Their is more and more undeniable proof that the American economy is recovering. Face the facts, Obama, Benanke, Geithner, and all the others that contributed to the Obama administrations economic polices were right. They went to school and got the degrees, they did their homework, they studied their history, they know how fiscal policy works, they know how monetary policy works, they know how to control the money supply, and they know expand/contract our economy safely. Reaganomics were wrong, deregulation doesnt work, and government can have a positive role in economics.

Also, is "Suck it Obama haters." an actual quote?

Ford did well and that was great! Ford did not accept or need bailout money for one main reason. Ford had already secured financing to help them through the recession before the credit market disappered. Ford decided to forego the government bailout so that they retain independence from the regulations that did come with that bailout. You also need to consider that the Ford company has been a family run business for 106 years. Indirectly they received funds from the stimulus program Cash for Clunkers. Ford also has a great management team that understood what was happening long before the other companies. Hence the financing of their debt while credit was still available. It shows a great company with a great strategy and management team. Now if only Bill Ford can do the same for the Lions.

And the r.wingers say this whole program was a failure and went bankrupt....I guess this planet isn't working out for them, is it??

You have to understand how republican economics works (republonomics if you will). If it doesn't benefit republicans in the next election, then it doesn't work and will bankrupt America.

but they have all ready done that, haven't they, and would like to do it again and again and then blame someone else...tsk tsk..wth?

Any bump in performance caused by the Cash for Clunkers is an externality and not reflective of Ford as a company. Now - that said, if they take that cash inflow and use it wisely (like it sounds like they may be doing) that's totally legitimate for Ford to take credit for.

The question from the larger political perspective - was that an effective use of taxpayer money? Are we better off in the short run and will we be better off in the long run for having spent that money?

Cash for clunkers was a little help but Ford was solid from the beginning...and they did not steal the tax payer's money like Chrysler and GM..Ford was a better run company from the beginning

Why do people see the success of ford as some kind of statement about the companies that got assistance from the government.

It's a pretty unfair comparison. The companies that took government assistance failed. They failed. We all know they failed. It's like comparing a Olympic winner to a guy that fell down and broke his legs.

The fact is that Fords success is proof that our government cherishes independent successful companies. The government did not force the car industry or take over the car industry, it offered assistance to the failed companies that needed it, to stop a massive economic downturn.

We hope that GM and Chrysler will come out independent and successful in the future, but without overdoing the assistance, we do not want to give an unfair advantage to these companies either.

Because it goes against their perception that everything that comes from this administration MUST be bad. They bitched that these companies, they bitched that we bailed them out and they will bitch if and when they emerge to be profitable. Ford made good decisions. Ford made a profit. That the RWNJ apple cart. Even though stocks are rebounding, companies are profiting this can't happen in their eyes. This would conflict with their idiotic Socialist, Marxist statements. And of course they CAN'T be wrong now can they?

It was a great idea so naturally it worked

now let the spinning begin.

The right-wingers will probably complain that it wasn't a TWO billion dollar profit.

and we know it will. I was "TOLD" that the program was bankrupt and a failure...spin that a bit more???

Creative Commons license by dcjohn

Enlarge PhotoWhen Edmunds.com released its report on the Cash-for-Clunkers program on Wednesday, saying it cost $24,000 for each vehicle that wouldn't otherwise have been sold, it must have expected pushback.

It may not have anticipated, however, a sharp retort from the highest office in the land: the White House. But that's what it got yesterday, via a pithy entry on the White House blog calling the Edmunds analysis "implausible" and "faulty".

It not only refuted Edmunds' contentions by citing a report from the Council of Economic Advisors, but accused Edmunds of releasing sensational Clunkers analyses solely to draw media attention.

Is Edmunds right ?Cash for Clunkers banner with Mercury Sable, Albany, New York

Enlarge Photo
The original Edmunds.com analysis said about 125,000 of the 690,000 vehicles that replaced clunkers, or 18 percent, were truly incremental, i.e. they wouldn't have sold without incentives. Dividing the $3 billion program cost by that number gives an average cost of $24,000 per sale.

The Detroit News notes that Edmunds' percentage is far lower than estimates by the White House (64 to 81 percent), General Motors (72 percent), Moody's (60 percent), and Ford (20 to 30 percent).

That edmunds report is being spun all to hell and back, to say that the cost is $24,000 is not literal. it is however being used as a literal number.

well, that ought to put a thorn in the side of the GOP