NASCAR should step up to the plate: keep Ford, and dump GM, Dodge, etc.(i.e. Fascist Motors) and embrace Toyota, Honda, Hyndai, etc....and with it classical liberalism.

obviously a pipe dream, but fun to think about.

They have embraced Toyota.

(05-28-2009 08:32 AM)Rebel Wrote:  

(05-28-2009 07:54 AM)I45owl Wrote:  I have no doubt about that. But, when your business is based on selling a product of a company that is or should be bankrupt, I don't see that you have a lot of room to complain.

They shouldn't be able to pick and choose and they damn sure shouldn't be able to make it where the company can't sell it's new inventory as "new" simply because they f'ed up.

Why not? It's their (Dodge's) business - they have every right to choose who holds their franchises. Especially when Dodge is financing a lot of the inventory costs. I think they should be as equitable as they can in liquidating current inventory - i.e. not shafting the dealers whose franchises they're revoking, but I can't see that Dodge has a lot of resources to help them out at this point. I don't know the car business, but does the dealer "own" all of those cars outright?

Why do we need Bankruptcy Courts anyway?

We have Obama to sort these things out for us.

"Hope and change"

(05-28-2009 10:23 AM)I45owl Wrote:  

(05-28-2009 08:32 AM)Rebel Wrote:  

(05-28-2009 07:54 AM)I45owl Wrote:  I have no doubt about that. But, when your business is based on selling a product of a company that is or should be bankrupt, I don't see that you have a lot of room to complain.

They shouldn't be able to pick and choose and they damn sure shouldn't be able to make it where the company can't sell it's new inventory as "new" simply because they f'ed up.

Why not? It's their (Dodge's) business - they have every right to choose who holds their franchises. Especially when Dodge is financing a lot of the inventory costs. I think they should be as equitable as they can in liquidating current inventory - i.e. not shafting the dealers whose franchises they're revoking, but I can't see that Dodge has a lot of resources to help them out at this point. I don't know the car business, but does the dealer "own" all of those cars outright?

I have to agree with I45 on this one. Why shouldn't Chrysler be able to choose who gets to retain their license.

Yes I would be pissed if it happened to me, but I would like other dealerships in the article and focus on selling a different brand.

Chrysler didn't choose, the Govt. did


Some dealerships own outright, others finance either through the Car Maker or their local bank(Depending on rates)

(05-28-2009 12:09 PM)GGniner Wrote:  Chrysler didn't choose, the Govt. did

Everything I read said Chrysler made the decision to cut underperforming dealerships. Why are you trying to blame this on the government? The government did not run the company into the ground, make them build automobiles that cannot compete with the foreign competition or force them to accept tax payer money. As for filing bankruptcy, that was going to happen eventually and actually the taxpayer money staved it off for a while.

Mr. Joseph's wasn't underperforming.

(05-28-2009 12:50 PM)uhmump95 Wrote:  

(05-28-2009 12:09 PM)GGniner Wrote:  Chrysler didn't choose, the Govt. did

Everything I read said Chrysler made the decision to cut underperforming dealerships. Why are you trying to blame this on the government? The government did not run the company into the ground, make them build automobiles that cannot compete with the foreign competition or force them to accept tax payer money. As for filing bankruptcy, that was going to happen eventually and actually the taxpayer money staved it off for a while.

..which is what conservatives were saying would happen all along. So, why exactly did we do it again?

(05-28-2009 12:50 PM)uhmump95 Wrote:  

(05-28-2009 12:09 PM)GGniner Wrote:  Chrysler didn't choose, the Govt. did

Everything I read said Chrysler made the decision to cut underperforming dealerships.

Not if you read these articles. In fact everything I read, including from the Gov't itself, said there was no formal basis on which dealerships were to be shut down.

Quote:Why are you trying to blame this on the government?

Because the government is explicitly making these decisions. This is no secret, it is no star chamber conspiracy theory. The government is explicitly stating they are making such decisions.

Quote: As for filing bankruptcy, that was going to happen eventually and actually the taxpayer money staved it off for a while.

See blazer's question. I most certainly blame this on the gov't, b/c the majority of citizens opposed any such bailout...and if it was simply to delay bankruptcy, then we got nothing for those billions spent. NOTHING. Yes, I have a big problem with that.

(05-28-2009 12:50 PM)uhmump95 Wrote:  Everything I read said Chrysler made the decision to cut underperforming dealerships.

some of the closed dealerships were not underperforming but profitable. as for who made the call on who to close or not:

http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssConsu...1920090526

Quote:A lawyer for Chrysler dealers facing closure as part of the automaker's bankruptcy reorganization said on Tuesday he believes Chrysler executives do not support a plan to eliminate a quarter of its retail outlets.

Lawyer Leonard Bellavia, of Bellavia Gentile & Associates, who represents some of the terminated dealers, said he deposed Chrysler President Jim Press on Tuesday and came away with the impression that Press did not support the plan.

"It became clear to us that Chrysler does not see the wisdom of terminating 25 percent of its dealers," Bellavia said. "It really wasn't Chrysler's decision. They are under enormous pressure from the President's automotive task force."

and I partially blame the Government(over time) for their struggles, along with the UAW. I could just about support a bailout with strings attached being the Govt. got out of the companies way and dissolved the UAW.

(05-28-2009 12:50 PM)uhmump95 Wrote:  Everything I read said Chrysler made the decision to cut underperforming dealerships.

I never had the impression that under- or over- performance played into the criteria. It seemed more like a move to reduce inventory and intra-brand competition.

(05-28-2009 12:55 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  ..which is what conservatives were saying would happen all along. So, why exactly did we do it again?

Conservatives aren't the only ones. This is deserving of another thread, but I was interested to hear Robert Reich's take on it this morning. He was talking about GM, but he asked the same question. If it is to get a return of the money the govt put in, then why put it in in the first place? If it is to reduce unemployment from layoffs, then why is the govt. demanding 20k layoffs now? He said the only way it made any sense to him was that the move would serve as a damper to slow down job losses and the overall negative impact to the mid-west. But, in the end, he admitted to being confused over the whole thing. He did not address base politics and the clear impact it has to the prestige of certain mid-western politicians, nor to the impact it may have on union power over the alternative, nor to how beholden potential campaign contributors will be in 2 and/or 4 years.

(05-28-2009 01:09 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

Quote:Why are you trying to blame this on the government?

Because the government is explicitly making these decisions. This is no secret, it is no star chamber conspiracy theory. The government is explicitly stating they are making such decisions.

Really? I hadn't seen anything with much to substantiate that. The most damning thing I had seen was about the dealership group that included Mclarty (the ex-Clinton official). That is damning enough in itself, but gives the impression that when the discussion of closing dealerships came up, he contacted the powers that be to cash in on political clout. That's a far cry from a systematic selection of dealerships based on political affiliation. Given that every dealer with access to a phone was probably trying to reach high-level contacts in order to save their a$$, if there are legs to the political angle of this, I'd have to wonder if it was top-down corruption or bottom-up corruption.

Here are maps of Dealerships closed in same market, where the GOP donating dealership was shutdown while the Obama donating dealership(McLarty) remains open in all 6 cases

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2009/05...-that.html

Quote:1. Bentonville, AR Landers-McLarty (RLJ owned)
2. Springdale, AR Springdale Chrysler-Jeep (owned by Harold Schwartz)
3. Springdale, AR Steve Smith Country

Springdale is about 15 miles south of Bentonville.

The 2 Springdale dealerships gave no money to any political candidates since 2004. The 2 dealership will close in June while the RLJ-owned dealership in Bentonville will remain open.

The Landers-McLarty dealership will have no other Chrysler dealers within a 20-mile radius of the dealership.

The closest competitors will be in Pineville, MO (22 miles away) and Fayetteville, AR (27 miles away).

Click the link for the other 5 McLarty Dealerships and their competitors closed.



some kind of coincedence, especially with these Bob Johnson/McLarty dealerships

(05-28-2009 02:25 PM)I45owl Wrote:  he contacted the powers that be to cash in on political clout.

Really, and this does not raise your ire. If GWB did this there would be absolute totalhell to pay.

This has happened for years, the only reason you're hearing about it now is because it has to do with more expensive product. This dealership, along with many others bought a product at a discounted rate and are reselling it at a marked up rate. He will be allowed to sell his stock to other dealerships, but will have to sell it at the same rate he paid for it. The "not having a warranty" part is total BS, he wont be able to perform warranty repairs anymore, but the vehicles will still have their normal warranty which is tranferrable to any owner.

Who said anything about them not having warranties? I stated that he wouldn't be able to do any warranty work.

(05-28-2009 03:35 PM)Rebel Wrote:  Who said anything about them not having warranties? I stated that he wouldn't be able to do any warranty work.

I wasnt quoting any of the poster here, I misread the letter posted at the beggining as not being able to sell "new" cars with a warranty.

The only reason he wont be able to sale new cars is because they wont be supplied to him anymore. His full inventory will still be considered new.

(05-28-2009 04:19 PM)bleed blue and gold Wrote:  

(05-28-2009 03:35 PM)Rebel Wrote:  Who said anything about them not having warranties? I stated that he wouldn't be able to do any warranty work.

I wasnt quoting any of the poster here, I misread the letter posted at the beggining as not being able to sell "new" cars with a warranty.

The only reason he wont be able to sale new cars is because they wont be supplied to him anymore. His full inventory will still be considered new.

But he won't be able to offer factory incentives. This is crushing, and I believe the dealer when he invested in renovations that the manufacturer insisted upon.

(05-28-2009 12:55 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(05-28-2009 12:50 PM)uhmump95 Wrote:  

(05-28-2009 12:09 PM)GGniner Wrote:  Chrysler didn't choose, the Govt. did

Everything I read said Chrysler made the decision to cut underperforming dealerships. Why are you trying to blame this on the government? The government did not run the company into the ground, make them build automobiles that cannot compete with the foreign competition or force them to accept tax payer money. As for filing bankruptcy, that was going to happen eventually and actually the taxpayer money staved it off for a while.

..which is what conservatives were saying would happen all along. So, why exactly did we do it again?

Don't ask me. I was opposed and voicing my opposition to bail outs when W got the ball rolling with the banks.

The government always manages to muck things up when they get involved which is one reason I oppose school vouchers. If I choose to send me kids to a private school the last thing I want to hear is that they are accepting government money because that mean things are about to get f-ed up.

(05-28-2009 02:50 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(05-28-2009 02:25 PM)I45owl Wrote:  he contacted the powers that be to cash in on political clout.

Really, and this does not raise your ire. If GWB did this there would be absolute totalhell to pay.

Hell, yes, it does! I just don't think that it would bring down a presidency. Top-down decisions based on political contributions could or at least should bring down a presidency. I just said the situations are different, not that one is acceptable and one isn't. It's conceivable that McLarty could've contacted Chrysler using his political cachet without ever talking to anyone in government. That would be very wrong, but doesn't necessarily carry any repurcussions for the White House. McLarty is done with government forever if there is any justice here (not sure about jail time, but he's as worthy of it as Madoff, Skilling, or any of the other corporate villains of late).