If one of the Big 3 Automakers had to fail, who would you pick?

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by 02SE
Why are you trying to make it personal with insults? As that how you talk to people in person?


That's not an insult, it is a question. I'm asking if you are chemically impaired as you can't seem to understand why people have taken issue with your statement and at the point I made that query, seemed inclined to believe we were putting words in your mouth, where the very statement that was questioned was made by you earlier in the thread, hence my quoting of it.

And yes, if I feel somebody isn't making sense, I'll ask them if they are high or drunk, it's a legitimate concern

I don't care if you are personally, I'm not going to judge you for it, but it has, in my experience, led to conversations that play out like this in the past.

Originally Posted by 02SE
Do you understand that is taxpayer money we are talking about, regardless of how they came to receive that money?


And you understand that how they came to receive that money can't simply be glossed over in that manner right? If you came by taxpayer money through stealing it, that's a vastly different scenario than if you were to receive a grant through an indigenous persons small business startup and one would assume that a rational person could understand that rather monumental difference in circumstance. A bailout, where the odds of getting that money back are extremely low is *NOT* the same as a technology loan where the expectation of repayment is reasonably high.

Originally Posted by 02SE
They all took loans in the form of taxpayer money. Yes, some differences in circumstance, but it's still taxpayer money. Which was my point...

For some reason you can't accept that very basic fact, and apparently wish to argue.


Because it's the context of the fact that's problematic. It's the whitewashing of the situation as if it was all the same, I've stated that like 30 times now, as has Dave. I'm not sure why you are having such a hard time understanding it

Downplaying the significance of circumstance and chucking it all under the "taxpayer money" heading allows one to pass it all off as the same thing, which, as covered by both myself and Dave, it clearly isn't.

 

[02SE]

One last time, I simply said that the "big three" all received money, and the taxpayers ponied up.

That point is irrefutable.

You and Dave got some personal insults in, while feeling the need to elaborate on the finer points of the circumstances involved. I hope you and Dave feel better having delved into the details.

None of that makes my statement that you previously highlighted, untrue.

 

[TheLawnRanger]

I really would not like to see any of the three go under. Competition and choice are good for the consumer. While I said in an earlier post I don't care for Chrysler products, I had a Chrysler 300 for a rental once and it was a smooth ride, handled well, and was not bad looking. I was a Ford guy most of my life until I started leaning toward GM about 15 years ago. All three make a good product.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by 02SE
One last time, I simply said that the "big three" all received money, and the taxpayers ponied up.

That point is irrefutable.


No, it isn't, because what you stated was:

Originally Posted by 02SE
All of them have taken taxpayer money. Ford was for the TARP bailout before they were against it, and they still took 5.9 billion in taxpayer dollars. Call it a bailout or not, the taxpayers ponied up just the same.


Had you stopped before the bolded and underlined part, I personally (can't speak for Dave) would not have taken issue with it. It's the conflation that takes place in the "call it a bailout or not" statement, where, in the case of Ford, it clearly wasn't, because it wasn't under the same program and that program wasn't designed to prevent the company from going bankrupt.

Originally Posted by 02SE
You and Dave got some personal insults in, while feeling the need to elaborate on the finer points of the circumstances involved. I hope you and Dave feel better having delved into the details. None of that makes my statement that you previously highlighted, untrue.


I only highlighted the part of your statement I'm in disagreement with, I had hoped that was sufficiently clear. And yes, because of that part we felt the need to clarify as to the major differences which you were omitting as you threw it all together under the "taxpayer money" heading.

 

[02SE]

Again, it was taxpayer dollars loaned, so yes, taxpayers ponied up.

That point, that specific point I was making, IS irrefutable. I understand that you'll continue to try and qualify my statement (it's no wonder you have 37k+ posts), but my statement stands.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by 02SE
Again, it was taxpayer dollars loaned, so yes, taxpayers ponied up.

That point, that specific point I was making, IS irrefutable. I understand that you'll continue to try and qualify my statement (it's no wonder you have 37k+ posts), but my statement stands.


Your statement lumped it in with the bailout, but it wasn't a bailout. It wasn't the same as the bailout, and that's important because the bailout resulted in massive loss and bankruptcy for the parties involved. Your "point" is a spurious broad-brush that intentionally mis-frames the situation for Ford and lumps them in with GM and Chrysler. You can claim it is about the "taxpayers loaned" irrefutability nonsense but it was the action of lumping it together with the others that's been the point of contention all along and you are well aware of that.

Your intentions aren't noble here. This isn't about some ill-perceived contextualization of your "point of irrefutability". Your statement was meant to cast Ford in the same light as the other two and you've not backed away from that, ergo, this "conversation" continues. And yeah, bovine excrement like this is the reason I've got >37,000 posts.

 

[02SE]

I think YOU are the one with an agenda. I simply said that all three took taxpayer funded money. Which is undeniably true.

You can rest easy though, it wasn't your tax dollars.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by 02SE
I think YOU are the one with an agenda. I simply said that all three took taxpayer funded money. Which is undeniably true.


No, you didn't. Quoting you for the THIRD time now:

Originally Posted by 02SE
All of them have taken taxpayer money. Ford was for the TARP bailout before they were against it, and they still took 5.9 billion in taxpayer dollars. Call it a bailout or not, the taxpayers ponied up just the same.


The bolded and underlined section, where you've lumped Ford's loan in with the bailout. That's the issue. The Technology loans were not made to prevent companies from failing, hence Nissan's use of the same program. Pointing that out for the 2nd time now. So no, the framing of the situation in that quote isn't accurate.

As I said before, had you left that part out, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

[02SE]

Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by 02SE
I think YOU are the one with an agenda. I simply said that all three took taxpayer funded money. Which is undeniably true.


No, you didn't. Quoting you for the THIRD time now:

Originally Posted by 02SE
All of them have taken taxpayer money. Ford was for the TARP bailout before they were against it, and they still took 5.9 billion in taxpayer dollars. Call it a bailout or not, the taxpayers ponied up just the same.


The bolded and underlined section, where you've lumped Ford's loan in with the bailout. That's the issue. The Technology loans were not made to prevent companies from failing, hence Nissan's use of the same program. Pointing that out for the 2nd time now. So no, the framing of the situation in that quote isn't accurate.

As I said before, had you left that part out, we wouldn't be having this discussion.


You'll notice two words "or not" from my statement. Focus on those two words...

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by 02SE
You can rest easy though, it wasn't your tax dollars.


You apparently forgot, or didn't care, that we bailed out GM and Chrysler too. Canada spent 13.7 billion on the GM and Chrysler bailout and lost about 3.5 billion on the deal.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by 02SE
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by 02SE
I think YOU are the one with an agenda. I simply said that all three took taxpayer funded money. Which is undeniably true.


No, you didn't. Quoting you for the THIRD time now:

Originally Posted by 02SE
All of them have taken taxpayer money. Ford was for the TARP bailout before they were against it, and they still took 5.9 billion in taxpayer dollars. Call it a bailout or not, the taxpayers ponied up just the same.


The bolded and underlined section, where you've lumped Ford's loan in with the bailout. That's the issue. The Technology loans were not made to prevent companies from failing, hence Nissan's use of the same program. Pointing that out for the 2nd time now. So no, the framing of the situation in that quote isn't accurate.

As I said before, had you left that part out, we wouldn't be having this discussion.


You'll notice two words "or not" from my statement. Focus on those two words...


Why include the statement in the first place? As I said, it frames it as the same as the bailout with out without the label, that's how that reads.

 

[02SE]

Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by 02SE
You can rest easy though, it wasn't your tax dollars.


You apparently forgot, or didn't care, that we bailed out GM and Chrysler too. Canada spent 13.7 billion on the GM and Chrysler bailout and lost about 3.5 billion on the deal.



Wrong again. I didn't forget. I'm only referring to US tax dollars which the US Government loaned to all three.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by 02SE
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by 02SE
You can rest easy though, it wasn't your tax dollars.


You apparently forgot, or didn't care, that we bailed out GM and Chrysler too. Canada spent 13.7 billion on the GM and Chrysler bailout and lost about 3.5 billion on the deal.



Wrong again. I didn't forget. I'm only referring to US tax dollars which the US Government loaned to all three.



Wrong again would require being wrong the first time

Your apparent poor phrasing and conflation required clarification, which I've provided. There's nothing incorrect about that.

Regarding the bailout: The Canadian effort was put forth in concert with the American one, with Ford omitted, due to them not being part of the bailout here, or there. That yet further illustrates the important distinction between Ford's technology loan and the bailout, and eventual bankruptcy, resulting in the loss of billions for both governments, of GM and Chrysler.

 

[02SE]

Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by 02SE
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by 02SE
I think YOU are the one with an agenda. I simply said that all three took taxpayer funded money. Which is undeniably true.


No, you didn't. Quoting you for the THIRD time now:

Originally Posted by 02SE
All of them have taken taxpayer money. Ford was for the TARP bailout before they were against it, and they still took 5.9 billion in taxpayer dollars. Call it a bailout or not, the taxpayers ponied up just the same.


The bolded and underlined section, where you've lumped Ford's loan in with the bailout. That's the issue. The Technology loans were not made to prevent companies from failing, hence Nissan's use of the same program. Pointing that out for the 2nd time now. So no, the framing of the situation in that quote isn't accurate.

As I said before, had you left that part out, we wouldn't be having this discussion.


You'll notice two words "or not" from my statement. Focus on those two words...


Why include the statement in the first place? As I said, it frames it as the same as the bailout with out without the label, that's how that reads.



I was and am simply stating a fact. If people can't do their own due diligence, and find out details of all these taxpayer funded loans, well, that's on them.

 

[02SE]

Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by 02SE
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by 02SE
You can rest easy though, it wasn't your tax dollars.


You apparently forgot, or didn't care, that we bailed out GM and Chrysler too. Canada spent 13.7 billion on the GM and Chrysler bailout and lost about 3.5 billion on the deal.



Wrong again. I didn't forget. I'm only referring to US tax dollars which the US Government loaned to all three.



Wrong again would require being wrong the first time

Your apparent poor phrasing and conflation required clarification, which I've provided. There's nothing incorrect about that.



I have no doubt you see it that way.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by 02SE
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Why include the statement in the first place? As I said, it frames it as the same as the bailout with out without the label, that's how that reads.
I was and am simply stating a fact. If people can't do their own due diligence, and find out details of all these taxpayer funded loans, well, that's on them.


You didn't answer my question though. Why frame it that way?

Why set yourself up to have your statement interpreted as it has and result in this type of exchange? The takeaway of both myself and Dave, and likely anybody else that reads it as it stands is that the inclusion of that last bit, which was not essential to your point in any way, shape or form, was done to cast the bailout and Ford's loan in the same light.

Dave and I both were aware of the details, hence our opposition to your framing of the situation in that specific block of text.

 

[02SE]

Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by 02SE
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Why include the statement in the first place? As I said, it frames it as the same as the bailout with out without the label, that's how that reads.
I was and am simply stating a fact. If people can't do their own due diligence, and find out details of all these taxpayer funded loans, well, that's on them.


You didn't answer my question though. Why frame it that way?

Why set yourself up to have your statement interpreted as it has and result in this type of exchange? The takeaway of both myself and Dave, and likely anybody else that reads it as it stands is that the inclusion of that last bit, which was not essential to your point in any way, shape or form, was done to cast the bailout and Ford's loan in the same light.

Dave and I both were aware of the details, hence our opposition to your framing of the situation in that specific block of text.


Your opinion doesn't equal fact. Member 'BHopkins' understood my point just fine.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by 02SE
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Wrong again would require being wrong the first time

Your apparent poor phrasing and conflation required clarification, which I've provided. There's nothing incorrect about that.

I have no doubt you see it that way.

LOL

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by 02SE
Your opinion doesn't equal fact. Member 'BHopkins' understood my point just fine.


So 1/3rd of the people that responded to that post took it the way you intended? Perhaps I should simply have said "most people", as that would more accurately align with the 2/3rds that responded to it negatively

Dave took issue with BHopkin's conflation as well, for the record.

And you still didn't answer my question....

Anyways, it's 2:30AM, so I'm going to bed. It's been fun

I'll see if you've responded in the AM.

 

[Nick1994]

Everyone loses their minds over a $9 billion dollar loss on the government's part to save GM, but doesn't even bat an eye that it's 0.6% of the size of the current $1.5 trillion tax cut for the top 1%