Reid: Bailing out GM and Chrysler saved … Ford?

posted at 10:55 am on July 22, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

By this logic, as the BlogProf argues, we may someday have to bail out Pepsi to save Coca-Cola.  Harry Reid tries to defend the unpopular bailouts of two of the Big Three American automakers by claiming that the US would have no auto industry at all without them.  The continued existence of Ford, which refused to take government bailout money, would make that claim difficult for anyone other than a desperate Democrat:

The Senate’s top Democrat argued Ford Motor Co. probably would have collapsed if the government hadn’t bailed out its top two competitors.

Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., chided Republicans for opposing Democratic efforts on a number of fronts and defended the Obama administration’s auto bailout.

“Isn’t it a good thing today in America that we have an automobile manufacturing sector? If it had been up to them, General Motors would be gone. If it were up to them, Ford Motor Company would probably be gone. Chrysler definitely would be gone,” Reid said on the Senate floor today. “We decided that they need help, just like New York City needed help 25 years ago.”

Well, it was left up to Ford, and they survived the crisis on their own.  Chrysler would almost certainly have collapsed, but it’s all but gone now anyway.  GM will survive in something resembling its previous form, but only after taxpayers assumed almost all of its liabilities in the bailout and after its senior creditors took a beating in a political machination that made a mockery of bankruptcy law.

Ford did praise the bailout, but hardly claimed that it saved their bacon:

Ford executives have never said the company would have collapsed if the government hadn’t bailed out its cross-town rivals.

In December, Ford executive chairman Bill Ford Jr. met with President Barack Obama and praised him for rescuing GM and Chrysler.

Nor would it have made any sense to make that argument.  Elimination of competition would not have caused Ford to collapse; it would have given them a stronger position as the sole remaining domestic auto company (although not the only domestic auto producer, as Toyota and Honda build cars in the US).  Had GM and Chrysler gone under, it may have given Ford more leverage to deal with union wages and pensions, especially the latter.

The Blog Prof notes that bankruptcy wouldn’t have necessarily meant the end for GM and Chrysler, either, and that the government’s interference in the process did more harm than good:

Without the bailouts, GM and Chrysler could have gone through bankruptcy restructuring without the 800-lb government gorilla on their backs. As it is, the bankruptcy restructuring occurred in a way to help Obama’s primary constituency – unions – rather than the long-term health of the companies. We are yet to see whether the restructuring will work, but if it does, it will be despite the government takeover, not because of it. There are in fact plenty of good people still working for the autos. I know because some of them have been my best engineering students.

And don’t forget that we spent over $60 billion on those bailouts just to see the companies go into bankruptcy anyway.  A proper bankruptcy would have maintained order in capital markets and reallocated resources rationally without the $62 billion in taxpayer money that we had to borrow for the bailout.  As we service that debt, it will come out of the pockets of Americans who might otherwise have spent it on actual growth-producing activities — like buying cars.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

I so want him to lose. C’mon Nevada, don’t let us down.

changer1701 on July 22, 2010 at 10:58 AM

Because no one could survive without his benevolence.

lm10001 on July 22, 2010 at 10:58 AM

Crypt Keeper believes everyone is as dumb as the liberals who voted for him and PBHO.

Bishop on July 22, 2010 at 10:58 AM

In related news:

G.M. Buys a Subprime Lender for $3.5 Billion

Congratulations, American taxpayers! And remember, it’s not a “tax-payer bailout” if the government owns it.

Rae on July 22, 2010 at 11:00 AM

Harry, you’re a dimwit. A maroon. An r-tard. If it weren’t for politics, you wouldn’t be able to hold a job more important than night janitor at a Las Vegas peep show.

JohnGalt23 on July 22, 2010 at 11:00 AM

Chrysler is dead regardless. In the end it will be little more than a front for Fiat to gain a market share here while seeming to build cars in the US by having an America employee stick a mirror on an imported car.

Rocks on July 22, 2010 at 11:00 AM

Reid’s an idiot? Well yeah but I think you’re dangerously missing the context…

Reid thinks he controls ALL THREE auto companies. And given that Ford announced today that they would sell their more expensive hybrid engine truck at the same cost as their cheaper regular engine truck makes me think Reid’s right.

Skywise on July 22, 2010 at 11:01 AM

Every time Harry Reid makes one of these statements, I want to send some money to that “crazy lady” in Nevada.

MeatHeadinCA on July 22, 2010 at 11:01 AM

It DID help save Ford. A lot of people deliberately avoided the government auto companies, which drove them to look more closely at Ford.

Daggett on July 22, 2010 at 11:02 AM

Bill Ford, Jr. had to praise BO for saving GM in order to be left alone. If your major competition was going belly up, wouldn’t you be ordering champagne? This is how a thugocracy works.

Kissmygrits on July 22, 2010 at 11:02 AM

Nor would it have made any sense to make that argument.  Elimination of competition would not have caused Ford to collapse;

Ah, see there you go using Logic and reason – such things are anathema to the NeoProgressive-Socialist crowd.

Colbyjack on July 22, 2010 at 11:02 AM

Harry, you’re a dimwit. A maroon. An r-tard. If it weren’t for politics, you wouldn’t be able to hold a job more important than night janitor at a Las Vegas peep show.

JohnGalt23 on July 22, 2010 at 11:00 AM

Couldn’t have said it better.

MeatHeadinCA on July 22, 2010 at 11:02 AM

you wouldn’t be able to hold a job more important than night janitor at a Las Vegas peep show.

JohnGalt23 on July 22, 2010 at 11:00 AM

How about the peep hole cleaner?

Wade on July 22, 2010 at 11:02 AM

The only way Reid statement has any logic to it is if you conclude that the bailout of Chrysler and GM caused customers to buy more Ford vehicles because people did not want to support government owned enterprises.

WashJeff on July 22, 2010 at 11:02 AM

I’m tempted to agree. Not that it was part of the grand plan. There was a big sentiment to buy Ford because they DIDN’T take the bailout.

nazarioj001 on July 22, 2010 at 11:03 AM

It DID help save Ford. A lot of people deliberately avoided the government auto companies, which drove them to look more closely at Ford.

Daggett on July 22, 2010 at 11:02 AM

One could argue that people like Harry Reid might have saved capitalism. After people saw how destructive statist policies promoted by Reid were, they begged for Cowboy Capitalism.

MeatHeadinCA on July 22, 2010 at 11:03 AM

How about the peep hole cleaner?

Wade on July 22, 2010 at 11:02 AM

Harry is only qualified to clean another type of hole at this peep show…

MeatHeadinCA on July 22, 2010 at 11:04 AM

Yeah, Ford is really grateful that those of us who won’t support Government owned companies will at least contemplate buying their products before we move to Toyota/Nissan/Honda.

search4truth on July 22, 2010 at 11:04 AM

Reids silly line of thinking is akin to a liberal.

You also help employment by expanding unemployment benefits.

Odie1941 on July 22, 2010 at 11:05 AM

It’s not up to “this war is lost”, but it’s close…

Vote this man out!

cmsinaz on July 22, 2010 at 11:06 AM

not knowing a whole lot about the auto manufacturing industry, i’ll chime in with my $0.02

if GM had filed for bankruptcy and reorganized, Ford WOULD have been hurt in the short term since a lot of the parts makers in the food chain support GM, Ford, and other car makers. the sudden reduction in business while GM reorganized would have caused the parts makers problems since they could not get business loans to tide them over from the private market since no one was lending at the time. the problems at the parts makers would have caused problems up the chain.

while i detest government intervention, the feds could have worked with GM to make sure the reorg was prepackaged & settled and guaranteed loans for the parts makers to minimize the impact on other car makers. some parts makers would have gone out of business, but the whole chain of suppliers would not seize up and screwed everyone.

of course, that could not happen with The One in the Oval Orifice since the Dems are owned by the unions.

Numbuh One on July 22, 2010 at 11:06 AM

It will be a long time before I buy another current GM product, and after test driving a new Mustang GT500 the other day, that decision was made easier.

Bishop on July 22, 2010 at 11:06 AM

Has Harry Reid stopped by Detroit lately to see all those busy automobile factories churning out all those new cars?

Guess what, Harry? THERE AREN’T ANY!

pilamaye on July 22, 2010 at 11:07 AM

It’s almost by insisting on the first TARP, Dubya laid a trap he knew the mice couldn’t resist….Now they are stuck in the maze.

Dr Evil on July 22, 2010 at 11:07 AM

Every time Harry Reid makes one of these statements, I want to send some money to that “crazy lady” in Nevada.

MeatHeadinCA on July 22, 2010 at 11:01 AM

And we thank you! We have our work cut out for us but we will defeat harry red in November.

VegasRick on July 22, 2010 at 11:08 AM

Harry Reid: See, if we lose enough jobs in the United States, we’ll end up creating jobs … in India.

MeatHeadinCA on July 22, 2010 at 11:08 AM

Numbuh One on July 22, 2010 at 11:06 AM

Uh… no. The parts makers would scale down to a level that fits their demand… led by Ford – who as a premium customer would benefit.

The down scaling of that parts maker would be due to GM’s failure.

Its business 101.

Odie1941 on July 22, 2010 at 11:09 AM

It will be a long time before I buy another current GM product, and after test driving a new Mustang GT500 the other day, that decision was made easier.

Bishop on July 22, 2010 at 11:06 AM

I got the V6 convertible ’09…have not regretted it one bit.

JetBoy on July 22, 2010 at 11:11 AM

GM to spend 3.5 billion to buy auto finance company

GM executives have said for months that they were missing sales opportunities due to lack of credit for lease deals and financing for subprime buyers, those with credit scores below 620 on a 300-to-850-point scale. About 40 percent of U.S. customers have below prime credit scores,

because, you see, GM had to sell off GMAC

The exchange allowed Detroit-based GMAC, the main lender to GM dealers, to convert to a bank and obtain federal aid

Skandia Recluse on July 22, 2010 at 11:11 AM

3 private sector companies – 2 public takeovers = 1 private sector company with 2 public competitors.
Yep, heading in the right direction.

Electrongod on July 22, 2010 at 11:11 AM

And…nowhere does he call attention to the fact that the basic problems and causes are due to actions or failure to act on the part of the mighty and all knowing Government.

jeanie on July 22, 2010 at 11:12 AM

In a related story, get this from American Thinker

The Obama administration, already under fire for unprecedented allegations of racial bias, faces a new bias claim from a most unlikely source: one of the administration’s own inspectors general. Decisions on which car dealerships to close as part of the auto industry bailout — closures the Obama administration forced on General Motors and Chrysler — were based in part on race and gender, according to a report by Troubled Asset Relief Program Special Inspector General Neal M. Barofsky.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/07/race_played_role_in_obama_car.html

Del Dolemonte on July 22, 2010 at 11:12 AM

As long as people want to buy automobiles there will be auto companies ( as long as the government allows people to create them ).

The same is true for the airline industry.

When people talk about an industry “collapsing” they are talking nothing but ignorance.

Why do oil companies make so much money? Because the government LIMITS WHO CAN CREATE ONE and who can engage in oil production.

Duh!

DavidM on July 22, 2010 at 11:13 AM

3 private sector companies – 2 public takeovers = 1 private sector company with 2 public competitors.
Yep, heading in the right direction.

Electrongod on July 22, 2010 at 11:11 AM

Wait till Harry Reid unveils his new law of nature:

Conservation of Stupidity.

MeatHeadinCA on July 22, 2010 at 11:14 AM

Reid thinks he controls ALL THREE auto companies. And given that Ford announced today that they would sell their more expensive hybrid engine truck at the same cost as their cheaper regular engine truck makes me think Reid’s right.

Skywise on July 22, 2010 at 11:01 AM

It’s actually the Lincoln MKZ Hybrid (their sedan that shares its platform with the Ford Fusion), not a truck:

http://www.autoblog.com/2010/07/22/2011-lincoln-mkz-hybrid-priced-equal-to-v6-at-35-180/

And yes, the bailouts did help Ford, since the three companies share parts suppliers. Failures of GM and Chrysler would have caused a chain reaction, with parts suppliers going bankrupt, which would have impacted Ford’s production.

I don’t like the way the bailouts were handled, with the bondholders getting screwed while the unions were protected, but the bailouts were necessary.

Ward Cleaver on July 22, 2010 at 11:15 AM

Well to the extent many of us said no to buying GM and Chrysler after that, yeah Ford picked up some sales. Plus Ford had the bonus of Toyota getting slammed for accelleration problems that seem more driver’s error than mechanical failure.

Mr. Joe on July 22, 2010 at 11:17 AM

It DID help save Ford. A lot of people deliberately avoided the government auto companies, which drove them to look more closely at Ford.

Daggett on July 22, 2010 at 11:02 AM

Ford isn’t the only other fish in the pond. Subaru, Volvo, BMW, Mercedes Benz, Toyota, Nissan, Isuzu, Hyundai, etc.. are also in the market. The benefit, if any, was spread over a large field.

Also, by your rationale, the thugocracy targeting of Toyota was also to boost Ford sales by eliminating competition?

Phil-351 on July 22, 2010 at 11:18 AM

I got the V6 convertible ‘09…have not regretted it one bit.
JetBoy on July 22, 2010 at 11:11 AM

I had to lay down some serious cake to get on the waiting list for the GT500 in the color I wanted, but it will be worth every penny.

Those Ford guys know how to sell a car, they let me take it out alone…I came back wide-eyed and couldn’t pull out the checkbook fast enough; that car makes the new Camaro and Hemi Cuda feel like 3 cylinder Yugos.

Bishop on July 22, 2010 at 11:18 AM

It’s almost like Harry (also) is advocating that we must use socialism to save capitalism.

MeatHeadinCA on July 22, 2010 at 11:18 AM

Had GM and Chrysler gone under, it may have given Ford more leverage to deal with union wages and pensions, especially the latter.

There you go! If those on the right will put their money where their mouth is, they will buy anything but a GM product.

Vince on July 22, 2010 at 11:19 AM

In a way Dumb Harry the mortician is right. Since GM and Chrysler became wholly owned subsidiaries of the Gubmint, I will no longer purchase them. Hence Ford is my only American alternative.

Pelosi delende est on July 22, 2010 at 11:20 AM

Numbuh One on July 22, 2010 at 11:06 AM

That whole “it will hurt other auto makers by destroying the supply chain” mem is just plain silly. If Ford needs those parts suppliers, then they wont go out of business — and most of those supplies would get cheaper, particularly in the short run.

Count to 10 on July 22, 2010 at 11:20 AM

This slip of the tongue is noteworthy (5 paragraphs of commentary), but the JList is just a bunch of fun guys “convers[ing] with each other about current events”?

The USS HotAir has sprung a leak.

/ just ‘keeping them honest’

faraway on July 22, 2010 at 11:20 AM

Also, by your rationale, the thugocracy targeting of Toyota was also to boost Ford sales by eliminating competition?

Phil-351 on July 22, 2010 at 11:18 AM

It would, so far as it goes, but is not a good thing.

Count to 10 on July 22, 2010 at 11:22 AM

Ford also had the added benefit of not having Harry Reid and Barack Obama as managers. Now that is a benefit!

Mr. Joe on July 22, 2010 at 11:22 AM

Harry makes Goebbels proud — tell a lie often enough & big enough and people will soon believe it. Except for the fact that we have these here intertubes, which is why the Fascist-Democrats want to control it.

(although not the only domestic auto producer, as Toyota and Honda build cars in the US)

Don’t forget BMW, which has a plant in South Carolina — Greeneville, I believe.

rbj on July 22, 2010 at 11:23 AM

As the election grows closer, I am getting more nervous about Sharron’s chances of beating Reid. As happened when he was last elected, the talk of giving up the “most powerful” seat occupied by a Nevadan on a national scale is getting more play.

VegasJim, I pray you are right, but already we see that Dirty Harry is gaining on her.

Will we be so stupid as to send him back again?

Well, real Nevadans won’t, but our election rolls are now filled with transplants from California and other states who came here and began putting in office the same kind of politicians that ruined the state they abandoned.

Harry’s defeat is not a done deal. Sigh

Jvette on July 22, 2010 at 11:24 AM

Reid is right. The government did save Ford because ethical Americans refused to deal in stolen goods and bought Fords instead.

Virginia Shanahan on July 22, 2010 at 11:26 AM

The down scaling of that parts maker would be due to GM’s failure.

Its business 101.

Odie1941 on July 22, 2010 at 11:09 AM

Too bad nobody in this administration has apparently taken “Business 101”.

But they have a good excuse…They’re too busy with majoring in “Marxism 2010” to take it.

VelvetElvis on July 22, 2010 at 11:26 AM

Reid is right. The government did save Ford because ethical Americans refused to deal in stolen goods and bought Fords instead.

Virginia Shanahan on July 22, 2010 at 11:26 AM

OK, if that’s the case, then I’d submit that the American people saved Ford. The gov’t didn’t, shouldn’t, and most likely can’t (at least in the long term).

MeatHeadinCA on July 22, 2010 at 11:28 AM

He is right . I bought my first Ford this year because of Fascist take over.

borntoraisehogs on July 22, 2010 at 11:28 AM

I’d say he’s right. I will NEVER buy a GM or a Chrysler product thanks to the Govt takeover. I WILL buy a Ford, however. I’ve bought them before, will do it again.

Oink on July 22, 2010 at 11:32 AM

With the skunks in control, some of us didn’t want to buy and drive a Dodge Rahm.
Can’t trust the warranties. We also see they cancelled dealers in order to improve service.
My last Ford was over 30 years ago.

seven on July 22, 2010 at 11:32 AM

And yes, the bailouts did help Ford, since the three companies share parts suppliers. Failures of GM and Chrysler would have caused a chain reaction, with parts suppliers going bankrupt, which would have impacted Ford’s production.

I don’t like the way the bailouts were handled, with the bondholders getting screwed while the unions were protected, but the bailouts were necessary.

Ward Cleaver on July 22, 2010 at 11:15 AM

The parts suppliers were impacted anyway. They also sell to Honda and Toyota. They might have to downsize but still would supply parts.

Why would there be a shortage of parts that would halt Ford’s production?

Vince on July 22, 2010 at 11:33 AM

What does business education have to do with “fairness and social justice”? This is about punishing the rich, rewarding the slothful, and cementing a large underclass of glaze-eyed voters to keep the ‘rats in power.

There are just enough dopes out there who will buy the crap that Reid and PBHO are selling, just enough to make it difficult for normal people to overcome these criminals in office.

Bishop on July 22, 2010 at 11:34 AM

Harry, you’re a dimwit. A maroon. An r-tard. If it weren’t for politics, you wouldn’t be able to hold a job more important than night janitor window cleaner at a Las Vegas peep show.

JohnGalt23 on July 22, 2010 at 11:00 AM

..FIFY.

The War Planner on July 22, 2010 at 11:34 AM

What would you expect from the American Gothic duo of Dumb and Dumber other than “which is which”?

CC

CapedConservative on July 22, 2010 at 11:34 AM

The down scaling of that parts maker would be due to GM’s failure.

Its business 101.

Odie1941 on July 22, 2010 at 11:09 AM

Harry is probably right but has no idea why. The parts suppliers are much more intertwined than you think or understand. Had GM gone under, a cascade of suppliers would instantly have also gone down with that sinking ship as they were owed collective billions by the struggling automaker. If you don’t buy this, you must admit that it would’ve caused Ford a massive supply chain shock for months causing inventory to dwindle and eating up all of the financing they had secured earlier in the decade (they luckily got at the right time).

Ford would’ve had a hard time hanging on with no cars to sell and no parts to make new ones with….

Youngs98 on July 22, 2010 at 11:35 AM

The parts suppliers were impacted anyway. They also sell to Honda and Toyota. They might have to downsize but still would supply parts.

Why would there be a shortage of parts that would halt Ford’s production?

Vince on July 22, 2010 at 11:33 AM

..interesting that The Pantload trotted out an out-of-work Honda parts manager as one of his show-and-tell stiffs during the Rose Garden palaver about extending the unemployment benefits.

The War Planner on July 22, 2010 at 11:37 AM

PS, I, in no way endorse the bailout or how it transpired.

Youngs98 on July 22, 2010 at 11:37 AM

What do you expect from someone who thinks getting news of Americans losing thousands of jobs is a “Big Day”…

Senator Harry Reid said, “Today is a big day in America. Only 36,000 people lost their jobs today, which is really good.”

This is just another shining example of the incompetence coming from the democratic leadership.

Is this a sign of success…..to anyone…anywhere????:

Afghan Deadline Is Cutting Two Ways
By DAVID E. SANGER
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/22/world/asia/22assess.html?pagewanted=print

All this has made it harder than ever for Mr. Obama to convince the Afghans and the Pakistanis that the West’s commitment is enduring. “Politically, the support is absolutely crumbling,” said David Gordon, a former top official on the National Intelligence Council and at the State Department who is now at the Eurasia Group. “You can’t hide that from the players in the region, and when they see it, it makes them hedge even more, preparing for the post-American era.

…maybe the fact Obama has shown more interest in the back nine than explaining to America and our National allies the incredible importance of not allowing the jihadist to claim victory is the problem. Hitting home day after day that losing will lead to devastating effects for us and the entire region.

….you know….something called leadership.

Speaking of leadership….did we not hear during his campaign and since Obama was elected…how incredibly intelligent he was and how he was FDR,Kennedy,and Lincoln all rolled into one….that “Hope and Change” was on the way:

Fed: Possibly 5 or 6 years before sustainable growth
Howard Richman, 7/15/2010
http://www.idealtaxes.com/post3176.shtml

According to minutes of the Federal Reserve’s June 22-23 meeting, released on July 14, Federal Reserve officials downgraded the prospects for future U.S. economic growth. Connie Maden reports:

Fed officials expect below normal growth through 2012, and their outlook on unemployment has dipped. They said that it may take as long as five or six years before the economy returns to a longer run sustainable path.

But…but….but we keep hearing the stimulus worked.

Obama keeps telling everybody that his policies have saved the economy.


……This is considered “success” by liberals and the Obama administration.

How does America view the huge majorities of democrats that are running the country:

Congress Ranks Last in Confidence in Institutions
Fifty percent “little”/”no” confidence in Congress reading is record high
by Lydia Saad
Page: 12

PRINCETON, NJ — Gallup’s 2010 Confidence in Institutions poll finds Congress ranking dead last out of the 16 institutions rated this year. Eleven percent of Americans say they have a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in Congress, down from 17% in 2009 and a percentage point lower than the previous low for Congress, recorded in 2008.

Underscoring Congress’ image problem, half of Americans now say they have “very little” or no confidence in Congress, up from 38% in 2009 — and the highest for any institution since Gallup first asked this question in 1973.

Harry Reid is just one member in a whole gang of total liberal failure that is currently running this country straight into the ground.

Even a cheerleading journolist press that works tirelessly day after day trying to figure out how to spin their coverage to help Obama is not fooling enough Americans…..

…of course democrats reveal their incredible brilliance even further by proclaiming almost 2 years into Obama’s Presidency that…”It’s all Bush’s fault”.


……..”HOPE AND CHANGE” IS A TOTAL BUST!!!

Baxter Greene on July 22, 2010 at 11:40 AM

Is this a new way to try to extort money from Ford? Even though they didn’t take bailout money then benefited from it. So it stands to reason they should now repay money they didn’t take. Welcome to Obama’s America.

Tommy_G on July 22, 2010 at 11:42 AM

Angle’s got to jump all over this. She should use the Pepsi/Coke line, that’s classic…

crazywater on July 22, 2010 at 11:46 AM

Look at it like a Red!

In socialist economics, this is a good thing. At least some people are working and making something. Take a look at the other projects the stimulus has produced. Well…Maybe you shouldn’t.

After decades of bribes from foreign producers, the UAW, the influence of the safety and enviromental GM and the rest were as messed up as a project car worked on by ten year olds.

Iacocca. Lee Iacocca was promised that we would have free trade and the union under control nearly three decades ago.

And we are happy about foreign cars (check domestic content) rolling out of tax subsidized plants.

Jobs? I got mail about this some time ago. And I think it is worse than racist to deprive all Americans of good jobs. I don’t care about party, union status or even NFL team fan identification.

For example, Ford employs 87 Americans for every 2,500 cars sold, followed by GM and Chrysler at 78 and 66, respectively. Honda ranks first among the major foreign automakers, with a score of 44, followed by Toyota, Nissan and Hyundai/Kia at 42, 34 and 15, respectively

I can post the source but gotta work now.

IlikedAUH2O on July 22, 2010 at 11:46 AM

Reid’s running ads here about how HE saved thousands of jobs for Nevada. I hope at least 51% of us here see though this moron and his ads.

Mojave Mark on July 22, 2010 at 11:47 AM

I may have to move to NV just to vote against this POS.

petefrt on July 22, 2010 at 11:47 AM

Do you realize how many billions of dollars our country would still have if Reid and Pelosi had never been at their posts? Why, we might even have a surplus in the treasury were it not for them and their fellow profligate rumps. And yes, that includes republicans too.

scalleywag on July 22, 2010 at 11:48 AM

Harry is probably right but has no idea why. The parts suppliers are much more intertwined than you think or understand. Had GM gone under, a cascade of suppliers would instantly have also gone down with that sinking ship as they were owed collective billions by the struggling automaker. If you don’t buy this, you must admit that it would’ve caused Ford a massive supply chain shock for months causing inventory to dwindle and eating up all of the financing they had secured earlier in the decade (they luckily got at the right time).

Ford would’ve had a hard time hanging on with no cars to sell and no parts to make new ones with….

Youngs98 on July 22, 2010 at 11:35 AM

Sorry – but you are wrong as to the impact on ford. Additionally – the narrative you and others propose is also the premise behind nanny-state fueled socialism.

Within a business chain – there are ebbs and flows, based on real conditions. That includes out of control businesses spending more than they make, i.e. GM, Chrysler… and Ford – pre bailout. Ford did the necessary cuts and changes – to ultimately succeed, whereas GM and Chrysler took bailouts – and are still faining. To even suggest a) Ford would have been hurt by not doing what they did is illogical and untrue as to their success., b) the impact on parts dealers would hurt them (due to the business cycle) in the short term – but in no way shape or form would hurt Ford – but in fact would help them.

When a consumer (Ford) goes from 25% to 45% of your industry market share (if GM and Chrysler disappeared – which is bs – considering Fords success)- that consumer benefits. Parts also dont have to be retrofitted for an additional company – which streamlines their production and lowers costs.

Fords success had nothing to do with GM and Chryslers bailout, it had everything to do with their decision making and cost cutting – whcih btw – has exceeded profits over the past 12 months – and their stock price reflects it.

A parts supplier would be hurt by the loss of GM,Chrysler orders… if in fact they went “away” – but again – that is a gross underbelly of lies that led to the bailouts in the first place.

In fact – I will make the claim that Ford – now restrusctured with less of a “cost burden” to non producing sectors – like union pension benefits – actually helps the parts supplier – because their raw sales of cars, which depend on parts makers – increases – due to less costs. And again – IF GM and Chrysler went away – guess who acquires a larger market share (if all the otehrs reamin fixed, Toyota, Honda, etc) … Ford.

A win win for a parts maker.

Lastly – worked with the largest tramsmission supplier and reman company in N America – including their spinoff logistics company – to the tune of a 300% 5 year revenue increase…

Odie1941 on July 22, 2010 at 11:48 AM

I’m really hoping we have a strong enough candidate to beat him but sadly, I don’t see it. Harry is the master of deceit and dirty tricks and lobbying and cronyism and will stop at nothing to keep his post. Nothing.

scalleywag on July 22, 2010 at 11:51 AM

This would have been true if the bailout prevented key Ford suppliers from imploding due to a Chrysler or GM failure. But the cross between big 3 suppliers isn’t that strong. Now Toyota and other transplants tend to be the secondary customers of the major suppliers, so they were definitely helped by the bailout.

phreshone on July 22, 2010 at 11:53 AM

I see someone else posted this link to an American Thinker article, it is a MUST READ!!!!

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/07/race_played_role_in_obama_car.html

And when you see what he is doing to the Gulf, he is taking away conservatives jobs..

DISGUSTING!

reshas1 on July 22, 2010 at 11:53 AM

I will never buy a GM or Chrysler.

angryed on July 22, 2010 at 11:55 AM

How many bankruptcies have United and Delta been through? When I look up from my yard I still see their logo on planes flying into JFK. Some companies do not survive bankruptcy and I don’t think Chrysler would have, but GM would have emerged more competitive. Chrysler is still a zombie controlled by the UAW and FIAT and not long for this market.

xkaydet65 on July 22, 2010 at 11:56 AM

Reid’s running ads here about how HE saved thousands of jobs for Nevada. I hope at least 51% of us here see though this moron and his ads.

Mojave Mark on July 22, 2010 at 11:47 AM

Ditto.

I have a bad feeling though.

I spent a week in Buffalo with the National Catholic Daughters of the Americas for our biennial convention.
I mention this only because my roommate is a woman who is a long time Nevadan, like myself and someone whom I consider to be intelligent and thoughtful.

We heard on the news one morning about the woman whose family blasted Reid in her obituary and a conversation ensued regarding Harry and Sharron.

She said that no matter how much she dislikes Harry, having him in office with the power of majority leader, is preferable to having Sharron, a first term nobody who is a kook to boot.

Sigh.

Jvette on July 22, 2010 at 11:56 AM

If you don’t buy this, you must admit that it would’ve caused Ford a massive supply chain shock for months causing inventory to dwindle and eating up all of the financing they had secured earlier in the decade (they luckily got at the right time).

Ford would’ve had a hard time hanging on with no cars to sell and no parts to make new ones with….

Youngs98 on July 22, 2010 at 11:35 AM

I don’t buy this at all. If GM sold 100 cars and Ford sold 100 cars the suppliers would supply parts for 200 cars. If GM stopped making 100 cars Ford would now make 200 cars as the demand for cars doesn’t change based on GM going under or staying afloat. The supplier woudl still supply the same amount of parts. Reid is assuming that had GM gone under all the people who used to buy GM would bike or skateboard to work instead of buying from someone else. Reid is an idiot. But we all know this.

angryed on July 22, 2010 at 12:04 PM

Ford isn’t the only other fish in the pond. Subaru, Volvo, BMW, Mercedes Benz, Toyota, Nissan, Isuzu, Hyundai, etc.. are also in the market. The benefit, if any, was spread over a large field.

True, but a lot of people like to buy American. Yeah, the line between what’s American and what’s foreign in cars has blurred a LOT, since foreign car companies have plants here and employ Americans. But to lots of people who want to “Buy American”, Ford is perceived as the American choice vs. Toyota, etc. And that’s true even if the Ford they want to buy was assembled somewhere else.

Also, by your rationale, the thugocracy targeting of Toyota was also to boost Ford sales by eliminating competition?

Phil-351 on July 22, 2010 at 11:18 AM

I’m not defending it. I’m just pointing out that a lot of people who formerly bought GM & Chrysler because they’re “American” were driven to switch to Ford because Ford wasn’t a government car.

Daggett on July 22, 2010 at 12:13 PM

Oh so sweet the blathering of a “man” on a collision course with unemployment.

sadatoni on July 22, 2010 at 12:22 PM

The notion of “not bailing out GM and Chrysler” is a strawman from the Bamster and his corrupt band of progressives. A managed bankruptcy could have been just as promptly done that would not have robbed taxpayers. A managed bankruptcy could have been done that did not protect the disgustingly greedy UAW from any harm, and not raping bondholders.

Let’s also attack the notion that GM and Chrysler have “paid back” or “are paying back” taxpayers. This is a shell-game. Most of the $50B+ that went into this black hole went to the legal entity now known as ‘old GM’ and there is no possibility of that money EVER being paid back. The ‘new GM’ started with clean books, so it’s easy to make them look good.

Going forward, the failure to address the problem of the UAW pigs is certain to bring GM and Chrysler down again someday. As long as the Bamster keeps the trough full, the pigs will gorge themselves.

slickwillie2001 on July 22, 2010 at 12:41 PM

Ford was never insolvent, but doubt Harry cares about the truth, and I doubt the journOlisters will inform him of that.

tarpon on July 22, 2010 at 12:43 PM

And this idiot is actually within winning distance to Angle? Unbelievable. What actually would convince anyone he’s the best for the job? It makes me wonder. Only a damn fool, or a complete idiot would vote for this moron!

capejasmine on July 22, 2010 at 12:43 PM

I like the heartstring “there might not be a gm or Chrysler”.

Do f what

at what cost to keep a possible relic?

I hate these people fortheir ignorance or malevolence, but most of all for the yoke they want around our necks

Sonosam on July 22, 2010 at 12:46 PM

Do f what. =. So f what

Sonosam on July 22, 2010 at 12:53 PM

Harry, you’re a dimwit. A maroon. An r-tard. If it weren’t for politics, you wouldn’t be able to hold a job more important than night janitor at a Las Vegas peep show.

JohnGalt23 on July 22, 2010 at 11:00 AM

Saying so is an insult to the brilliance of dimwits, maroons, and r-tards, not to mention night janitors at LV peep shows. Harry isn’t fit to shine their boots.

TinMan13 on July 22, 2010 at 12:55 PM

This is heartbreaking to me. I have always liked GM products best and now I cannot buy any of them under the current structure. Damned shame.

Extrafishy on July 22, 2010 at 1:08 PM

If it had been up to them, General Motors would be gone. If it were up to them, Ford Motor Company would probably be gone. Chrysler definitely would be gone,”

Exactly the same twaddle argument was peddled by the Labour government in Britain when British Leyland was nationalized. Great marques like MG, Triumph, Jaguar and Austin would be lost if the government failed to step in to nationalize the company.

Today, British Leyland doesn’t exist, having been “managed” into a smoking crater by British bureaucrats. The MG name and the Austin name are both owned by Chinese companies; Jaguar is owned by Tata, an Indian company; and Triumph and Austin are dead brands.

Cicero43 on July 22, 2010 at 1:09 PM

Forgive me for thinking that if GM went down, Ford would have had more business.

paul1149 on July 22, 2010 at 1:15 PM

The 3 step program:

1. Stop whining – Danny Tarkanian isn’t whining – he’s enthusiastically supporting Sharron Angle.

2. Donate to her campaign.

3. AND SPREAD THIS WORD TO EVERYONE – Reid single-handedly stole 300,000 taxpayer-funded jobs and gave them to illegal aliens: http://therealharryreid.org/

fred5678 on July 22, 2010 at 1:29 PM

Harry Reid might be right in a perverse way.

During the early 1980’s, Socialist French President Francois MItterrand nationalized the French carmaker Renault, which was going bankrupt due to repeated disputes with the Communist CGT labor union. During their time under Government ownership, the quality of Renault’s cars worsened, while sales of competitor Peugeot-Citroen (which remained private) soared, since French car-buyers were tired of Renaults needing frequent repair, and bought Peugeots, because they were far more reliable.

In the late 1980’s, conservative Prime Minister Jacques Chirac led a program of “privatization” of previously nationalized industries, which including selling shares of Renault to private citizens, including small investors. Renault was later bought out by another private automaker, and its sales of cars in France are now comparable to those of Peugeot-Citroen.

So, nationalization of Renault helped Peugeot by ruining Renault, and Harry Reid believes that nationalization of GM and Chrysler helped Ford by ricochet.

But let Harry Reid ‘splain to us: Why do taxpayers have to foot the bill for ruining Ford’s competitors???

Steve Z on July 22, 2010 at 1:34 PM

Reid: Bailing out GM and Chrysler saved … Ford?

So is it still Bush’s fault?

Sir Napsalot on July 22, 2010 at 1:48 PM

Has Reid always been this delusional, or is it senility?

Slowburn on July 22, 2010 at 2:07 PM

It will be a long time before I buy another current GM product, and after test driving a new Mustang GT500 the other day, that decision was made easier.

Bishop on July 22, 2010 at 11:06 AM

That Taurus SHO is calling my name!

Shambhala on July 22, 2010 at 3:08 PM

Has Reid always been this delusional, or is it senility?
Slowburn on July 22, 2010 at 2:07 PM

I do think he is senile. He spent several years in amateur boxing (look at that nose) so I think it may be early-onset dementia, Muhammad Ali-style.

slickwillie2001 on July 22, 2010 at 3:09 PM

To paraphrase George Orwell, there are some ideas so absurd, only a Democrat would spout them.

Barnestormer on July 22, 2010 at 4:56 PM

What he’s really thinking: stupid peasants, they’ll never get it.

You’ll get it in November harry…….you can join the ranks of the unemployed.

RealMc on July 22, 2010 at 5:04 PM

Yeah, and I helped everyone at work lose weight by bogarting the doughnuts.

clement on July 22, 2010 at 5:12 PM

A proper bankruptcy would have maintained order in capital markets and reallocated resources rationally without the $62 billion in taxpayer money that we had to borrow for the bailout.

Well, yeah, but it wouldn’t have given the unions any special privileges.

Priorities!

There Goes The Neighborhood on July 23, 2010 at 10:14 AM