Maybe Former Chrysler Dealers are Now Mad Enough

[Foxfyre]

I was in error that the new dealership took over all the old dealership's property, though it did take one lot on Central Avenue in the 'dealership alley' area. The old dealership at least through the first of the year was operating as a used car dealer but was not allowed to sell its remaining Chrysler inventory.

Here is your 'evidence' that the situation otherwise exists as related however.

www.KOB.com - DiLorenzos fight to keep car dealership

Quality to fight for Chrysler franchise | KRQE News 13 New Mexico

Now then are you going to nitpick the minutiae or will you answer the original questions implied?

1) Do you condone the government taking control of private business in this manner, installing its own handpicked executive and giving every concession to a union that just happened to support the President?

2) Would a similar circumstance where the closed franchise was a Democrat supporter and the new authorized franchise a Republican supporter have passed your smell test during the Bush administration?

I've already answered these questions, but sure, why not.

1) The business was a debtor to the taxpayers, and were going bankrupt. The Government, as the representative of the taxpayer in this matter, had every right to step in and call in their debt.

If the corporation had not been in billions of dollars in debt, I would agree with your assessment that they had no right to step in, but since that was not the situation....

Okay, I'll take that as your blessings for the government to take over effective ownership of Chrysler. Is it your opinion that the government should step in, that the government has authority to step in, any time a business is in debt? Is it your opinion that the government has authority to force any private business to go into debt to the government so that the government can then claim authority to hire and fire executives and direct company policy? You don't see that as an assault on private property and a dangerous intrusion that puts all our property at risk to whatever the government wants to do?

And if you honestly see no problem with this, do you then stipulate that none of us own anything but we are only allowed to hold what the government allows us to hold and can take any time they choose?

The lists provided to congress by Chrysler of recommended closings did not include any political affiliation data.

I have seen no evidence of such data being presented during the short amount of time between the recommendation and the action.

Do you have evidence of such data being disseminated? Do you have evidence of anyone in congress changing their decision based on such data?

No, I won't accept you reframing the question, especially in the non sequitur that your rewrote it into here. This is the question:

Would a similar circumstance where the closed franchise was a Democrat supporter and the new authorized franchise a Republican supporter have passed your smell test during the Bush administration?

All you have to do is answer a simple yes or no. You don't have to concur that the situation is accurate as described (though it is) but simply answer the question using the scenario described.

Now, as for nitpicking... As per your provided links:

Just because the dealership was making a profit for themselves, that does not mean that Chrysler was also making a profit. In addition, the dealership did not in fact "close down" but simply no longer sold Chrysler cars.

Another non sequitur. It is not the dealership's concern whether Chrysler makes a profit other than in the sense that a reputable dealer wants to know that the company will stand behind its warranties and will furnish parts for the life of the automobiles. A case could be made for pulling the franchise of a dealership that was losing money. In this case, however, as I have already documented, the dealership closed was a large and prosperous dealership. There were numerous smaller and no doubt less prosperous dealerships in this state alone from which the franchises could have been pulled.

However, if you see no significant loss when a dealer goes from being a prosperous and reputable Chrysler dealership to being a used car lot--this included laying off several dozen employees--then you would have no problem with the government demoting you from a good paying job to part time janitor even if it meant you could afford to feed only half your kids. Right?

 

[Vast LWC]

Okay, I'll take that as your blessings for the government to take over effective ownership of Chrysler. Is it your opinion that the government should step in, that the government has authority to step in, any time a business is in debt?

It is my opinion that if a company or individual is in debt to a debtor to the tune of billions of dollars, than it is the right of said debtor to try to get their money back, or try to take control of property equal to the debt owed them. Yes.

Usually there is a court involved in a bankruptcy case, in this case the court was Congress, as the debt was owed to the Federal Government.

Is it your opinion that the government has authority to force any private business to go into debt to the government so that the government can then claim authority to hire and fire executives and direct company policy?

No-one "forced" Chrysler to go into debt. They always had the choice to go out of business. No-one else was going to lend them the funds they needed to survive.

You don't see that as an assault on private property and a dangerous intrusion that puts all our property at risk to whatever the government wants to do?

The law for the government to step in has been in place for centuries, it is called Eminent Domain. Look it up. This is not something new, and is often used for the benefit of corporations like Chrysler, when giving them someone else' property is deemed to be in the public interest.

Is this necessarily fair to the property owner? Possibly not. But when the government is trying to build a national highway, and one property owner is holding up the works by not moving, eminent domain comes into play, and no one seems to complain then.

And if you honestly see no problem with this, do you then stipulate that none of us own anything but we are only allowed to hold what the government allows us to hold and can take any time they choose?

The government can and does do this all the time. I actually do have a problem with it. I don't like Eminent Domain, but it is, and has been, the law of the land.

Be that as it may, in this particular case, the government didn't even have to resort to eminent domain, because the massive debt owed to them made them de facto owners of the company.

And that I don't disagree with. Just like I don't begrudge a bank the right to forclose on a property when the property owner doesn't pay the mortgage.

No, I won't accept you reframing the question, especially in the non sequitur that your rewrote it into here. This is the question:

Would a similar circumstance where the closed franchise was a Democrat supporter and the new authorized franchise a Republican supporter have passed your smell test during the Bush administration?

All you have to do is answer a simple yes or no. You don't have to concur that the situation is accurate as described (though it is) but simply answer the question using the scenario described.

Political consideration would have never crossed my mind in a situation such as this, unless I was presented with some proof that the people in question had prior knowledge of the political affiliation of the owner, and was additionally presented with some sort of motivation, like the owner was a major contributor to a particular political opponent.

Therefore I cannot provide a "yes or no" answer.

However, if I was presented with some sort of proof of foul play, then Yes, I would probably be upset.

But such proof is not evident, AT ALL, in this case.

Another non sequitur. It is not the dealership's concern whether Chrysler makes a profit other than in the sense that a reputable dealer wants to know that the company will stand behind its warranties and will furnish parts for the life of the automobiles. A case could be made for pulling the franchise of a dealership that was losing money. In this case, however, as I have already documented, the dealership closed was a large and prosperous dealership. There were numerous smaller and no doubt less prosperous dealerships in this state alone from which the franchises could have been pulled.

I'm not really sure you understand the meaning of the word "non-sequitur".

You're right, it's not the dealerships concern whether chrysler makes a profit... But it is Chrysler's concern. Which is the reason they would want to not have said dealer sell their cars anymore. Chrysler doesn't care if the dealer is making a profit, they just care about their own profit margin.

However, if you see no significant loss when a dealer goes from being a prosperous and reputable Chrysler dealership to being a used car lot--this included laying off several dozen employees--then you would have no problem with the government demoting you from a good paying job to part time janitor even if it meant you could afford to feed only half your kids. Right?

Hey, that's the way of the world. If you own a franchise that sells a corporation's products and said corporation no longer wants you to sell their product anymore, then sorry, you're out of luck.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Saab is now officially another victim of Obamanomics

 

[saveliberty]

Hey, that's the way of the world. If you own a franchise that sells a corporation's products and said corporation no longer wants you to sell their product anymore, then sorry, you're out of luck.

Actually, the company owes the franchisee a big settlement for breach of contract.

 

[saveliberty]

Saab is now officially another victim of Obamanomics

Saab was selling 10,000 units or less this year. GM didn't package the sale right. Look at GM's history since 2003. Shuts down Oldsmobile and has billions on payouts to dealers (this is what happens when the company is not going bankrupt). Tries to sell Saturn. This one should have been easy. Stand alone dealerships with separate production facilities. Has a well financed buyer in Roger Penske. It fails. Hummer was sort of the same deal. Now Saab. In three tries you have blame the seller.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Saab is now officially another victim of Obamanomics

Saab was selling 10,000 units or less this year. GM didn't package the sale right. Look at GM's history since 2003. Shuts down Oldsmobile and has billions on payouts to dealers (this is what happens when the company is not going bankrupt). Tries to sell Saturn. This one should have been easy. Stand alone dealerships with separate production facilities. Has a well financed buyer in Roger Penske. It fails. Hummer was sort of the same deal. Now Saab. In three tries you have blame the seller.

Who's running the Seller? Who hand picked the CEO?

 

[saveliberty]

Saab is now officially another victim of Obamanomics

Saab was selling 10,000 units or less this year. GM didn't package the sale right. Look at GM's history since 2003. Shuts down Oldsmobile and has billions on payouts to dealers (this is what happens when the company is not going bankrupt). Tries to sell Saturn. This one should have been easy. Stand alone dealerships with separate production facilities. Has a well financed buyer in Roger Penske. It fails. Hummer was sort of the same deal. Now Saab. In three tries you have blame the seller.

Who's running the Seller? Who hand picked the CEO?

You may very well have a point CF.

 

[Polk]

Chrysler would have gone bankrupt many months before they did without loans from the government via the Obama administration. And then, when there were no more Chryslers to sell, the dealerships would have ALL been closed down.

Don't be ridiculous. Bankrupcy wouldnt close all the dealerships. It would merely allow the company to restructure their organization and drop all the dead weight they are carrying. Current bankrupcy laws are specifically designed to allow businesses to restructure for this very reason.

And you can bet if they were restructuring under current bankcrupcy laws, they certainly wouldnt be closing profitable dealerships. It wouldnt matter if they were Republican or Democrat, they would be keeping the profitable dealerships open. There wouldnt be petty partisan crap like this.

1. They could have restructured if Chrysler had filed Chapter 11, but they more than likely would have had to file Chapter 7.
2. There wasn't "petty partisan crap" involved in which dealerships to close, except that which exists in the minds of petty partisans like yourself.

 

[saveliberty]

Chrysler would have gone bankrupt many months before they did without loans from the government via the Obama administration. And then, when there were no more Chryslers to sell, the dealerships would have ALL been closed down.

Don't be ridiculous. Bankrupcy wouldnt close all the dealerships. It would merely allow the company to restructure their organization and drop all the dead weight they are carrying. Current bankrupcy laws are specifically designed to allow businesses to restructure for this very reason.

And you can bet if they were restructuring under current bankcrupcy laws, they certainly wouldnt be closing profitable dealerships. It wouldnt matter if they were Republican or Democrat, they would be keeping the profitable dealerships open. There wouldnt be petty partisan crap like this.

1. They could have restructured if Chrysler had filed Chapter 11, but they more than likely would have had to file Chapter 7.
2. There wasn't "petty partisan crap" involved in which dealerships to close, except that which exists in the minds of petty partisans like yourself.

I think they could have pulled of a chapter 11. I have stayed out of the partisan politics discussion on this. My opinion is that internal politics at GM or Chrysler may have played a part, but not the Democratioc party. I'm pretty much agreeing with Polk here. Mark it down.

 

[Polk]

Don't be ridiculous. Bankrupcy wouldnt close all the dealerships. It would merely allow the company to restructure their organization and drop all the dead weight they are carrying. Current bankrupcy laws are specifically designed to allow businesses to restructure for this very reason.

And you can bet if they were restructuring under current bankcrupcy laws, they certainly wouldnt be closing profitable dealerships. It wouldnt matter if they were Republican or Democrat, they would be keeping the profitable dealerships open. There wouldnt be petty partisan crap like this.

1. They could have restructured if Chrysler had filed Chapter 11, but they more than likely would have had to file Chapter 7.
2. There wasn't "petty partisan crap" involved in which dealerships to close, except that which exists in the minds of petty partisans like yourself.

I think they could have pulled of a chapter 11. I have stayed out of the partisan politics discussion on this. My opinion is that internal politics at GM or Chrysler may have played a part, but not the Democratioc party. I'm pretty much agreeing with Polk here. Mark it down.

You made a list earlier in this thread which I think was a great summary of the situation. I will make this comment on the politics of it. Yes, more dealerships owned by Republicans were closed than dealerships owned by Democrats. But, did any of those screaming bias every stop to consider that car dealers are demographic that's overwhelming Republican?

 

[Foxfyre]

1. They could have restructured if Chrysler had filed Chapter 11, but they more than likely would have had to file Chapter 7.
2. There wasn't "petty partisan crap" involved in which dealerships to close, except that which exists in the minds of petty partisans like yourself.

I think they could have pulled of a chapter 11. I have stayed out of the partisan politics discussion on this. My opinion is that internal politics at GM or Chrysler may have played a part, but not the Democratioc party. I'm pretty much agreeing with Polk here. Mark it down.

You made a list earlier in this thread which I think was a great summary of the situation. I will make this comment on the politics of it. Yes, more dealerships owned by Republicans were closed than dealerships owned by Democrats. But, did any of those screaming bias every stop to consider that car dealers are demographic that's overwhelming Republican?

That point has already been conceded.

However. . .

Not Snopes, not anybody on this thread, not anybody I've read commenting on this whole scenario whether in the media or in blogs or on other boards. . .not one has dared to speculate whether all those dealerships would have been closed down had they been owned mostly by Democrats. None of us are privy to know that so far as I know.

But further, however, I do think that taking away a franchise from a solid, profitable dealership that happened to be owned by a Republican and then two months later give a franchise to another owner who just happened to be a big deal Democrat simply does not meet the smell test.

Had the situation been reversed during the Bush administration, I think all those now trying to defend Obama and Chrysler would be screaming that it smelled to high heaven.

For me, however, the real issue is whether the government should be involved in any way, shape, or form in taking over and running a private business and assuming any power whatsoever, no matter how limited, to dictate what reputable citizens will and what reputable citizens will not be allowed to participate in that business.

Years ago Chrysler was in financial trouble and its new CEO, Lee Iococca, accepted help from the government. He prsented a comprehensive business plan and the government oversight committee had experts agree that it was sound. He was then loaned a tiny fraction of what the auto dealers more recently received in a loan which was repaid as agreed ahead of schedule. Nobody in government then presumed to take over operation of the business or dictate policy to it, and they put the people's money at reasonable risk, not great risk. I would have no problem if the current problems in the auto industry had been handled in the same way.

I do not want my government assuming authority to take over private business and run it for ANY reason. The risks of that, in my opinion, are far worse than any ramification of any business failing.

 

[Polk]

Why would anyone speculate on that? If I say, yes, they still would have closed down, you'll counter with no, they wouldn't have. It's an utterly unprovable proposition. Of course, that's how this works. You get to make the smear, and since no one can prove that it's false beyond all doubt (because it's impossible to proven something didn't happen), you can claim victory.

 

[Vast LWC]

Actually, the company owes the franchisee a big settlement for breach of contract.

Unless there was no stated guarantee in said contract.

 

[Vast LWC]

Saab was selling 10,000 units or less this year. GM didn't package the sale right. Look at GM's history since 2003. Shuts down Oldsmobile and has billions on payouts to dealers (this is what happens when the company is not going bankrupt). Tries to sell Saturn. This one should have been easy. Stand alone dealerships with separate production facilities. Has a well financed buyer in Roger Penske. It fails. Hummer was sort of the same deal. Now Saab. In three tries you have blame the seller.

Yeah, Saab also had other problems, like availability of parts for repairs.

 

[Vast LWC]

Who's running the Seller? Who hand picked the CEO?

You're going to blame the Obama administration for the history of a car company because they picked the CEO a few months ago?

Really?

 

[MaggieMae]

Saab is now officially another victim of Obamanomics

Saab was selling 10,000 units or less this year. GM didn't package the sale right. Look at GM's history since 2003. Shuts down Oldsmobile and has billions on payouts to dealers (this is what happens when the company is not going bankrupt). Tries to sell Saturn. This one should have been easy. Stand alone dealerships with separate production facilities. Has a well financed buyer in Roger Penske. It fails. Hummer was sort of the same deal. Now Saab. In three tries you have blame the seller.

To me, it's all simple common sense and mathematics: If the parent company can't afford to take hits if an offshoot loses money, it doesn't make any sense to keep those offshoots afloat (especially if the parent company is ALREADY in bad shape financially). When I was recently shopping for a used car, I spotted several Saabs that were clean and in my price range, and I was told to not even consider a Saab because of the high cost of repairs. Why would GM want to take on a brand that already has a terrible reputation?

 

[uscitizen]

Sob. You people are spelling that wrong.

 

[saveliberty]

Saab is now officially another victim of Obamanomics

Saab was selling 10,000 units or less this year. GM didn't package the sale right. Look at GM's history since 2003. Shuts down Oldsmobile and has billions on payouts to dealers (this is what happens when the company is not going bankrupt). Tries to sell Saturn. This one should have been easy. Stand alone dealerships with separate production facilities. Has a well financed buyer in Roger Penske. It fails. Hummer was sort of the same deal. Now Saab. In three tries you have blame the seller.

To me, it's all simple common sense and mathematics: If the parent company can't afford to take hits if an offshoot loses money, it doesn't make any sense to keep those offshoots afloat (especially if the parent company is ALREADY in bad shape financially). When I was recently shopping for a used car, I spotted several Saabs that were clean and in my price range, and I was told to not even consider a Saab because of the high cost of repairs. Why would GM want to take on a brand that already has a terrible reputation?

MaggieMae, you are a bit confusing. You appear to understand GM already owns Saab, but then in the bold quoted area, you talk as if they were buying it. You do know Saab is owned by GM? That they were looking to sell it and had a deal, but couldn't close it?

 

[EriktheRed]

Remember during the auto bailouts that a lot of dealerships were required to close via order of the Obama administration? One of our local Chrysler dealerships was closed down--a successful and prosperous family owned business of more than 50 years who just happened to be strong supporters of Republican candidates in our area.

A few months later a new Chrysler dealership opened up here and occupied the property vacated by the former dealership. Would you believe that the new owners were heavy contributors to the Obama campaign and strong supporters of Democrats in our area?

Needless to say, the original owners were upset.

Apparently they weren't the only ones and we'll see if the lawsuit described below gains legs. I imagine the Obama supporters here will just shrug or ignore this or blow it off or attack me or any others outraged by these kinds of tactics. Or they'll attack the WND for running the story. Anybody want to take bets on that?

I hope people who still think will understand how dangerous it is for such tactics to go unchallenged and unavenged.

Excerpt

Closed Chrysler dealers to drive Obama's eligibility
Seeking damages for lost businesses, will question administration's 'authority'
December 08, 2009
By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Two lawyers have joined forces to assemble a case challenging in U.S. bankruptcy court the federal government's use of Troubled Asset Relief Program funds to bail out Chrysler and in doing so may have created a scenario that finally will bring to a head the issue of Barack Obama's eligibility to be president.

The attorneys are Leo Donofrio, who has launched cases directly challenging Obama's eligibility, and Stephen Pidgeon, who also has worked on the issue.

Their new case questions the authority by which the federal government and administration officials intervened in the auto industry, specifically allocating some $8 billion-plus to Chrysler, which later was forgiven.

Pidgeon told WND the plaintiffs in the case are former Chrysler dealers who lost their businesses as part of the "restructuring" of the automobile company. They have been damaged with the loss of their businesses, and the case alleges the Obama administration, through its use of TARP money, influenced Chrysler's outcome.

Donofrio told WND the core issue is the disbursement of TARP funds to the automaker that were intended to help banks and financial institutions. The previous Treasury secretary had indicated such expenditures were not appropriate, and, in fact, a congressional effort to authorize the expenditures failed, he said.

So, along with a bankruptcy-court challenge, a "quo warranto" case is being filed in Washington, D.C., demanding to know by what authority administration officials set up the financial arrangements with Chrysler and handed out taxpayer money.

As part of the demand for information about the authority used, Donofrio confirmed, there will be questions about Obama's eligibility to be president. Donofrio contends that since by Obama's own admission his father never was a U.S. citizen, Obama was born a dual citizen. The framers of the Constitution, he argues, did not consider a dual citizen to be a "natural born citizen" as required for the presidency.

More here:
Closed Chrysler dealers to drive Obama's eligibility

So basically, these guys got downsized and they're mad they're and blaming the Obama admin for it.

As part of the demand for information about the authority used, Donofrio confirmed, there will be questions about Obama's eligibility to be president. Donofrio contends that since by Obama's own admission his father never was a U.S. citizen, Obama was born a dual citizen. The framers of the Constitution, he argues, did not consider a dual citizen to be a "natural born citizen" as required for the presidency.

^^^^^^^^^
That's gonna help their case really well, too.

 

[Polk]

Saab was selling 10,000 units or less this year. GM didn't package the sale right. Look at GM's history since 2003. Shuts down Oldsmobile and has billions on payouts to dealers (this is what happens when the company is not going bankrupt). Tries to sell Saturn. This one should have been easy. Stand alone dealerships with separate production facilities. Has a well financed buyer in Roger Penske. It fails. Hummer was sort of the same deal. Now Saab. In three tries you have blame the seller.

To me, it's all simple common sense and mathematics: If the parent company can't afford to take hits if an offshoot loses money, it doesn't make any sense to keep those offshoots afloat (especially if the parent company is ALREADY in bad shape financially). When I was recently shopping for a used car, I spotted several Saabs that were clean and in my price range, and I was told to not even consider a Saab because of the high cost of repairs. Why would GM want to take on a brand that already has a terrible reputation?

MaggieMae, you are a bit confusing. You appear to understand GM already owns Saab, but then in the bold quoted area, you talk as if they were buying it. You do know Saab is owned by GM? That they were looking to sell it and had a deal, but couldn't close it?

I think she's making a comment as to why did GM buy Saab in the first place. It wasn't like their business was doing great at that time (1989) either.