It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ford pulls its ad on bailouts after pressure from Obama administration

page: 1
6

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 12:46 PM
link   
Ford pulls its ad on bailouts - 'Didn't take the money' boast ruffles feathers



As part of a campaign featuring "real people" explaining their decision to buy the Blue Oval, a guy named "Chris" says he "wasn't going to buy another car that was bailed out by our government," according the text of the ad, launched in early September.

"I was going to buy from a manufacturer that's standing on their own: win, lose, or draw. That's what America is about is taking the chance to succeed and understanding when you fail that you gotta' pick yourself up and go back to work."

That's what some of America is about, evidently. Because Ford pulled the ad after individuals inside the White House questioned whether the copy was publicly denigrating the controversial bailout policy CEO Alan Mulally repeatedly supported in the dark days of late 2008, in early '09 and again when the ad flap arose. And more.

With President Barack Obama tuning his re-election campaign amid dismal economic conditions and simmering antipathy toward his stimulus spending and associated bailouts, the Ford ad carried the makings of a political liability when Team Obama can least afford yet another one. Can't have that.

The ad, pulled in response to White House questions (and, presumably, carping from rival GM), threatened to rekindle the negative (if accurate) association just when the president wants credit for their positive results (GM and Chrysler are moving forward, making money and selling vehicles) and to distance himself from any public downside of his decision.


The point should be taken that Ford doesn’t have a squeaky clean record on bailouts as they received loans for retooling, but the fact is the White House pressured Ford to pull the add. It should serve as a precautionary example of why the government should stay out of the business of running businesses in general.




posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 01:14 PM
link   
I remember reading somewhere they (Ford) opted for cancellation of debt as opposed to taking a bailout. This way it would stay out of the press at the time but would have the same net-effect.

I'm too lazy to look it up



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 01:16 PM
link   
Awwww, does Berry feel it is unfair that Government Moters has some serious competition from another quality car company that DIDN'T take our money? Poor poor Berry.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 02:46 PM
link   
GM is the White House.

Wow.

finance.yahoo.com...



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 05:14 PM
link   
At the time I was against helping GM....but not helping them would have been catastrophic to the economy. I can only imagine how bad it would have been if nothing was done.

The auto industry is actually one of the few bright spots going in our economy. Fact is, helping GM saved an untold amount of jobs....whether one agrees with how it was done or not.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by David9176
At the time I was against helping GM....but not helping them would have been catastrophic to the economy. I can only imagine how bad it would have been if nothing was done.

The auto industry is actually one of the few bright spots going in our economy. Fact is, helping GM saved an untold amount of jobs....whether one agrees with how it was done or not.


I hope this doesn't sound like an attack on you, I'm just trying to understand your reasoning. Are you saying you support propping up failing businesses?

GM made some very bad business decisions through the years, and when the economy showed signs of slowing, they couldn't keep up with it. By bailing them out you are rewarding their bad decision making. No business should continue to exist if it cannot sustain itself without the help of tax payer money, I don't care how big it is. Smaller businesses who employed hundreds of people were never bailed out. Is there some rule that says "If you employ more than 2,000 people you're entitled to a bailout in order to keep those folks working"? Should that be the rule?

A business is (in a way) also subject to evolution. If you can't cut it in this world, you cease to exist. Artificially keeping it alive with tax payer money is no way to keep the economy alive. You're taking that money from one person and giving it to someone else. That somebody could have been a former employee of a small business that didn't get propped up by the Government. If GM disappeared, the demand for product would soon bring another car company to fill the demand. Allowing a huge company to die doesn't necessarily mean those jobs will disappear forever. Would it have been hard on the people working for GM? Yeah, of course,... but they're no different and shouldn't be exempt from the economic downturns that every single one of us must experience, because we don't work for companies big enough to get bailed out. Rewarding bad business practices only makes the economy even worse.

If the bailouts came from private sources I would be less upset, but the fact that they came from our pockets, the fact that tax payers had to prop up these companies so that GM employees could keep their jobs while everyone else was losing theirs, .... that's not right. If you're going to bail out one, you have to bail out all, or none.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 06:03 PM
link   
All is well comrades . . .

On a side note my 2002 Ford Mustang convertible has 343,652 miles and is running like she isn't a mile over 100K

Gotta love how long things last when you actually take care of them.
edit on 27-9-2011 by MasterGemini because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 06:09 PM
link   
I love my Ford.
and obama can go pound sand



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 06:16 PM
link   
2 thumbs down on my worthless meter


hey news flash imperial leader mr obama you can kill a tv ad dude

can you beleive that they took that video off youtube as well


classic government no no dont say anything bad about the current government or potus we will shut you down.

zeig heil to the most fascist goverment this nation has ever had oops thats a tie between him and roosevelt

censorship

edit on 27-9-2011 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by SirMike
Ford pulls its ad on bailouts - 'Didn't take the money' boast ruffles feathers



As part of a campaign featuring "real people" explaining their decision to buy the Blue Oval, a guy named "Chris" says he "wasn't going to buy another car that was bailed out by our government," according the text of the ad, launched in early September.

"I was going to buy from a manufacturer that's standing on their own: win, lose, or draw. That's what America is about is taking the chance to succeed and understanding when you fail that you gotta' pick yourself up and go back to work."

That's what some of America is about, evidently. Because Ford pulled the ad after individuals inside the White House questioned whether the copy was publicly denigrating the controversial bailout policy CEO Alan Mulally repeatedly supported in the dark days of late 2008, in early '09 and again when the ad flap arose. And more.

With President Barack Obama tuning his re-election campaign amid dismal economic conditions and simmering antipathy toward his stimulus spending and associated bailouts, the Ford ad carried the makings of a political liability when Team Obama can least afford yet another one. Can't have that.

The ad, pulled in response to White House questions (and, presumably, carping from rival GM), threatened to rekindle the negative (if accurate) association just when the president wants credit for their positive results (GM and Chrysler are moving forward, making money and selling vehicles) and to distance himself from any public downside of his decision.


The point should be taken that Ford doesn’t have a squeaky clean record on bailouts as they received loans for retooling, but the fact is the White House pressured Ford to pull the add. It should serve as a precautionary example of why the government should stay out of the business of running businesses in general.


So allegedly GM and Chrysler are moving forward, making money and selling vehicles--and the president wants credit for their positive results???? I was enraged when I read that (nothing against you, OP):

"...GM has announced investments of $3.67 billion in Mexico since November 2007, including a new assembly plant in San Luis Potosí. The company has closed five U.S.-based assembly plants and put three more on standby since June 2005, according to Tom Wilkinson, a GM spokesman.

Chrysler announced in February that it's spending $550 million to retool its factory in Toluca to assemble the subcompact Fiat 500 model. Last month, Ford reopened an assembly plant in Cuautitlán to build Fiesta compacts for the 2011 model year. The factory will generate 2,000 jobs and is part of $3 billion in investments in Mexico announced since 2008. In the U.S., Ford has closed four assembly plants since 2006 and plans to close four more facilities by the end of 2011.

Mexico's gains will come at the expense of workers in the U.S. .."
www.businessweek.com...

How nice that USA taxpayers bailed out car companies so jobs could be created in Mexico! This is success? For whom? Not the USA, not The People!!




top topics



 
6

log in

join