The great community organizer is at it again. Instead of creating jobs he wants to take them away that way EVERYONE can be on the governments tit.(FOX News) — Automakers are pushing back against an Obama administration proposal that would almost double vehicle fuel-efficiency standards, launching a new ad campaign warning of hundreds of thousands of job losses across the country. “By the government’s own study, (the new standards) will cost so much more that it will result in a loss of about 220,000 jobs,” said Ed Tonkin, former president of the Automobile Dealers Association.
Unbeknownst to this auto industry official Michelle is already tackling this issue, it is a competition with her husband in who can lose more jobs and crash the economy first.One auto industry official put it this way: the new standards “are like dealing with the nation’s obesity problem by forcing clothing manufacturers to sell only small sizes.”
Since when did common sense matter?The 30 hybrids now on the market only account for only 2.4 percent of sales. And last year, Ford sold almost twice as many friend-150 pickups as all its hybrids put together.
My brother works for GM, he told me today that the UAW is expecting its members to get a $37K profit sharing bonus. I don't buy GM anymore, I'm happy with Ford.
I have a 99 Blazer and a 2004 Tahoe..........but you couldn't give me a Gov't Motors car or truck for free now. If we buy, it'll be a Ford.
I imagine (and I can only imagine) that you are saying this because you believe that FORD didnt recieve a bailout? I realize you may have heard this a million times from FOXED SPEWS and its now your train of thought, but you are WRONG.
While FORD was suffering as was GM and Chrysler, FORD was the only company that was able to secure EXTENSIVE FINANCING through private banks to BAIL THEM OUT. Unlike Gm and Chrysler, FORD had a business plan that the banks wanted to support.
GM and Chrysler did not have plans that the banks wanted to support.
FORD was equally in trouble and without the loans it recieved, it would have been close to bankruptcy.
To say FORD was not bailed out is to not understand the facts, as usual.
Peace.
I imagine (and I can only imagine) that you are saying this because you believe that FORD didnt recieve a bailout? I realize you may have heard this a million times from FOXED SPEWS and its now your train of thought, but you are WRONG.
While FORD was suffering as was GM and Chrysler, FORD was the only company that was able to secure EXTENSIVE FINANCING through private banks to BAIL THEM OUT. Unlike Gm and Chrysler, FORD had a business plan that the banks wanted to support.
GM and Chrysler did not have plans that the banks wanted to support.
FORD was equally in trouble and without the loans it recieved, it would have been close to bankruptcy.
To say FORD was not bailed out is to not understand the facts, as usual.
Peace.
This response is good and represents other themes in failed policy... Lying, having a plan and using bailouts like it's going out of style......It all just comes so naturally and is why we're in the shape we are in now. Redistribution at its finest.Nearly all businesses use loans to operate, that's nothing new. The fact that Ford had a plan that the lenders were willing to go along with speaks volumes. Ford did NOT get a bailout, they took out EXTENSIVE FINANCING through PRIVATE banks. Do you think that is anything like using tax payer money to keep the doors open? To say Ford received a bailout is lying.
The government throwing $$$$ at a failing company does not make me a proud American. It goes against everything I've learned about the natural consequences of your actions.
It was a dark day when Gen'l Motors was failing, but they screwed up and companies like Ford planned better.
There's a huge opening there, but I'm just going to tip toe on by...![]()