2012 Chevy Silverado or Ford F150 4x4

**dmclone** · 03-13-2012, 03:23 PM

Originally Posted by CloneAggie

FYI ... Ford took a $5.9B loan from the Department of Energy in 2009 to upgrade factories to increase fuel efficiency. Nissan took a $1.4B loan for the same reason. Both are forms of handouts from the government.

I hope you realize that's a lot different. Still wrong but a lot different.

**CloneAggie** · 03-13-2012, 03:40 PM

Originally Posted by dmclone

I hope you realize that's a lot different. Still wrong but a lot different.

Yes, of course it is different, but it is still a handout subsidized by the taxpayer, and if one is railing on GM because they received a handout, they should also be aware of other companies that received handouts. BTW, Toyota got a handout too, it just came from the Japanese government.

**NickTheGreat** · 03-13-2012, 03:56 PM

Originally Posted by CloneAggie

Yes, of course it is different, but it is still a handout subsidized by the taxpayer, and if one is railing on GM because they received a handout, they should also be aware of other companies that received handouts. BTW, Toyota got a handout too, it just came from the Japanese government.

This is the Internet. Get your facts outta here!

**raftercy** · 03-13-2012, 04:14 PM

I'm not sure that "handout" is the correct word to use. My understanding is that it was a loan, and that it was expected to be paid back. The loan was after funding from normal credit sources was stopped. I know Chrysler has paid back their loan, and I believe that GM has as well.

Many farmers have received payments from the government when commidity prices were low, or due to natural disasters. These payments are a true handout, not a loan, but yet some how this is acceptable but yet it was wrong when the government helped the auto industry. I'm not sure why one is acceptable but the other is not.

**ISUAgronomist** · 03-13-2012, 04:18 PM

Originally Posted by raftercy

I'm not sure that "handout" is the correct word to use. My understanding is that it was a loan, and that it was expected to be paid back. The loan was after funding from normal credit sources was stopped. I know Chrysler has paid back their loan, and I believe that GM has as well.

Chrysler paid back a majority of their loans. Over $1Billion was written off. Don't know about GM.

**dmclone** · 03-13-2012, 04:41 PM

Originally Posted by raftercy

Many farmers have received payments from the government when commidity prices were low, or due to natural disasters. These payments are a true handout, not a loan, but yet some how this is acceptable but yet it was wrong when the government helped the auto industry. I'm not sure why one is acceptable but the other is not.

Neither is acceptable in my opinion but when you start bailing out specific companies because they are run like crap, you are asking for trouble. Should the government bailout K-Mart because they can't compete with Wal-Mart?

**raftercy** · 03-13-2012, 04:56 PM

I'm not sure where to draw the line, or when it's acceptable to seek help from the government. I do feel that our country is better off for having helped the auto industry rather than letting Big 3 fail.

**Cyvilian** · 03-13-2012, 05:57 PM

I have an 06 Silverado. It's a solid truck that has given me very few problems. I bought it over a Ford primarily because of the interior. Don't know what the new ones are like. You asked about the gears. If you're going to tow anything, you won't like the 3.42. My previous Silverado had 3.73 gears, and I can tell the difference. One other nit-pick on my Chevy is the steering. The turning radius on the Chevys is not good. The thing steers like a pig in parking lots. Other than that, like others have said, drive them both and buy the one you like.
Cheers.

**xr4ticlone** · 03-13-2012, 06:10 PM

Originally Posted by raftercy

Actually, Chrysler has paid back its loan from the government early, with interest. The majority owner of Chrysler is now Fiat, which also now owns Case/IH and New Holland ag equipment.

That's not accurate. They got a different gov loan to pay back the first one. I sold Case construction equipment for 6 years and Fiat will kill both of these companies eventually, especially since Italy is broke and cannot subsidize Fiat any more.

As my old boss says "you know it was the Italians that killed Jesus...they kill everything they touch"

I wouldn't be caught dead in a GM or C.

I'm on my 3rd Tundra....and have not put money in any of them. Toyota is BOSS. Quality, resale, no Gov bailouts, and they stand behind their vehicles,

**CloneAggie** · 03-13-2012, 06:39 PM

Originally Posted by xr4ticlone

I'm on my 3rd Tundra....and have not put money in any of them. Toyota is BOSS. Quality, resale, no Gov bailouts, and they stand behind their vehicles,

No government bailouts from the United States government. They got a bailout from the government of Japan. So perhaps they aren't quite of a well run company as you think they are.

**Tre4ISU** · 03-13-2012, 07:14 PM

Originally Posted by dmclone

I hope you realize that's a lot different. Still wrong but a lot different.

How is it wrong. Actually, how is any of it wrong. The automotive industry is and has been a large part of America. If you let Ford, GM, and Chrysler die, you have destroyed the American market. You now have Toyota left to do basically whatever they want. Then you have upstream effects. You lose a bunch of jobs building components in the US. I see you are a huge Toyota pickup fan and having driven everything under the sun 2 years ago, the Toyota was a distant third in my opinion and probably because I won't ever have a Ford because of the work vehicles we have had and the troubles associated. I honestly couldn't find anything about the Toyota that was better than a Dodge or GM. 4 years ago, I drove a Camry, a Maxima, and an Impala. I bought the Impala mainly because it was the best value but the Camry was not a better driving car and it got worse mileage. It wasn't that impressive and I went into the whole deal intent on buying the Camry or Maxima.

**Tre4ISU** · 03-13-2012, 07:16 PM

Originally Posted by dmclone

Neither is acceptable in my opinion but when you start bailing out specific companies because they are run like crap, you are asking for trouble. Should the government bailout K-Mart because they can't compete with Wal-Mart?

Or you bail them out because there is no way they can afford to pay workers in a union that has ruined automaking. All the layoffs-Yeah, that was union. The workers would have worked for less.

**Tre4ISU** · 03-13-2012, 07:17 PM

Originally Posted by CloneAggie

No government bailouts from the United States government. They got a bailout from the government of Japan. So perhaps they aren't quite of a well run company as you think they are.

Your facts suck. They have no bearing on the argument at hand.

**dmclone** · 03-13-2012, 07:23 PM

Originally Posted by Tre4ISU

I see you are a huge Toyota pickup fan

I'm not a huge fan of any truck.

**dmclone** · 03-13-2012, 07:25 PM

Originally Posted by Tre4ISU

How is it wrong. Actually, how is any of it wrong. The automotive industry is and has been a large part of America. If you let Ford, GM, and Chrysler die, you have destroyed the American market. You now have Toyota left to do basically whatever they want. Then you have upstream effects. You lose a bunch of jobs building components in the US. I see you are a huge Toyota pickup fan and having driven everything under the sun 2 years ago, the Toyota was a distant third in my opinion and probably because I won't ever have a Ford because of the work vehicles we have had and the troubles associated. I honestly couldn't find anything about the Toyota that was better than a Dodge or GM. 4 years ago, I drove a Camry, a Maxima, and an Impala. I bought the Impala mainly because it was the best value but the Camry was not a better driving car and it got worse mileage. It wasn't that impressive and I went into the whole deal intent on buying the Camry or Maxima.

You could have stopped when you said that you bought a new Impala.