[Newsbot]

Title: Ford�s Windsor plant gets $700M in auto union deal
Category: Business
Posted By: shockedcanadian
Date: 2016-11-01 11:12:04
Canadian

[shockedcanadian]

And some of you doubted they would get the same deal as GM did, hah. The negotiators on Ford side aren't patsies. They received an even better deal for Ford, no long term commitment or new products.

Guess who's fitting the bill for this "expansion"?

[DrCaleb]

shockedcanadian shockedcanadian:

Guess who's fitting the bill for this "expansion"?

The same people that bailed Ford out in 2008?

[PluggyRug]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

shockedcanadian shockedcanadian:

Guess who's fitting the bill for this "expansion"?

The same people that bailed Ford out in 2008?

[shockedcanadian]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

shockedcanadian shockedcanadian:

Guess who's fitting the bill for this "expansion"?

The same people that bailed Ford out in 2008?

Yes, precisely. "Just put it on the tab Sam"...but in this case, Sam can't send Tiny and a two by four to collection.

[DrCaleb]

shockedcanadian shockedcanadian:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

shockedcanadian shockedcanadian:

Guess who's fitting the bill for this "expansion"?

The same people that bailed Ford out in 2008?

Yes, precisely. "Just put it on the tab Sam"...but in this case, Sam can't send Tiny and a two by four to collection.

Ford didn't get a bailout in 2008. Trick question.

So, yes, Ford will pay for this expansion, just like in the contract.

[shockedcanadian]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

The same people that bailed Ford out in 2008?[/quote]

Yes, precisely. "Just put it on the tab Sam"...but in this case, Sam can't send Tiny and a two by four to collection.[/quote]

Ford didn't get a bailout in 2008. Trick question.

So, yes, Ford will pay for this expansion, just like in the contract.[/quote]


Oh that was really tricky of you. Here are a little more accurate facts that may be inconvenient to you. The first link from 2014:

Taxpayers gave Ford $140,000 per job – but deal’s details are secret

http://globalnews.ca/news/1600388/heres ... auto-jobs/


Ontario government gave out $907M in corporate grants since 2013

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/201 ... -2013.html


We don't even have the deals of the latest deal yet, because it seems corporate welfare and gifts from government into the so-called "free market" are kept away from those with the most skin in the game, the taxpayer. This is anything but a laissez-faire economics.

[Thanos]

They ought to take a page from Reagan. At least 80% of those jobs should be eliminated to improve shareholder value.

[shockedcanadian]

Thanos Thanos:

They ought to take a page from Reagan. At least 80% of those jobs should be eliminated to improve shareholder value.

The economy was doing well while Reagan was running the show, and Communism faded away without a shot being fired by either side.

When companies expand they will hire new people. Taxpayers shouldn't be funnelling tax dollars to private industry so that they can sustain their businesses.

[herbie]

$1:

The economy was doing well while Reagan was running the show, and Communism faded away without a shot being fired by either side.

Selective memory don'cha. First of all he wasn't. This is fucking Canada.
Meanwhile in the US there were deficits, Japanese taking over, AMC went tits up, Chryaler bailout, layoffs, international gong shows to wave the flag...

[DrCaleb]

shockedcanadian shockedcanadian:

Oh that was really tricky of you. Here are a little more accurate facts that may be inconvenient to you. The first link from 2014:

. . .

We don't even have the deals of the latest deal yet, because it seems corporate welfare and gifts from government into the so-called "free market" are kept away from those with the most skin in the game, the taxpayer. This is anything but a laissez-faire economics.

Iz a trickster precious!

Here's a little tidbit for you as well - incentives and things like this are generally good for the economy because they end up putting more tax money into the coffers than the original incentive. They are net gains on employment and economics.

[Lemmy]

shockedcanadian shockedcanadian:

The economy was doing well while Reagan was running the show, and Communism faded away without a shot being fired by either side.

Yeah, the '80s are remembered for the great economic times. You should Google up a "business cycle" graph. You'll note the steep downward slope during the '80s. Ask any of us Gen-Xers what the job prospects were like in those days. And no shots were fired against communism, eh?

shockedcanadian shockedcanadian:

When companies expand they will hire new people. Taxpayers shouldn't be funnelling tax dollars to private industry so that they can sustain their businesses.

Is that a philosophical statement or one supported by evidence?

Maybe you should stick to loony conspiracies and leave the history and economics alone because you clearly don't know what you're talking about on either count. Play to your strengths, brother.

[shockedcanadian]

Lemmy Lemmy:

shockedcanadian shockedcanadian:

The economy was doing well while Reagan was running the show, and Communism faded away without a shot being fired by either side.

Yeah, the '80s are remembered for the great economic times. You should Google up a "business cycle" graph. You'll note the steep downward slope during the '80s. Ask any of us Gen-Xers what the job prospects were like in those days. And no shots were fired against communism, eh?

shockedcanadian shockedcanadian:

When companies expand they will hire new people. Taxpayers shouldn't be funnelling tax dollars to private industry so that they can sustain their businesses.

Is that a philosophical statement or one supported by evidence?

Maybe you should stick to loony conspiracies and leave the history and economics alone because you clearly don't know what you're talking about on either count. Play to your strengths, brother.

Got ya. Two tenths of a percent growth last quarter, loss of full-time jobs replaced by part-time jobs. How is this "strategy" working out?

[Lemmy]

shockedcanadian shockedcanadian:

Got ya. Two tenths of a percent growth last quarter, loss of full-time jobs replaced by part-time jobs. How is this "strategy" working out?

Got some research to support your "loss of full-time, replaced by part-time jobs" contention?

We want slow, steady growth. That's exactly the point of economic policy: to limit swings. 0.2%/quater is just fine. Ideal, in fact.

[BRAH]

FORD is still building plants in Mexico so F*** them!