy you really get worked up when you think you can discredit a fellow conservative, don't you.I wish you would attack bleeding heart liberals with as much energy ... I would have to write a LONG comment to satisfy you with my position on "supporting" the domestic auto companies, but let me give you the short version. You'll have to pay attention and TRY TO BE A LITTLE MORE OPEN MINDED CHRISTOPHER ...

    First of all, some people who don't take the time to think the issue through, assume that supporting "help" for the domestic auto-companies means that you support government loan gaurantees ... period. That is FALSE.
    While I DID support the government making financing available to help GM and Chrysler during the government created credit crisis, I only did so because the whole collapse of the banking industry started with housing/mortgage defaults which were largely the result of liberal government mandated lending policies. If you were reading my blog before The Oakland Press fired us, you would have seen that I felt government help was justified because the "sub-prime" loan crisis and liberal policies like the Clinton era "Community Reinvestment Act" were at the root of the mortgage/credit crisis that caused the automotive crisis.

    Secondly, the "help" I was calling for was not simply a government "bailout". Together with Chrysler employee Chris Vitale, we were calling for the government to change it's trade policies and practices to prevent the foreign competition from having open access to our market while virtually blocking American made vehicles from being sold in their markets.
    Lastly, we were asking the American people consider buying vehicles made by American based companies, before buying vehicles that support foreign economies.

    As far as my forced membership in the UAW, I voted in favor of the recent Ford "contract modifications" last month that would have kept our labor costs on a par with GM and Chrysler. Ford is already at a disadvantage from not having "shed" its debt in bankruptcy like it's domestic competitors and we should do everything we can to stay labor-cost competitive.

  15. Brian,
    Again,it is not I that discredit's you but your own words/actions. I did not post the video,you did. I am not in the video,you are.You posted a second blog without answering my comment on the first.

    You did this,not me. Do not try to shift blame here.

    Also as to discredidation,this is not what I seek,simply the truth. You say 'from the right' but as of late speak 'from the left'?

    You attack 'southern senators' in the video but do not mention their party affiliation knowing full well their position was right and also what party they belong to. This is just like the lame-stream media. I remind you I am not in , posted or made the video,you did. You cannot have your cake and eat it to.

    As to union membership, I said mine was by default and only mentioned yours, declining description. You have added the word 'forced' which is a good adjective for it,at least in my case. But current conracts have little to do with the subject at hand. This to is a diversionary tactic used when the subject hot.

  16. Christopher, you have certainly exposed yourself as a hateful, narrow-minded idoelogue who will attack fellow conservatives while ignoring the real enemy, liberals and socialists.
    Knock yourself out Christopher, I find it amusing.

  17. Brian, Hateful? Really? Exposing inconsistancy is deemed hateful by you? I guess when called to the carpet you attack like your nemisis Bruce.

    I find none of this amusing but rather the state of the republican party-lame at best.

  18. Christopher said...
    "Brian, Hateful? Really?"

    Christopher go back and read your past posts on my blog. You have spent over 90% of your time attacking and criticizing me, a fellow conservative. If you honestly believe that is the best way to attract more conservatives I think you are going about it the wrong way.
    Why don't you try to find the things we agree on, let bleeding heart lib's like Bruce attack me instead of attacking me from the right because you think I am not ideologically as pure as you would like. It's simply counter-productive, that's all.

  19. Brian, Did you not attack "southern" conservatives? This is not an attack,again simply pointing out obvious inconsistencies. When these occur it does nothing whatsoever to advance conservatism. I am sorry you feel the truth is hateful,especially when I am not a hateful person and I see it as constructive critisism.

    I do get animated when I see inconsistencies coming from those who claim conservatism but this is not hate,disappointment to be sure but not hate. You would not be able to post my comments if I were angered with hate,believe me.

  20. Christopher, before you go too far defending "conservative" Senator Shelby's claim that Ford, GM and Chrysler "deserve to fail", you might want to check into his "liberal" aid to the foreign owned auto companies that located in his state of Alabama to benefit from the lucrative taxpayer funded handouts that Senator Shelby endorsed and helped dole out.

    I pointed out the hypocrisy of Senator Shelby, who had supported giving hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers money to foreign owned auto companies to locate in Alabama. You should slow down and check the facts before criticizing what you call my "inconsistencies". You're not quite as up on the facts as you act. You might want to look at the website @

  21. Woah,now you are attacking people who WORK in America?

    Just because they work at a company that you are in competition with you wish to deny them jobs!!!!!!!!!

    In my conservative circle competition is a good thing as is EMPLOYMENT.

    Just who is the hypocrite here?????

    Inconsistent yet again.

  22. This is exactly what I reffered to as regional/class envy tactics.

  23. Brian, I am happy you are working,especially at Ford,we definately agree on Ford Motor Company.

    But say you were unemployed in say Alabama and Ford was wooed to open a plant there with tax incentives or any other automotive manufacturers be they foriegn or domestic for that matter, would you not,given the oppertunity, work there?

    Do you believe that ALL plants and facilities no matter the industry here in the Detroit area DO NOT recieve the same benifits from the various City,County and State government's?

    This is called COMPETITION.

  24. Honestly this "difference" of ours is quite interesting,at least to me. It now includes in essence State's Right's and competition between them which is exactly where the Nation started.

  25. I remind you libs that less then 20% of Americans say they are liberal,over 40% are conservative. We conservatives are the larger camp. So stop acting like you are the majority when you are less then a fringe.

  26. Once again, Brian acting like he is "forced" to be part of the UAW. No your not Brian, your allowed to not be part of the union and you know it. But since they "force" you to take such good wages and benefits atleast you could be thankfully.

    Please Brian, invoke your Beck rights and renounce the union. That way you can live with yourself again.

    But how do you feel about you stand on the concessions with Ford giving bonus's and making a billion dollars? Do you feel like the company tried to pull one over on you?

  27. JoeC said...But how do you feel about you stand on the concessions with Ford giving bonus's and making a billion dollars? Do you feel like the company tried to pull one over on you?

    Hey Joey, I feel the same way I did a month ago. It is stupid for the UAW members to pit themselves against the company that they work for. (You do realize that you don't work for the UAW, right Joe ?) The domestic auto companies gave up alot of market share by not being cost competitive with the transplants, now Ford UAW members are doing the same thing by allowing GM and Chrysler/Fiat to have lower labor costs.

    As far as Ford returning the 401k matches and pervformance bonuses for salaried workers, as well as the tuition assistance for hourly workers, I'm glad to see it. Same with the fact that we are on the verge of making a profit.
    Unlike you Joey, I root for the company I work for to be profitable, that is the goal of every company. Only militant union members would want their company to lose money and think it is a good thing.

  28. Brian, i don't want the company to lose money. Nice deflection though.

    The reality is that Ford is pitting us vs. them not the union. The UAW came to us and offered us the chance to vote on that POS contract that Ford wanted us to ratify. We said we stand by the first set of concessions thank you. Ford then announced its profit and then little while later announced its giving money back to salary. Notice the only thing we got was our ability to se the nickel fund for tuition again.

    As for the nickel fund, that's our money Brian, not the companies. They manage it, but that's wages deferred, not the company giving us anything.