Maybe Former Chrysler Dealers are Now Mad Enough

[Avatar4321]

LWC was stating that they would have all closed down due to lack of stock, as Chrysler wouldn't have been making cars to give them, thus not lying at all.

They certainly could have continued to be dealerships, with no cars to sell.

You do realize that car dealerships dont necessarily have to have an exclusive contract with Chrysler dont you?

 

[Vast LWC]

and yet you cannot explain them closing one dealership and turning around and opening another one.. newp!

Yet, I did explain that. Funny how you missed that post.

 

[Vast LWC]

He is a liar, and fails to provide proof of his version. He has no explanation.

You know, stating someone is a liar does not actually make them a liar, right?

I mean, just because you might say the sky is green a thousand times, that doesn't actually make the sky green...

 

[Vast LWC]

BTW, Bail outs are inefficient use of tax payers money. If Chrysler was so bad that it was unsustainable even after a restructure, why on earth would we want such an inefficient company to continue to limp on? It makes absolutely no sense.

Wouldn't it be much wiser to sell off what assets were left of the company to others who would use them more efficient and create greater productivity?

Now, honestly, I'm not going to argue that point. I didn't necessarily agree that bailing out Crysler in particular was a great idea. Chrysler had a proven track record of failure, and should have been made an example of.

And once Obama took charge of the situation, he made the wise move and made the company sell to Fiat. Rather that then have the company fail and have the jobs it provided also dissappear.

 

[Vast LWC]

LWC was stating that they would have all closed down due to lack of stock, as Chrysler wouldn't have been making cars to give them, thus not lying at all.

They certainly could have continued to be dealerships, with no cars to sell.

You do realize that car dealerships dont necessarily have to have an exclusive contract with Chrysler dont you?

I do, and those dealerships, even if Chrysler "shut them down" could stay open and turn around and sell other types of cars.

And if they were such "lucrative dealerships" as you all claim, they should have had no trouble selling Fords instead of Chryslers.

 

[saveliberty]

Since most if not all Chrysler dealerships are not owned by the company, a bankruptcy would not have closed a single store. Chrysler may have decided to discontinue their dealer agreements for any reason under bankruptcy. The dealers would just have to decide what they wanted to do at that point.

Here's the list of closed dealerships:

http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/ChryslerDealership.pdf

In other words, LWC was outright lying when he claimed they would all shut down. Exactly my point.

LWC was stating that they would have all closed down due to lack of stock, as Chrysler wouldn't have been making cars to give them, thus not lying at all.

They certainly could have continued to be dealerships, with no cars to sell.

Many of the "closed" dealers are still in business. They had or have acquired other manufacturers to represent. Others have gone to being strictly used car dealerships. LWC was not lying, in my opinion, though grossly misinfromed on the subject.

Most of the decisions to close were based on:

1. Low volume dealers (less than 35 cars per year)
2. Under capitalized.
3. Poor customer service ratings.
4. Run down dealerships.
5. Short distance from a healthier dealership.
6. Selling other manufacturers out of their store and unwilling to change.

 

[Vast LWC]

Many of the "closed" dealers are still in business. They had or have acquired other manufacturers to represent. Others have gone to being strictly used car dealerships. LWC was not lying, in my opinion, though grossly misinfromed on the subject.

Most of the decisions to close were based on:

1. Low volume dealers (less than 35 cars per year)
2. Under capitalized.
3. Poor customer service ratings.
4. Run down dealerships.
5. Short distance from a healthier dealership.
6. Selling other manufacturers out of their store and unwilling to change.

Yes, this is all perfectly true. I agree with all of this.

When I said they would have "gone out of business" I meant "out of the business of being Chrysler dealers".

Of course they could find other lines of automobiles to sell.

As they can now, after Chrysler "shut them down".

 

[saveliberty]

The only shame I saw in the shutdown was Chrysler and the government calling this necessary as a cost savings. Dealerships pay their own way, but the government needed the pain spread around more, so it looked better politically. I hope the dealers take a big chunk from the government.

 

[Barb]

Many of the "closed" dealers are still in business. They had or have acquired other manufacturers to represent. Others have gone to being strictly used car dealerships. LWC was not lying, in my opinion, though grossly misinfromed on the subject.

Most of the decisions to close were based on:

1. Low volume dealers (less than 35 cars per year)
2. Under capitalized.
3. Poor customer service ratings.
4. Run down dealerships.
5. Short distance from a healthier dealership.
6. Selling other manufacturers out of their store and unwilling to change.

Yes, this is all perfectly true. I agree with all of this.

When I said they would have "gone out of business" I meant "out of the business of being Chrysler dealers".

Of course they could find other lines of automobiles to sell.

As they can now, after Chrysler "shut them down".

And that's the thing. The govt. didn't shut down individual dealerships, Chrysler made those decisions.

 

[Foxfyre]

I can see some good grounds to challenge the Bailouts in the first place and the government control of it. Im not seeing how this creates any sorts of ground to challenge Obama's citizenship.

The basis of the lawsuit was the standing of the government to require a private business to close. I guess they thought the citizenship issue would just further throw the standing issue into question, but I wish they had left that part out of it.

 

[Foxfyre]

Why should I research something when I know the family involved personally and everybody in town knows about the new owners including the local newspaper? Is there someplace I should research further about that? Surely you aren't like some of the more numbnutty members here who assume that if I say one thing, I must mean this other thing too?

Perhaps you noted that Snopes said that unprofitable dealerships would be closed. The one closed here was not at all unprofitable but was one of the more successful. I wonder how many profitable Democratic supporter owned dealerships were closed? Snopes didn't deal with that. It did admit that the overwhelming number of dealerships are Republican/conservative supporters. I wonder if the administration would have been so quick to close down all those dealerships if that had not been the case?

Whatever you say, and whatever Snopes thinks it 'debunked', it stinks to high heaven.

Why should you do research and provide proof for your argument?

Because if you don't, whatever you say is suspect. And you can be sure as hell that a whole bunch of people who don't know you, on the internet, are not going to just take your word for it.

You wonder how many Democratic car dealerships were closed? That's right, you wonder. Because you have no actual numbers to prove anything your saying.

Instead all we have to go from your post, is that someone you apparently know, who owned a car dealership, was a republican, and therefore all car dealership closings must be part of some giant conspiracy against Republicans.

I don't need to research what I cite from my own experience or wonder about and I don't care who thinks what of that is suspect. Opinions stated as opinions never have to be 'researched' or 'supported' even in formal debate. I only have to defend what I state is fact or conclusion drawn from my experience or what I wonder about.

Anyway, Maggie was good enough to provide the Snopes link to support the commentary re Democrats vs Republicans. I will refer you to that, and also to my comment to her that only a know nothing would assume that because I said one thing automatically translates that I said or intended something else too. I'm sure you didn't intend to say that though even though it sorta sounds like that in your post.

 

[Foxfyre]

go for it, I'm not jumping through hoops for you. I'm giving you one link. If you don't agree find us something that proves otherwise.

Car Dealers, Reeling, Get Senate Hearing | Daily Yonder | Keep It Rural

Nothing in that link proves anything about any conspiracy against Republicans. There is no Senate testimony quoted that said any such thing.

Here, in fact is the head of Chrystler explaining to congress why he needed to shut down dealerships, from your own article:

James Press, Chrysler president, told the committee that the company’s “multiple distribution channels” have become inefficient, “an expensive legacy of more than 80 years being in business.”

Press told the gathering that in the current car market, “There is simply not enough business to go around. With projected annual sales in the U.S. this year of only 10 to 10.5 million compared to historical levels of 16 million, Chrysler cannot support the same number of dealers that we have in the past.” He reported that in 2008 the average Chrysler dealership lost $3,431.

“This puts us at a real disadvantage,” Press said, “because it increases our costs of product development, distribution, marketing and advertising, as well as dealer administration by more than several billion dollars every year.”

The only ones talking about a conspiracy against Republicans are mostly Maggie, you, and a couple of parrots. In my opinion, had most of the dealerships been owned by generously contributing Democrats, there would have been no closure of dealerships, but that is beside the point in this case.

The point made--you know, the one that seems to keep escaping most of the leftsts here--is whether the government should be in the auto business at all and certainly whether it should be involved of ordering perfectly good dealerships to go out of business. Especially when it does nothing to stop other dealerships from opening right up.

I don't want the government to have authority or ability to order honest, ethical, and legal businesses to close down or give up their franchises or anything else.

Do you want the government to have authority to do that?

 

[Foxfyre]

Many of the "closed" dealers are still in business. They had or have acquired other manufacturers to represent. Others have gone to being strictly used car dealerships. LWC was not lying, in my opinion, though grossly misinfromed on the subject.

Most of the decisions to close were based on:

1. Low volume dealers (less than 35 cars per year)
2. Under capitalized.
3. Poor customer service ratings.
4. Run down dealerships.
5. Short distance from a healthier dealership.
6. Selling other manufacturers out of their store and unwilling to change.

Yes, this is all perfectly true. I agree with all of this.

When I said they would have "gone out of business" I meant "out of the business of being Chrysler dealers".

Of course they could find other lines of automobiles to sell.

As they can now, after Chrysler "shut them down".

And that's the thing. The govt. didn't shut down individual dealerships, Chrysler made those decisions.

After restructuring, the US Government has an 8% share--that's a HUGE share of Chrysler; Canada has 2%; and the UAW--you know those guys who are 100% in bed with the Obama administration or he with them, however you want to look at it--hold a whopping 55% of the stock. Emissaries appointed by Obama and answering only to him hire the CEO and say how much he will be paid.

Now tell me again how Chrysler made those decisions.

 

[Barb]

go for it, I'm not jumping through hoops for you. I'm giving you one link. If you don't agree find us something that proves otherwise.

Car Dealers, Reeling, Get Senate Hearing | Daily Yonder | Keep It Rural

Nothing in that link proves anything about any conspiracy against Republicans. There is no Senate testimony quoted that said any such thing.

Here, in fact is the head of Chrystler explaining to congress why he needed to shut down dealerships, from your own article:

James Press, Chrysler president, told the committee that the company’s “multiple distribution channels” have become inefficient, “an expensive legacy of more than 80 years being in business.”

Press told the gathering that in the current car market, “There is simply not enough business to go around. With projected annual sales in the U.S. this year of only 10 to 10.5 million compared to historical levels of 16 million, Chrysler cannot support the same number of dealers that we have in the past.” He reported that in 2008 the average Chrysler dealership lost $3,431.

“This puts us at a real disadvantage,” Press said, “because it increases our costs of product development, distribution, marketing and advertising, as well as dealer administration by more than several billion dollars every year.”

The only ones talking about a conspiracy against Republicans are Maggie, you, and a couple of other parrots. In my opinion, had most of the dealerships been owned by generously contributing Democrats, there would have been no closure of dealerships, but that is beside the point in this case.

The point made--you know, the one that seems to keep escaping most of the leftsts here--is whether the government should be in the auto business at all and certainly whether it should be involved of ordering perfectly good dealerships to go out of business. Especially when it does nothing to stop other dealerships from opening right up.

I don't want the government to have authority or ability to order honest, ethical, and legal businesses to close down or give up their franchises or anything else.

Do you want the government to have authority to do that?

Did the dealerships seek the bailout $$? If they're getting bailed out by the taxpayers, then the taxpayer's representatives get to set terms. I'd rather have seen them fall flat, along with the banking industry, and all their stockholders and ceos and boards of directors who either made or allowed top-heavy compensation for stupid decisions. When hard working Americans are being told to tough it out, I see no reason for the entitled class to get taxpayer funding for incompetence.

 

[Avatar4321]

I can see some good grounds to challenge the Bailouts in the first place and the government control of it. Im not seeing how this creates any sorts of ground to challenge Obama's citizenship.

The basis of the lawsuit was the standing of the government to require a private business to close. I guess they thought the citizenship issue would just further throw the standing issue into question, but I wish they had left that part out of it.

I agree. I wish they left that part out. I feel it weakens their over all argument.

 

[Foxfyre]

I can see some good grounds to challenge the Bailouts in the first place and the government control of it. Im not seeing how this creates any sorts of ground to challenge Obama's citizenship.

The basis of the lawsuit was the standing of the government to require a private business to close. I guess they thought the citizenship issue would just further throw the standing issue into question, but I wish they had left that part out of it.

I agree. I wish they left that part out. I feel it weakens their over all argument.

I don't think it really weakens it. It just gives the anti-Tea Party, anti-freedom, anti-reform folks a great target to aim at instead of dealing with the real issue and makes debating more difficult. I would imagine that will be the case in the courtroom too.

 

[Foxfyre]

Nothing in that link proves anything about any conspiracy against Republicans. There is no Senate testimony quoted that said any such thing.

Here, in fact is the head of Chrystler explaining to congress why he needed to shut down dealerships, from your own article:

James Press, Chrysler president, told the committee that the company’s “multiple distribution channels” have become inefficient, “an expensive legacy of more than 80 years being in business.”

Press told the gathering that in the current car market, “There is simply not enough business to go around. With projected annual sales in the U.S. this year of only 10 to 10.5 million compared to historical levels of 16 million, Chrysler cannot support the same number of dealers that we have in the past.” He reported that in 2008 the average Chrysler dealership lost $3,431.

“This puts us at a real disadvantage,” Press said, “because it increases our costs of product development, distribution, marketing and advertising, as well as dealer administration by more than several billion dollars every year.”

The only ones talking about a conspiracy against Republicans are Maggie, you, and a couple of other parrots. In my opinion, had most of the dealerships been owned by generously contributing Democrats, there would have been no closure of dealerships, but that is beside the point in this case.

The point made--you know, the one that seems to keep escaping most of the leftsts here--is whether the government should be in the auto business at all and certainly whether it should be involved of ordering perfectly good dealerships to go out of business. Especially when it does nothing to stop other dealerships from opening right up.

I don't want the government to have authority or ability to order honest, ethical, and legal businesses to close down or give up their franchises or anything else.

Do you want the government to have authority to do that?

Did the dealerships seek the bailout $$? If they're getting bailed out by the taxpayers, then the taxpayer's representatives get to set terms. I'd rather have seen them fall flat, along with the banking industry, and all their stockholders and ceos and boards of directors who either made or allowed top-heavy compensation for stupid decisions. When hard working Americans are being told to tough it out, I see no reason for the entitled class to get taxpayer funding for incompetence.

Well we're sorta arguing on the same side of the fence here I think.

The dealerships had no say one way or the other in the bailouts. I would guess some of those that got the gravy thought it was fine and dandy, and those forced to give up their franchises did not.

There should have been no government bailout. There is no constitutional authority for the government putting taxpayer money at that kind of risk. Had there been no bailout, there would have been no reason to take over the industry, no ability for the government to protect the union and give them everything they wanted, no excuse for the government telling anybody whether they could stay in business or what kind of business they could aspire to, and we wouldn't be one step closer to a Socialist government instead of the Republic that protects a free people as decreed by the Constitution.

 

[jeffrockit]

Lawsuits against the the govt for not providing enough corporate welfare?

Now doesn't that take the cake?

Many of the dealerships were profitable and were still forced to close. There were not asking for anything from the govt. That would be the parent company Chrysler that was looking for a handout. Those dealers were forced into closing whether profitable or not. There definitely seems to have been some unanswered questions as to why some were chosen and others weren't. We will probably never know the dirty secrets and back room deals behind this mess.

 

[ba1614]

I can see some good grounds to challenge the Bailouts in the first place and the government control of it. Im not seeing how this creates any sorts of ground to challenge Obama's citizenship.

The basis of the lawsuit was the standing of the government to require a private business to close. I guess they thought the citizenship issue would just further throw the standing issue into question, but I wish they had left that part out of it.

To me, getting a "birther" lawyer involved, and even bringing that up in the case, throws the whole suit into question and go in a direction that will hurt the case.

It's unfortunate, this would be an interesting case, if it were solely about the dealership deal.

 

[code1211]

I think it's intriguing that these closed dealers, presumably suffering serious financial loss already, have enough money to hire lawyers to fight a losing cause. There is so much factual information defense attorneys will have right at their fingertips and the x-dealers will ultimately have legal fees piled on top of their losses.

Stupid.

Wouldn't this be more along the lines of the personal injury kind of law suit in which the lawyer works for free and gets a huge % of the payoff if a win occurs?