kpc655

Leave the escort name in the grave ford's like the 40year old loser who hasn't moved on from high school...kind of like the uncle from napolean dynamite. Ford..quit livin in 84! All of ford's past succes's were completely new and innovative, not warmed over versions of previous cars (Taurus, exploerer etc.) but it seems like the only way they think they can be successful today is to go back and hijack the old brands.

Moreso than Clinton you should thank people like bill gates for the prosperity in the late nineties. Clinton was a bad president not only because he was morally challenged..but he increased taxes, ignored terrorism and allowed an unelected official (hillary) far too much control and influence (hillary care anyone?), among other issues of course. Not to be totally negative, he did bring some good reforms to the welfare system. Lest we forget it was also the Clinton/Greenspan regime that gave us all the easy credit that created the housing boom. The fed has two goals.."maintain price stability" and "ensure maximum employment and output" (which is not 100% employment.....contrary to popular belief). But under greenspan it added "bail out markets". total BS..hopefully Bernanke is smart enough not to follow the same path. I hope a republican wins..not because i support any in particular candidate but with a republican president and a democrat congress they have less of a chance of screwing things up worse. Gridlock might indeed be our saviour.

I was in the states about 3 weeks ago and had a taurus rental from Avis...total POS. handled like a pig and had no power. However i'm reserving final judgement till i get to drive one thats not in a rental fleet as rental cars are typically the cheaper models and pretty well thrashed. i know i enjoy ragging on them. My mother just leased a new MKZ over a 3 series and an A4..she thought it handled better and had better creature comforts (A/C seats, navigation etc.)...i'm psyched to see and drive it despite the fact that i was pulling for an A4...actually i was pulling for an RS4, but oh well. thats not exactly the same target demographic.

Inflation is, fundementally, growth in the money supply. This is virtually impossible to measure though. But as these additional dollars chase a finite amount of goods prices are driven up..i.e. inflation. It is typically gaged by measuring various consumer goods/prices as that is the most transparent change. All you could ever want to know about how the government estimates inflation can be found at- http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpifaq.htm some interesting info on there. Prices can also change due to supply shocks, demand shocks....not all increases in price are inflationary. Imawhosure gave a few good examples of price changes unrelated to inflation.

Ignorance is no excuse. Whats more likely...dead dinosaurs are transformed into oil, leaving enormouse deposits in locations where they never even existed? Or that the earth is chemically producing Oil (along with so many other natural resources)? Use your head. There is a reason why they call it peak oil theory...no-one really knows how much is there, where it all is and where it all came from. Renewable oil certainly doesn't equate to uncontrolled exploitation (trees are a renewable resource..but we dont destroy them without restraint), but you must know the facts before attempting policy. I own lots of oil stocks (among others) and its made me allot of money. i am not ashamed of that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/Theory...eOil/index.html http://www.321energy.com/editorials/bainer...rman083105.html http://www.accesstoenergy.com/view/atearchive/s76a2145.htm etc. etc.

any news? program is approved? on time? what about the alternative versions?

Ford's trying to rebuild its workforce with younger (non union) people. They aren't gonna buy people out only to hire them back within a year...whats ford gained then? They want you to get another job..move on. as far as 401k's..distributions are taxable unless they are qualified and paid back within a certain time period (down payment for a house, for example). but you can roll it over to an IRA once you leave ford and this is a non taxable event. you'll also get the freedom to invest in nearly any security, not just those offered by the 401k's administrators.

Best point made yet. i hope for fords sake and my company's sake, it gets done.

they also make some 3V engines. romeo will be closing in the next few years.

one thing and one thing only.....high demand.

Long overdue..too bad it'll take until 2012. i sat in a meeting at ford recently where they had 3 different posters up on the wall, 1 for Ford, 1 for Lincoln and 1 for Mercury all attempting to identify the brand and their customers. Having them all next to each other really drove home the idiocy of the strategy. Take the same car, throw on a different grill and try to market it to 3 distinctly different groups. Talk about a recipe for failure. As long as the cars are copy/paste models...theres no reason to have so many brands.

Sounds like some of you here would like the book "clear and present dangers, a conservative view of america's government" The crux of the book is that the natural evolution of all democratic societies is towards socialism. The books been out of print for quite a few years, but you can find used copies all over the net.

Depends on what sort of bankruptcy protection they seek...so they may honor the warranty, but its not mandatory, theres no such thing as mandatory when you talk about bankruptcy, particularly if liquidation is the route taken. Chrysler'snew daddy has deep pockets, unless ford steps it up they are at more risk than Chrysler. interesting point...its estimated that US treasuries will be below investment grade within the next 10 years. now thats scary.

that would also hurt sales and the companies R&D budgets. not to mention that they have every right to advertise. ran across this http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...toryId=11689698 If this was done by the feds it wouldnt pass constitutional muster, but i dont know much about the mass. constitution so maybe it'll stick around for a bit. pretty ridiculous though, costs will skyrocket.

That number, 47 mil, is totally bogus! Think about it, thats nearly a third of our population. Logic alone should tell you that this number is highly questionable. A few points about how the census bureau comes up with the number. -If you were between jobs last year and had a lapse in coverage for 1 day, you were covered. -if you CHOOSE not to pay for coverage, you are counted. -Many of these people already qualify for existing programs, they choose (for whatever reason) not to take part. Competition is the only way to reduce costs. not government intervention or takeover.

What he is implying is that she pays too much...not that he pays too little. anyone who doesnt have a corporate health care plan can get government healthcar. if they make over a certain amount, they must pay. whats wrong with that? healthcare isnt free, the ONLY way to keep costs down is to keep it competitive..if the government takes over managing your health (which alone should scare everyone off) then the lack of competition will foster the growth of a bureaucracy the likes of which this country has never seen. besides...universal healthcare could be passed only on on extremely shaky constitutional grounds, at best.

keynes was an economist, not an accountant. he supported interventionist government policy in the economy..he had nothing to do with accounting practices. I presume what you are referring to is GAAP, something which every company in the US must abide by except our wonderful federal government of course.

This is bogus. The US constitution was, is and will continue to be the most revolutionary government structure ever created. You speak about its ability or inability to govern various groups..but have you ever read it? the whole premise is limited government. Despite over 200 years of twisting and skirting its intent we still have one of the least invasive governments on earht. The founding fathers were members of various parties so to say they were quite aware of the pro's and con's. Read "life of the party", its an excellent history of the development of our 2 party system. On the whole... -Whats troubling is how our politicians have virtual lifetime jobs..this was not intended. how about term limits? -Whats also disturbing is the supreme court's utter violation of its powers and propoensity to legislate from the bench..inventing new laws/rights where now previously existed. -What's even more distrubing yet is how we went from a simple constitution to over 75000 pages (in 2002) of rules and regulations (the Federal Register). -Republican's and democrats have dominated the party landscape for far too long. I do agree with your point about a healthy fear that the government should have of the people, afterall, in the US the government derives its power from the people. This healthy fear is of course supported in the wording of the declaration and the second amendmant.

i live in switzerland. it was definitely a focus. i recall seeing one at the detroit auto show a year or two ago and i thought it looked pretty damn good. just checked the ford europe site and it looks like they do sell it over here. come on ford..import it to the states!

is ford selling these in the states? i passed one on the highway today, and it looked pretty damn good.

turn back the clock 15 years..and we should have heard this... 1) Name the cost reductions: Can FORD share the TAURUS platform with the Jaguar C-XF? How many parts do you want to share between a $15k FORD and a $70k Jaguar? 4) You remember what happened when Ford tried to give Jag a 'kick up the backside' This whole idea is stupid. and still is.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19185600/ from an "old" insider. “Ford have got some huge problems on their own, really huge facing survival really on their hands. They actually don’t have the management capability, never really had it, to make a success of Jaguar. And Jaguar could potentially be a great success story, as could Land Rover,” said Robinson, who was chief executive of Jaguar Cars in 1974-75. its also mentioned that Tony Blairs office is in contact with Ford MGT. i dont think this would be happening if this was all BS rumours, as others have suggested. There are indirect references about MGT issues in this article also found in the "management myth" post. its not necessarily that its too much work to manage...ford just never organized properly to manage it. true blue, things like this are never absolute..its a bit of both. there's too much to do and no coherent management structure to do it. each problem perpetuates the other. in the end, the result is still the same. I dont think its any coincidence that ford's downturn coincides rather well with its buying spree of other brands. Since '89 Ford has bought.. Jaguar and Daimler (division of Jaguar) 1989, 2.5Bil USD Aston Martin 1994, , sold 2007 479Mil Pounds Volvo 1999, 6.45 Bil USD 33.4% of Mazda 1999 (increased from about 15%), Price?? Land Rover 2000, 1.8Bil Pounds Rover 2006, 6Mil pounds (BMW bought in 94 and sold in 2000) total price of over 20Bil USD. imagine today if ford hadnt spent that money. 20Bil would pay for a helluva lot of development work on ford cars/trucks. hindsight is 20/20 i suppose. also ran across this (sorry to perpetuate) Another automotive rumour news, BMW plans to acquire Volvo Cars. Insiders from the three companies have confirmed that BMW has requested an official financial look up on Volvo, and recently that informal talks between Ford and BMW has began for a possible buyout i gotta ask though..what the hell is "rumour news"!! thats an oxymoron.

if they bring over a new falcon, they need to make a black interceptor version..they can call it the mad max version. throw on a clutched blower some blacked out wheels......aweseome. sawed off shotgun and crazy dog not included of course.

Ford should definitely shutter one brand..i think mercury. its completely lost its way. Lincoln can still be salvaged as a premium brand. people always say it doesnt cost much to keep it running..but what does it really bring? people arent stupid..they know that lincolns and mercury's are rebadged fords, i would venture that most would buy a ford if the lincoln or mercury optoin werent available. i think the biggest problem with the ford/lincoln/mercury rebadging strategy that ford currently uses is the inherent compromises that must be made to each car. if a designer comes up with a great design..he/she knows immediately that each brand will want a version. and so the compromises start, the ford version cant be classier than the lincoln, but the mercury must be dressed out nicer than the ford. etc. etc. in the end you wind up with 3 mediocre cars where 1 (or 2) good ones could be. ford should consolidate and focus on making really great ford's/lincoln's, not half ass ford/lincoln/mercury's

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/05/malaysian_compa.html What will be at the front of the grid at Le Mans this month? http://www.crash.net/news_view~cid~28~id~149013.htm Here's the grid (so far).. http://www.lemans.org/24heuresdumans/pages/chronos_gb.html I was lucky enough to be there last year, and i'm heading back over next friday night. As cool as the audi's were, there's no replacing the thunder of the vette's or the scream of the aston's. And based on the grid, the aston/vette rivalry looks to coninue this year. they had a few original GT's there last year..i saw one do a few laps and all i have to say is DAMN...thats how a car should sound.