controversial ad from Ford that got slammed by some people, claiming that the whole thing was staged, but the guy in the video responds on youtube about his participation.
Ford has removed its commercial from youtube.
In my opinion, Ford’s exploitation of the fact that it didn’t take a bailout was lame. I was personally impressed by the fact that Ford didn’t take a bailout, but exploiting it for advertising purposes means Ford is targeting Tea Partiers in its advertisements, and that alienates me as an anti-Tea Partier. The original Tea Party wasn’t against all taxes, they were against taxation without representation - a huge difference.
“The original Tea Party wasn’t against all taxes, they were against taxation without representation - a huge difference”.
Triedaq participated in throwing the tea into the ocean in Boston. To this day, he won’t drink tea and has nothing to do with the present day Tea Party.
(If he doesn’t like me poking fun at his age, he shouldn’t be so forgetful and leave the computer logged in).
Mrs. Triedaq
FUNNY! 
The stupid thing about the ad is it now has the media talking about how Ford did get government-backed loans and loans from the federal reserve during the downturn… but the press isn’t talking about how Honda, Toyota, Mercedes, Nissan, Hyundai, etc, all got the same loans Ford got - so in that way, its backfiring on Ford.
Ford, Nissan, Honda, Toyota, Nissan, and Hyundai took bailout money from the U.S. government? I am having trouble finding a legitimate source to back that up. Will you please post a link?
Keep in mind that accepting a loan guarantee isn’t the same thing as accepting a loan.
Whitey - they took government backed loans for fuel efficient vehicles and loans from the Fed.
Here’s but one story of gov’t backed loans to Ford and Nissan (others announced at other times) -
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jesx2f8Y8dKUCMIhgM_8K_XMLd6Q
And here’s one about the TALF loans:
The TALF loans went far broader than just Ford, BMW, GMAC, Chrysler, and Toyota - every automaker with a finance arm took those loans… and they all paid them back on time with interest - those loans are truly 100% paid off. The chart in the jalopnik article is also misleading, as Ford, for example, took many short term loans and rolled them over - so the outstanding balance never exceeded a small fraction of the amount the graph would imply…
So it wasn’t a “bail-out,” but was a case of the government giving the companies incentive and financing to develop fuel efficient technology? That sounds like a win-win scenario to me since the government made money on the deal, or it would have made money on the deal if it had the money to loan without having to borrow it from someone else.
Whitey -
Correct. Apart from GM and Chrysler, no company received any loans directly from the government. The criticism of the Ford ad is that they actually did take government backed loans through an EPA program and TALF loans (which come from the Federal Reserve, not the federal gov’t). This was no different than any other auto company… and the Federal Reserve’s TALF program is closed with all the loans paid back (they made a profit), and the EPA program providing the government backing for the loans will similarly pull a profit, providing the companies don’t fail.
But the press, in pointing out Ford’s “aid”, which wasn’t at all on the same level as GM or Chrysler, is failing to point out that all the other makers got the same “aid”… meaning that Ford’s ad is backfiring, as instead of placing a distinction between themselves and GM/Chrysler, it ended up blurring the line between them and GM/Chrysler while drawing a false distinction between Ford and the import brands.
too it down,then put it back up