Maybe Former Chrysler Dealers are Now Mad Enough

[MaggieMae]

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.

So now you're hoping that wiinning multi-million dollar lawsuits against the government would be worthwhile? Just who do you think picks up THAT tab?

Just compensation for a wrong. You have a problem with that, get rid of the politicans that forced it to happen in the first place.

I see you know the answer to my question, but choose evasion.

 

[David Duke La]

You people do know why the dealerships hired these attorneys don't you? It far more greater than just the bankruptsy. If Quo-Warranto is granted then this would be the biggest event since Americas conception.

That's nothing new. The Birthers have taken Obama all the way to the USSC on constitutional grounds, but of course they just laughed and used the voluminous complaints for toilet paper. But, yes, it has cost Obama a great deal in legal fees because the process of denying those idiotic claims is required or the suits would have been won by default. The same will happen here. I hope you're enjoying being dumbed down.

You see this is where you are wrong. All judges said the attorneys were out of their jurisdiction and lacked standing because they should have filed in a DC venue where the President resided. Also the Presidents actions in DC with the dealers caused harm which they now have standing to file suit as well as Quo-Warranto. Finally Obama will have to pony up his credentials when it comes to discovery. This a brilliant strategy. The MSM is very hush hush on this but that is expected since they are in the tank for the alleged Usurper.

 

[MaggieMae]

What you people are forgetting about this suit is that Quo-Warranto will be used against Obama filed in a DC Court which is in the jurisdiction in which Obama resides. This is bad news for Obama. This is a brilliant strategy because Obama will have to defend himself on two fronts.

And, once again, the ignorant GET OBAMA BRIGADE will come out looking like the fools they are. The laughing stock of the rest of the country.

Do you want the President of the United States or anybody else in government, no matter who he or she is, to be able to tell an American citizen what kind of legal business he/she is allowed to have or what kind of legal franchise he/she is allowed to hold?

The inevitable stretching of a subject into an unrealistic assumption almost always follows when the debate itself is lost.

 

[MaggieMae]

You people do know why the dealerships hired these attorneys don't you? It far more greater than just the bankruptsy. If Quo-Warranto is granted then this would be the biggest event since Americas conception.

That's nothing new. The Birthers have taken Obama all the way to the USSC on constitutional grounds, but of course they just laughed and used the voluminous complaints for toilet paper. But, yes, it has cost Obama a great deal in legal fees because the process of denying those idiotic claims is required or the suits would have been won by default. The same will happen here. I hope you're enjoying being dumbed down.

You see this is where you are wrong. All judges said the attorneys were out of their jurisdiction and lacked standing because they should have filed in a DC venue where the President resided. Also the Presidents actions in DC with the dealers caused harm which they now have standing to file suit as well as Quo-Warranto. Finally Obama will have to pony up his credentials when it comes to discovery. This a brilliant strategy. The MSM is very hush hush on this but that is expected since they are in the tank for the alleged Usurper.

 

[WillowTree]

Chrysler and GM closed down thriving profitable dealerships that cost them zero to operate in the first place.. Bawney Fwank even called his chips in and got an order to close rescinded in New York! It's laugable that maggie may keeps denying the obvious. but what the hell, she has her head up her ass so it's nothing short of expected with her.

 

[WillowTree]

SAVE ME FROM BECOMING ONE OF WILLOW TWEE'S AVATARS!!!​

did you find any black democrats whose car dealships had been un voluntarily closed? yet?

You're a ******* bigot on top of being the most stupid person on this message board. You're never worth my time, so I don't know why I even bother reading your junk.

translation, you couldn't find one, not even one, so I surmise the dealerships belonged to white republicans.. oh well, what the hell!

 

[Vast LWC]

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?

If you read Maggie's link, especially the part that I quoted in my post, you'll find that it was Chrysler asking for the dealership closings, not the government.

And the dealerships did not have to shut down, they simply could no longer sell Chrystler cars, as was also stated above.

Now, whether the government should be in the auto business is another question altogether. Personally I would have preferred if they had never got involved in the first place.

But once they started lending money to them, they were involved, and that started decades ago.

Trying to stop Chrysler from wasting the investment that the government had already made in them, in order to save American jobs, was necessary to make sure taxpayer dollars hadn't been completely wasted.

If Chrysler hadn't borrowed billions upon billions of dollars from the taxpayers, I would agree that the government had no place in dictating what they should do, but since they had borrowed all that money, the taxpayers had a vested interest.

It's like the bank stepping in when they hold your mortgage and you go bankrupt.

 

[Vast LWC]

LWC does little else but lie and whine.

Do you say that about everyone that regularly makes you look foolish by speaking truth to your BS?
Or do you reserve this sort of crap for me?
Just wondering.

 

[Vast LWC]

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.

From the article posted:

"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.”"

Any more questions?

 

[Vast LWC]

And a Quo Warranto claim is absurd for two reasons:

1. Eminent Domain dictates that the Government has every right to seize private property if it is in the interest of the general public, which was clearly the case here.

and

2. Chrysler OWED THE TAXPAYERS BILLIONS OF DOLLARS. Since the dealerships in question had been costing the corporation money every year for quite some time, (as the president of chrysler pointed out at the hearings) they were effectively taking taxpayer dollars.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

From the article posted:

"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.”"

Any more questions?

Yes. The question remains. Why should the government be in the business of auto manufacturing and sales? Would Chrysler have closed those dealerships without the Obama aministration blessings or orders given that Obama or his designee assumed the power to hire and fire executives? Why would they close a profitable dealership that did not lose money in 2008, then authorize a new dealership with a different owner just a few short months later?

Would that have passed your smell test during the Bush administration?

How can you condone any government entity dictating to a private business what legal products it can or cannot attempt to sell? How can you condone what happened here? How can anybody condone what happened here?

 

[saveliberty]

The ones closed down were UNPROFITABLE!!! A new dealership probably had the creds to prove its worth and thus the risk. Hello?

MaggieMae, I can assure you there are very few profitable new car dealerships at the time this happened or even today. The ones that are, make their money from used car operations or very aggressive add-on sales of finance and after-market products.

A moot point. If a dealership was already proving to be unprofitable (for WHATEVER reason), and if a new dealership at least has the reputation and a proven track record for operating a business, why shouldn't the latter be given the franchise even if it was going to sell more used cars than new ones?

You hit on the key word, franchise. The dealership pays for the franchise and as long as they were abiding by the agreement, there shold be some sort of protection or payout if shut down. I understand in a bankruptcy, much of this does not apply, but when you take a business away from one person without compensation and let another take their place, that is wrong.

 

[saveliberty]

Every article I have seen on the cost to GM and Chrysler of dealerships was a pack of lies. They would cite training costs of mechanics, advertising, distribution, floor plan and other support. The dealers pay for all of that.

If they can...

They pay up front in most cases, so it is pretty hard to float for long.

 

[Vast LWC]

Yes. The question remains. Why should the government be in the business of closing dealerships? It was not Chrysler but the Obama administration that closed a profitable dealership here. They did not lose money in 2008. And presumably it was not Chrysler but the Obama administration that authorized a new dealership with a different owner just a few short months later.

How can you condone any government entity dictating to a private business what legal products it can or cannot attempt to sell? How can you condone what happened here? How can anybody condone what happened here?

Since, as you stated, you feel no need to provide no proof of any of your assertions, it is left to us to decide whether we believe the supposed dealership you are speaking of was in fact profitable.

Without seeing the books of the dealership you mention, or having at least sworn testimony of someone who has seen the books of the dealership, I am left to form my own opinion with no actual facts at all.

Thus I tend to doubt that it was in fact the case that said dealership was in fact profitable.

In addition, you provide no proof that a new dealership actually moved in to the exact same location. Again, I am left with no choice but to take this story with a massive grain of salt.

 

[saveliberty]

In your little mind. Stop laying turds all over the board please.

I also disagree with the member.

Quo warranto is applied every time we challenge a police officer's right to search our person or search or enter our automobile, our house, our place of business. If done outside the authority of the law, we have right of redress.

Quo warranto has been applied in cases such as Kelo in which government entities condemned private property in a way that benefitted other private citizens. Some of these cases have been I think decided wrongly. I accept the principle of eminent domain within the scope of the general welfare and the necessity of government to fulfill the authorized social contract. I think Kelo for instance far overstepped such authority and was rightfully challenged even though the plaintiffs lost. Kelo was such an blatant violation of individual rights that I look for it to be overturned when the next such case comes up--at least if we keep a majority of constitutional scholars on the Supreme Court.

Quo warranto was applied vigorously in the wake of 9/11 as our law enforcement and military scrambled to protect our persons and possessions from further attack, and their authority to do so, especially within the Patriot Act, was questioned, challenged, and lawsuits did fly. That was a good thing and once the dust settled, those policies and procedures that overstepped constitutional authority were eliminated and the remaining policy and procedures are reasonable and within the scope and intent of constitutional authority.

And now we have government leaders who presume authority to order who can and cannot have a franchise to operate an auto dealership.

Let's hope and pray that quo warranto will rein in what is increasingly a dangerously rogue government and restore some sanity to the system.

Except it wasn't the government that made that decision; it was Chrysler. I see this lawsuit, if it ever reaches even one day in court before being thrown out as frivolous, to backfire big time.

Interestingly enough, I was not in favor of the bailout, because it meant government takeover of private industry and a bankrutpcy was the best answer for Chrysler and GM. Bankruptcy allowed them to forgo any contract, labor, dealership or supplier. Without the concessions from the unions and suppliers downsizing was very difficult.

My issue was not that they closed dealers, but that they made it sound like dealers were a financial burden, which they were not, and they shut some dealers in favor of others without just compensation.

 

[saveliberty]

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.

From the article posted:

"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.”"

Any more questions?

This issue of support is crap Vast LWC. Product development has nothing to do with dealer costs. They are still going to market and advertise to the same people, so no difference there. In fact, local dealers help defray the cost of that advertising. That leaves distribution. If this were true little towns far from distribution points would be axed. Yet most of the closings were in metropolitan areas. Look at the list I posted earlier. Advertising costs are built right in to the cost of the car, just like destination charges. What do you think a destination charge covers?

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes. The question remains. Why should the government be in the business of closing dealerships? It was not Chrysler but the Obama administration that closed a profitable dealership here. They did not lose money in 2008. And presumably it was not Chrysler but the Obama administration that authorized a new dealership with a different owner just a few short months later.

How can you condone any government entity dictating to a private business what legal products it can or cannot attempt to sell? How can you condone what happened here? How can anybody condone what happened here?

Since, as you stated, you feel no need to provide no proof of any of your assertions, it is left to us to decide whether we believe the supposed dealership you are speaking of was in fact profitable.

Without seeing the books of the dealership you mention, or having at least sworn testimony of someone who has seen the books of the dealership, I am left to form my own opinion with no actual facts at all.

Thus I tend to doubt that it was in fact the case that said dealership was in fact profitable.

In addition, you provide no proof that a new dealership actually moved in to the exact same location. Again, I am left with no choice but to take this story with a massive grain of salt.

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?

 

[Vast LWC]

This issue of support is crap Vast LWC. Product development has nothing to do with dealer costs. They are still going to market and advertise to the same people, so no difference there. In fact, local dealers help defray the cost of that advertising. That leaves distribution. If this were true little towns far from distribution points would be axed. Yet most of the closings were in metropolitan areas. Look at the list I posted earlier. Advertising costs are built right in to the cost of the car, just like destination charges. What do you think a destination charge covers?

Unless the manufacturer is giving the dealers rebates in order to undersell and outsell the competition, which happens quite often.

In addition, shipping and assistance costs for manufacturer-based warranty repairs in out-of-the-way locations all cost more money.

 

[Vast LWC]

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...

2) 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?


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.

 

[saveliberty]

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...

2) 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?


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.

You realize that the dealer pays a fixed amount to Chrysler for each vehicle. If Chrysler doesn't make money, it is because they didn't charge enough. Not really the dealer's fault. The dealer may have already paid for the inventory that Chrysler said they could no longer sell. This forced them to liquidate at whatever they could get out of the vehicles. That liquidation could have made some of them insolvent.