Silverado "top truck"

CKNSLS wrote:
The argument that they received a bailout and now I won't buy one of their products rings hollow at best. The money is already spent-it's gone. That's it. The only reason Ford din't take any money is because they had already taken money from the governement in '09-
But wait a minute.

From Forbes-

"OK, Ford didn’t file bankruptcy or get bailed out by Uncle Sam, but didn’t it receive $5.9 billion in low-cost government loans in 2009 to overhaul its factories and bring out more fuel-efficient technology?

Its the principle of the thing. I have already been forced to support GM by my tax dollars. I don't have to be forced to spend even more money to buy from a company that I believe is poorly managed. Thats the beauty of the fading theory of the capitalist market, I can chose whom I wish to support with my spending dollars. I currently chose Toyota. You can chose whomever you want, I really don't care.

On to your second paragraph... Ford received low cost LOANS. A loan is repaid with interest. The US taxpayers received their money back, plus additional interest, from Ford. The US taxpayers will never recover the $25 billion in direct aid that was GIVEN to GM. Eventually we may receive some money back if the US Gov't ever sells its shares of GM stock that was used to "repay" the majority of the "loan" portion of money they received. We will be lucky if we can sell the stock for face value and I would highly doubt that we, as taxpayers, receive any interest.

In general I disagree with "special loan rates" for "special companies" offered by the US Gov't. Its better than an outright bailout, but still reaks of favoritism in what is supposed to be a free market society. My father in law owns his own business. He is only privy to "market rate" loans that are available to anyone else. If the US Gov't is willing to offer Ford a loan at (for example) 1% interest, why not my father in laws business too?