Showing posts with label Ford. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ford. Show all posts

Tuesday, April 27, 2010

GM pays back $6.7B in government loans using $13.4B of government money parked in an escrow account in order to secure $10B in new government loans.

UPDATED: 01-May-10
All week I've watched GM CEO Ed Whitacre walking down a factory floor in a GM advertisement, crowing about repaying government loans while saying he could respect the opinion of those who did not want to give GM a "second chance". It is good to know that Ed can respect my opinion of the bailout. He might be interested to know that my current opinion is that his claim that GM repaid the loan from the US Government in full and ahead of schedule is complete horseshit. I hope Ed still respects me.

Shikha Dalmia at Forbes goes beyond opinion and actually does the homework:
GM CEO Ed Whitacre announced in a Wall Street Journal column Wednesday that his company has paid back its government bailout loan "in full, with interest, years ahead of schedule." He is even running TV ads on all major networks to that effect--a needless expense given that a credulous media is only too happy to parrot his claims for free. Detroit Free Press' Mike Thompson, for example, advises bailout proponents to start "warming up their vocal chords" to jeer their opponents with chants of "I told you so."
I wonder - Does Mike Thompson really believe that anyone beside himself would uncritically take the GM PR, advertising, and administration spin at face value and say "I told you so!" C'mon, Mike. Who would do that?

But I digress. Shika explains how the shell game worked:
"...the Obama administration handed GM only $6.7 billion as a pure loan... The vast bulk of the bailout money [$49.5B] was transferred to GM through the purchase of 60.8% equity stake in the company--arguably an even worse deal for taxpayers than the loan, given that the equity position requires them to bear the risk of the investment without any guaranteed return."

"...the Obama administration put $13.4 billion of the aid money as "working capital" in an escrow account when the company was in bankruptcy. The company is using this escrow money--government money--to pay back the government loan."

"...the company has applied to the Department of Energy for $10 billion in low (5%) interest loan to retool its plants to meet the government's tougher new CAFÉ (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards. However, giving GM more taxpayer money on top of the existing bailout would have been a political disaster for the Obama administration and a PR debacle for the company. Paying back the small bailout loan makes the new--and bigger--DOE loan much more feasible."
I said this was like a carny shell game, but that is not fair - to the shell game. In a shell game a bean is presumed to be placed under one of three cups, and the mark is fooled by quick manipulation of the cups into guessing and betting incorrectly where it might be found.

In GM's case, the administration just keeps stuffing more and more of our money into the company's pockets, the company moves some of the money from one pocket to another, gives a little back, and finally both the company and administration that gave them our money misrepresent what is taking place. When all is said and done, GM winds up owing us more money than before they "repaid" the loan.

But, no worries. We'll get the money all back. Someday. Over the rainbow. Just as soon as the 72.5% of GM company stock that US and Canadian taxpayers own is worth as much as they are owed and can be safely sold to repay it. The GAO suggests this may happen just as soon as....
" It concluded in a December report (which a more recent April report has said nothing to contradict, despite media spin to the contrary) that: "The Treasury is unlikely to recover the entirety of its investment in Chrysler or GM, given that the companies' values would have to grow substantially more than they have in the past."
... hell freezes over.

Hat tip to McQ at Questions and Observations who sums it up with this depressing observation:


"...it's actually worse than first imagined."

In the meantime, as taxpayers, we can take comfort in the knowledge that our money is being used to prop up a failed competitor and make life harder for the Ford Corporation. Ford is a well run American company that took the hard management decisions necessary to survive in a tough environment and made the right management decisions to earn the respect of all Americans. Ford continues to innovate and build new products out of their own capital and profits, not requiring or requesting any government handouts. And we are all paying to subsidize their competitors.

We can all sleep better knowing that our tax dollars are being used to undermine a great American company that did the right thing by reanimating their zombie competitors.

I guess I'll just have to be satisfied with the knowledge that since GM and Chrysler took my money against my will, they'll never get a dollar from me willingly to buy one of their cars. It's something.

UPDATE: 01-May-10
Nick Gillespie at Reason TV distills the scam into an easily digestible 90 second video:




H/T to Fausta, who also weighed in with a post explaining how "GM Paid Nothing". The real question, for me, is why does the media for the most part simply regurgitate such a transparent misrepresentation of the facts?

Divided and Balanced.™
Now that is fair.

Friday, May 15, 2009

Friday Flotsam - The "Please listen to what Obama says and pay no attention to what he does" edition.

Wherein we take a stroll down the metaphorical beach of the DWSUWF blog and note the detritus that has washed ashore and cluttered our little island of rationality in the great big blogospheric ocean. The beach is particularly messy now as we have neglected it for a few months. Your loyal blogger was distracted, spending time touring foreign lands and working on other projects.

While not a comprehensive cleanup, permit me to point out a few of the shiny items washed up on the beach.

ITEM - You should still buy a Ford
Last December, DWSUWF outlined why Ford was the only Detroit based automobile manufacturer that should be considered by Americans buying an American manufactured car. Since then, Ford has continued to reject government bailout money, managed to show some financial improvement, has rasied money from the private sector to improve their balance sheet, and their stock has more the tripled. This is a well managed American car company, surviving in tough times without government handouts. They deserve our support. Particularly since Ford will need to compete against the walking dead automotive monsters reanimated in the grotesque, experimental economic laboratory of Dr. Frankenobama.

Yes, back at the lab, GM and Chrysler continue to be fed intravenously at the Obama intensive care unit. They will continue to live for exactly as long as they stay on taxpayer life support and not one minute after (if?) the plug gets pulled. To the surprise of no one, it is now certain that the taxpayer "loans" to GM and Chrysler (as they were characterized by the President) will never be repaid.

The now familiar Obama administration communication philosophy of "Say anything they want to hear, but do whatever we want" is on full display. Obama actually said the government does not want to run the car companies, but the Obama administration and their proxy, the automotive task force, are hiring and firing CEO's, negotiating the bankruptcy terms with lenders, forcing mergers with a foreign buyer, deciding whether, when, and how to restructure GM and Chrysler, setting advertising policy, and deciding which dealers will remain open. Not surprisingly, Obama even wants to tell them what kind of cars to build, among other things.

But it is a relief to know that they don't want to run the car companies.

ITEM - Guantanamo in da moonlight.
I'll be heading to the Upper Peninsula of Michigan next week for an annual fishing holiday at our family camp. An ex-governor recently suggested that the U.P. would be a good home for any remaining detainees when Guantanamo is finally closed. Michigan headline writers are having a field day with this idea. [NOTE: It occurs to me that in order to appreciate this headline, one must be familiar with the straight-to-video, widely ignored Jeff Daniels cult comedy classic "Escanaba in da moonlight"]
Guantanamo in da moonlight?
Detroit Free Press
"How about Michigan, for a change, solving a problem for the U.S. government, instead of the other way around?That's one way to look at an idea floated recently by former Gov. John Engler to offer the Upper Peninsula, already home to a dozen state prisons, as a place to move the 200 or so enemy combatants and terror suspects now housed in a camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. President Barack Obama intends to close Guantanamo, just as soon as the administration figures out what to do with the prisoners there, a knotty problem considering they may include some of the most dangerous people on the planet..."
Move Gitmo to da UP, eh
By Ed Brayton
"Former Michigan Gov. John Engler has an interesting idea to bring some revenue into Michigan: Turn the UP into Guantanamo Bay North... Not an idea that Michigan political leaders are likely to get behind."
Al Qaeda, eh?
"Former Michigan Governor John Engler suggested last week that the more than 200 prisoners currently housed at the soon-to-be-closed Guantánamo Bay, Cuba prison be relocated to to the Upper Peninsula. We certainly could use the money and people actually moving into Michigan to live would be big news.

Which would be fine until winter arrived, when a UP prison would run afoul of the Obama Administration's prohibition against torture"
Hey - If it moves some money and jobs to the UP... why not, eh?

ITEM - Obama is committed to fiscal restraint - BWAHAHAHA.
Honest to God - I mean how f***ing stupid does the administration think the American people are? Obama actually had the unmitigated gall to call a press conference and say this with a straight face:
"We can no longer afford to spend as if deficits do not matter and waste is not our problem," he said in his formal remarks. "We can no longer afford to leave the hard choices for the next budget, the next administration or the next generation."
WTF? This is the same guy that only weeks before proposed a $3.7 triillion dollar budget, quadrupling the deficit, and forced through a monstrous "emergency" trillion dollar "stimulus spending plan" that does not actually - you know - stimulate.

Even the liberal San Francisco Chronicle didn't buy it:
"To date, the president's rhetoric exceeds his results. He has long said he would require his team to scrub the budget "line by line" for savings. Thursday's release is the product of that review, though an administration official was careful to call it "only a step in the process" of dealing with the deficit problem.. In reality, in the short term, deficits do not matter much to the administration. His aides would say that's justifiable given the scale of the economic recession that greeted them in January. They have decided to spend freely to jump-start the economy and to reduce the resulting deficits later. An attack on government waste, as necessary as that may be, cannot solve the problems he is helping to create."
Did you get that? "The president's rhetoric exceeds his results." That's like reporting "The Titanic received a complete and thorough cleaning in the North Atlantic". I just don't know what to say.

Maybe you can fool most of the people all of the time.

This video from Stop Spending Our Future presents the reality of our current situation with a great deal more clarity than our president would like you to understand. Keep away from open windows and hide sharp objects before viewing:



We are doomed.

ITEM: Happy belated birthday to me!
While we were away, the third anniversary of the DWSUWF blog passed without fanfare. DWSUWF was born on April 23, 2006 in the service of promoting a voting heuristic of divided government in order to secure better governance and more fiscal responsibility out of our leaders in Washington.

Our first anniversary was noted here as we celebrated the reestablishment of divided government in 2007, which began paying dividends immediately. In our second anniversary [linked here] we were looking forward - hoping against hope that the benefits of divided government could be maintained across the November election. Alas, our third anniversary was ignored, as I was instead golfing in a faraway land, and enjoying exotic food and drink. While I played, our country continued its headlong plunge into mind-numbing, ruinous levels of debt that can never be serviced, never be repayed, and with terrifying consequences we have yet to experience. The deadly effects of single party rule has once again taken its toll.

We are not really getting older, we are just getting more cynical, more pessimistic and borderline catatonic in the face of this economic horror.

"Eat drink and be merry my friends, for tomorrow we die".

Divided and Balanced.™
Now that is fair.

Monday, February 02, 2009

Monday Miscellany - The "I'm BAD" Edition

In my continuing effort to rehabilitate my sloppy blogging habits and restore this blog to a semblance of reasonable posting blogging goodness, a few items from around the sphere you might enjoy find informative:

ITEM - Blogroll Amnesty Day...
...is celebrated tomorrow - Tuesday February 3rd. Jon Swift - the reasonable Conservative - created this joyous holiday in cooperation with Skippy the Bush Kangaroo and Blue Gal. As Jon explains:
"February 3 is the day when we celebrate the blogosphere's greatest (and, so far, only) holiday, Blogroll Amnesty Day, a day when we salute all of the great smaller blogs that don't get the recognition they deserve. Blogroll Amnesty Day, or B.A.D. as it is known to the twitterati, was not always such a happy day. In fact, the first Blogroll Amnesty Day, way back in ought seven, was one of the darkest days in the blogosphere."
Jon is a blogging hero of mine, having established himself as the one and only reasonable Conservative blogging today. I aspire to emulate his efforts and am working to establish my credentials as the only reasonable Liberal in the blogosphere. While some may consider this goal to be ambitious, perhaps even arrogant, cetainly no one would argue that the position remains unfilled and has been so since the beginning of time. So - I dare to ask - Why not me? Can I do it? Let me answer clearly and decisively as only we liberals can -

YES, I THINK SO, MAYBE! WHAT DO YOU THINK?

Like Jon, I have adopted a Conservative Blogging Policy - to whit: "You Blogroll me. I Blogroll you." In this manner, the integrity of a fundamental law of the universe - The Conservation of Blogrolls - is maintained. As any high school science student knows, Blogrolls cannot be created or destroyed, they can only change form.

To that end, and in my continuing effort to sincerely imitate the success of my blogging role model, I am now announcing a new totally original blogging holiday of my own invention - "Blogrolling Assassination Day" (B.A.D.) which coincidentally will be celebrated on the same day as "Blogroll Amnesty Day" (B.A.D.)

I have used the Blogrolling service to maintain my blogroll since the inception of this blog. Despite my affection for the service, I have, through careful analysis, determined that it is time for me to move on to a new blogroll technology platform. While there is much to like about the Blogrolling platform, there is one aspect of the technology where it has failed to keep up with its competitors - Specifically, it stopped working sometime last October.

Normally, in the tradition of all reasonable liberals, I should continue to embrace and promote obsolete and completely failed ideas like Blogrolling, Keynesian Economics and the notion that the government knows better than you what kind of car you should drive and knows better than GM management what kind of car they should build.

Wait - that last part may actually be true. God knows GM management have no friggin' idea what kind of car people want to buy or what they should build. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid can certainly do no worse than GM management.

But I digress.

We will kill two birds with one stone. Tomorrow, in observation of Blogrolling Assassination Day, the Blogrolling sidebar widget will be deleted, and replaced with the Google Blogger widget. And in the spirit of Blogroll Amnesty Day, we will begin to repopulate the blogroll by focusing on smaller blogs that don't get the recognition they deserve. Like um,,, moi - Divided We Stand United We Fall - The Home for Reasonable Liberals Everywhere.

ITEM - Peter Schiff is still being ignored - Thank God.
A few months ago a YouTube compilation of Peter Schiff clips from Fox and CNBC over the last three years got a great deal of play across the blogosphere. We reasonable liberals were greatly amused at how stupid the right wing talking heads on Fox and CNBC looked when they ridiculed Schiff's contention that the failed Bush administration policy of borrow and spend with huge deficits, coupled with the failed Fed policy of easy credit would lead inevitably to an asset bubble, a market crash and a financial crisis. Boy was he right. Boy were those stupid conservative pukes wrong.

Unfortunately, now Peter Schiff is completely wrong. He seems to think that the Obama administration's brilliant policy of even more spending with even more borrowing and gigantic deficits, coupled with the Fed's new policy of even easier money available at an effective interest rate of zero percent (0 %) is not the answer to our economic woes. It is kind of sad really. I just don't know how anyone who was so smart could suddenly become so stupid. Anyway, FWIW - this is from his badly flawed recent Wall Street Journal Op-Ed:
"As recession fears cause the nation to embrace greater state control of the economy and unimaginable federal deficits, one searches in vain for debate worthy of the moment. Where there should be an historic clash of ideas, there is only blind resignation and an amorphous queasiness that we are simply sweeping the slouching beast under the rug...

It would be irresponsible in the extreme for an individual to forestall a personal recession by taking out newer, bigger loans when the old loans can't be repaid. However, this is precisely what we are planning on a national level. I believe these ideas hold sway largely because they promise happy, pain-free solutions. They are the economic equivalent of miracle weight-loss programs that require no dieting or exercise. The theories permit economists to claim mystic wisdom, governments to pretend that they have the power to dispel hardship with the whir of a printing press, and voters to believe that they can have recovery without sacrifice...

By borrowing more than it can ever pay back, the government will guarantee higher inflation for years to come, thereby diminishing the value of all that Americans have saved and acquired. For now the inflationary tide is being held back by the countervailing pressures of bursting asset bubbles in real estate and stocks, forced liquidations in commodities, and troubled retailers slashing prices to unload excess inventory. But when the dust settles, trillions of new dollars will remain, chasing a diminished supply of goods. We will be left with 1970s-style stagflation, only with a much sharper contraction and significantly higher inflation. The good news is that economics is not all that complicated. The bad news is that our economy is broken and there is nothing the government can do to fix it. However, the free market does have a cure: it's called a recession, and it's not fun, easy or quick. But if we put our faith in the power of government to make the pain go away, we will live with the consequences for generations."
This is just so sad. Peter... Peter... Peter...



Peter Schiff was a financial adviser to Ron Paul's presidential campaign, and is President of Euro-Pacific Capital. Please ignore him. Maybe he will go away.

ITEM: GM is soon going to tell us how good it is going to be.
Since I last blogged about the subject, GM and Chrysler have both accepted Federal bailout money. GM received $14 billion and Chrysler/Cerberus received $4 billion. But they are not getting this money without strict Federal oversight. No-sir-ee. Our government has extracted a commitment that GM must return to the Federal Government in March with a report and a plan for viability. That'll show 'em that Congress means business.

When I wrote that post, I suggested that our choice was to either let the insolvent GM go under Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in December, or first flush 17 billion dollars of taxpayer money down the toilet before dealing with the same reality in the spring. I was wrong. That was before I became a reasonable liberal. Now I understand that we should flush another $10 to $15 billion in order to get another report on their viability later. Maybe in the Fall. Yeah. That's the ticket.

The boys at Fast Money on CNBC were in rare form today. In the first segment Jeff Macke tells us what to expect with the pending GM report on viability:
Jeff Macke: "General Motors in a month and a half is going to come up with a fake balance sheet tht argues they have a positive net present value."
Dylan Ratigan: "They should call Madoff."
Jeff Macke:"They could call Madoff... they could call any number of people. Heck, I'll fake it for them, Yeah we have a positive value. Are you kidding me? They make products nobody wants and then sells them at a loss."
You have to wade through half the clip to see that bit, but it is worth it. You can watch it here.

There is some other good stuff in there - including another Mackeeism: - "The Obama administration will play God with the banks - who will live, who will die, who will get bailouts. I don't know what this is but it is not a free market." and the usual Ratigan Rant about the Credit Default Swap Insurance scam perpetrated by the banks.

Problem is, Mackee says this stuff like it is a bad thing. Don't worry Jeff. Obama knows what is best for all of us. Trust the Obama. It'll be ok.

In the meantime. Ford Motors has declared a loss, but declined to take their turn suckling on the taxpayer teat. Those arrogant bastards are apparently going to try and actually manage the business through a downturn, as if that is the responsibility of a CEO and management team:
"The company said it will burn through cash again this year, but added that it does not anticipate needing to receive federal help "barring a significantly deeper economic downturn or a significant industry event, such as the bankruptcy of a major competitor that causes disruption to the company's supply base, dealers or creditors."Instead, Ford said it will draw on its available credit lines to receive an additional $10.1 billion in cash on Feb. 3. "Ford went to the credit markets two years ago when they were functioning normally and obtained the funding necessary - including our credit lines - to support our product transformation and restructuring," said Ford CEO Alan Mulally in a statement"
I feel it is important to conclude this post by pointing out the obvious, that it would be irresponsible for any of us reasonable liberals to buy a Ford. Since they did not take Federal bailout money (yet), they do not have to accept the Federal strings that come with it (yet). As GM does. As Chrysler does. Not only does that unfairly make the GM and Chrysler management look like incompetent boobs, it also means that Ford may be designing and building cars without the beneficent guidance of the Obama administration. Moreover, they will not be able to tap the free car design consultation service offered by the Pelsoi/Reid Democratic Party leadership. Very very risky.

No - best to stay away from Ford for your next car.

Just not enough Obama in that Ford for my taste.

Divided and Balanced.™
Now that is fair.


Thursday, December 11, 2008

If they take the bailout - boycott GM and Chrysler. Buy a Ford.

UPDATED: 15-Dec-08
This is the 2009 Ford Shelby Mustang GT 500. I want this car. I've always wanted this car. When I was in high school I wanted the 1967 Shelby Cobra GT 500. Lunchroom debates raged over the merits of the Shelby Cobra vs. the Corvette Stingray. In my mind, it was no contest, even if Motor Trend was clearly in the bag for GM. I'd even be happy with the GT350 - then or now - '67 or '09. In the bailout debate, I keep hearing that Detroit does not build cars that people want to buy. I am here to bear witness that this is simply not true. I want this car. My wife won't let me have one, but I want it. I may still get one some day. Just sayin...

I've been hearing so much negative about the "Big 3" and the bailout, that I wanted to start this post by saying something positive. I'll have some more positive things to say about Ford later, but first - the bailout. Not much positive there. Last night, the House of Representatives voted 237 - 170 to pass the Federal Auto Loan Bill. As I write this, the Senate is debating the bill.

Stephen Green at Vodkapundit sums it up nicely:

The merits of a "Detroit 3" bailout has been debated at Donklephant ad nauseum. Since I cross post and already weighed in there, I won't repeat those arguments here. But there is one point that seems to get lost in all the discussion and is repeated in Stephen's otherwise brilliant ad spoof. The question is not about whether the "auto industry" or the "Big Three" should get taxpayer money. The point is that these three companies are not the "auto industry' and are not even the "domestic auto industry". Moreover, they are not monolithic, do not have the same operational structure, do not have the same financial needs, do not make the same cars, do not have the same competitive status and they should not be lumped together in this debate. These companies are competitors. So in the spirit of this blog, lets divide them up and treat them separately.

General Motors
GM is a basket case, plain and simple.
  • In 2007, Toyota sold 9.37 million vehicles.
  • In 2007, General Motors sold 9.37 million vehicles.
  • In 2007, Toyota made $17.1 billion.
  • In 2007, General Motors lost $38.7 billion.
Source:Mises Blog (H/T Crossing Wall Street)

GM has massive manufacturing overcapacity in workers and plants compared to to the number of cars they sold, are selling, or have any realistic expectation of selling. Nothing short of a meat axe restructuring can make them profitable. It is not the kind of cars they make. It is not their quality. It is their business model. It is their labor costs. It is their overcapacity. The only way they can accomplish the radical restructuring they need will be under the inevitable chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. Every penny they get from the taxpayer between now and then is money thrown into the bottomless pit.

Chrysler
Chrysler was taken private by Cerberus, which is one of the richest and best connected private equity firms on the planet. Michael W at QandO blog has been beating the drum on the Cerberus issue for a couple of weeks, and the story is getting traction in mainstream media and other blogs. This from Forbes and the NYT:
"Buried on the business page of The New York Times Saturday were the details of Detroit's biggest snow job yet—literally as well as figuratively. Turns out that Cerberus CEO John Snow, who spent three-and-a-half lackluster, and some might say lap-doggish, years as President Bush's second Treasury secretary, is leading a who's who of crony capitalists in a lobbying campaign for a taxpayer bailout to "salvage Cerberus' investment in Chrysler."

That's right. Not to save the jobs of Chrysler employees or America's disappearing manufacturing base, mind you, but to prevent "one of the world's richest and most secretive private investment companies" from having to take a relatively modest financial hit and use some of its own capital to prop up the smallest of the major automakers."
This stinks to high heaven. As far as Chrysler is concerned, all the Kabuki theater in Washington has nothing to do with "saving Chrysler". Nothing. It has everything to do with asking taxpayers to bailout the Cerberus investors and seve them from extending any additional risk to support their own speculative investment.

Ford
That brings us to Ford, and a ray of hope. Don't get me wrong. Ford CEO Alan Mulally did not cover himself or his company in any more glory than the rest of the bozos in either of his two appearances before Congress. But this week, with the help of the great-grandson of the man who founded the company, Ford finally got it right:
"Chief Executive Alan Mulally and Executive Chairman Bill Ford Jr. told The Associated Press on Tuesday they are confident that the borrowing, coupled with restructuring and new product plans, will get them through the recession without relying on the government. Ford even said the century-old company that bears his family's name might be able to use the independence from loans to its advantage. I think if they see Ford as a company trying to pull itself up by its own bootstraps, and making it on its own and pulling the right levers, I think that could be a positive for us," Ford said."
Proponents of this bill make much of the argument that consumers will not buy a car from a company operating under Chapter 11 protection. Given the fact that this bridge loan will do nothing more than bridge the time until GM asks for much more money under the single party rule of Barack Obama in March, that argument is becoming moot. Who would you buy a car from? From a basket case of a company that refuses to take the strong medicine they need to survive? From a private equity firm without the balls to back their own investments? Or from a company that has already taken the right steps, has figured out a plan to weather the storm (and also BTW makes some really great cars)? A company like Ford.

If Ford declines the taxpayer money , Ford deserves the support of American car buyers. If GM and Chrysler take taxpayer money, they do not deserve the support of American car buyers.

Polls show that a majority of Americans oppose taxpayer dollars being used to support the Detroit 3 bailout. The bill is facing oppostion in the Senate, and it is not clear whether it will pass, even with administration support. In my dreams, Americans take matters into their own hands if this bill passes. In my dreams, Americans begin to apply the discipline that our representatives in Washington do not. In my dreams, Americans vote with their car buying dollars and stop buying products from any company that solicit government bailouts. This might be tough to do with the banking industry which has effectively been nationalized, leaving few choices. But it is certainly something that Americans can do when choosing to buy a car between Ford, Chrysler, and GM.

I drive a 1999 Jeep Cherokee that I purchased new from a Dodge/Chrysler/Jeep dealer ten years ago. I thought I would replace it next summer. With all the great deals being thrown around, I may move that purchase up. I love that Jeep, it has been a great car for me. But if Chrysler/Cerebrus takes Federal money - I won't buy another Jeep. If Ford declines the loan, I'll be a Ford man now.

I have no illusions about the limited reach of this blog, but for FWIW - in a small token of support for Ford doing the right thing - DWSUWF offers a little free advertising for a great American car company that builds great cars, is capable of making tough decisions in a tough market, and running an automotive business without picking the pockets of the American taxpayers.

Boycott Chrysler/Cerberus. Boycott GM.

Buy a Ford.

Want fast? Consider this ....
Ford Shelby Mustang GT 500

Need a truck? Consider the ....
Ford F150 Pickup Truck

Going off road? Consider the ...
Volvo XC70 SUV Crossover
I'm going to look at this one to replace my Jeep.


Going green? Consider the ...
Ford Escape Hybrid

The Ford Shelby Mustang kicked the GM Corvette's butt when I was in high school in 1967, and with the decision to decline government bailouts, Ford is still kicking GM butt today.

UPDATE 1:

As often happens on the intertubes, after posting this screed I find I am not the first thinking along these lines. Sphere informs me The Lonely Conservative beat me to it yesterday, as did Polipundit (by a few hours). There is even a website - "Boycott the Bailout".

UPDATE 2: 12-Dec-08

Nevermind. The bailout was defeated in the Senate.

UPDATE 3:
Oops. Stay tuned. The President and the Bailout Czar are apparently going to give them our money anyway, as James Joyner notes:
"President Bush may ignore Congress and give the Big 3 the money they want, anyway... That the bailout fund in question was designated for entirely different purposes and is blatantly unconstitutional doesn’t seem to bother the president. One wonders if Democrats will rail against this as an abuse of power or see it as an act of benevolence."
American car buying consumers can yet make the right decision that our representatives in Washington did not, by shunning the companies that take the funds and supporting the auto manufacturer that chooses to not take Federal bailout funds.

UPDATE 4: 15-Dec-08

Thanks to Bobo for linking this post in his fine weekly carnival compilation.

I also cross-posted this at Donklephant, and got the usual intelligent and provocative responses from the commentarium there. Well worth the read. Notable was one particular response from Scott Monty, a "Social Marketing" author, guru and blogger who -since June - has been the Global Digital Communications Social Marketing Director for Ford Motor Company. I responded on both his blog and the Donk. I'll be interested to see if it was just a drive by comment from a corporate flack, or if he actually engages in a dialog. In either case, just the fact that Ford has hired someone to interact with social media and bloggers says something about Ford "getting it" all by itself.

Divided and Balanced.™
Now that is fair.