- Joined
- Mar 5, 2008
- Messages
- 112,990
- Reaction score
- 60,556
- Location
- Sarasota Fla
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Well, after you read the article, it certainly isn't anything to defend or apologize for , is it ?
Sure the government would.
That's the net upshot of Kelo vs New London.
If the government can steal your home, it can certainly steal your business.And you believe this without knowing the full story...the whole truth...when man is backed into a corner ,he will lie,cheat, steal, in order to survive...
No where in the letter that I see(I could have missed it, too lazy to go back and double check now) did it say that Chrysler was told that they had to shut his dealership down. The reason that this happened is Chrysler is doing poorly, which is not the governments fault. What the government has been doing, rightly or wrongly(and I am of divided mind on it) is trying to keep Chrysler alive.
Let's play a quick game. What would have happened in presidents Bush and Obama had decided the auto industries where on their own. Would this guy have lost his dealership or not? Impossible to know for sure, but what is your guess. I would suspect not.
I guess I do not understand why the dealership was closed then. If it was profitable and making money for both Chrysler and the owner, by close it. If it was not, then it is a victim of the economy, not the administrator.
Chrysler had to lower their margin so that the dealership could stay in business and compete with the Chrysler dealership down the street.
There must be more to this than what this gentleman is divulging..
I do believe that our government would not ....steal a man's business, without provocation....
He could go to the newspapers...if any exist.....
No where in there does it state that "we", that is the United States, stole his business. Chrysler may have, I do not have enough information to be sure. In fact, the letter and article are very lacking in any kind of comments on why it happened. Funny that.
Oh, and this is in Florida.
It IS the government's fault, because in its bailout plan, it SEIZED the business and is now calling the shots.
The letter does not state, nor does the article, nor does anything I can find, suggest that the government told Chrysler to close down or transfer any dealership. If you can find proof that the government is behind this, I will apologize to you for doubting you, but I suspect I won't have to. This was a move made by Chrysler to try and cut costs, which is necessary because they are losing money. This is not the governments fault...well, not directly anyway, you could possibly argue that deregulation was a contributor to the financial meltdown which led in part to Chrysler's problems.
.
Obama's unelected, unaccountable Auto Industry Task Force is the entity that is behind these dealership closings. Chrysler downsizing and eliminating dealerships was part of the agreement that the troubled auto Co's made with the AITF in order to receive further funding from the taxpayer to "re-structure" the auto industry.. The power was first delegated by Congress to the Executive then subsequently to this bureaucracy from the President.
Anyone who claims that the Government isn't behind these dealership closings is full of it. If you pay close enough attention, they are the very same people who insisted prior to the election that Obama wasn't a Socialist, & that a "Socialist" would do things like Nationalize the banking industry and turn the corporations over to the Unions.
The pair pose a number of questions that the House and Senate should get answered before the the branch of government that holds the power of the purse -- and thus the authority to authorize bailouts of American industries--authorizes the administration to pour billions into the accounts of corporations that are closing modernized factories, laying off skilled workers and shuttering car dealerships.
Do GM and Chrysler really need to close as many dealerships as have been announced? Is the logic of closing dealers to enable the remaining dealers to charge higher prices (See, for example, Peter Whoriskey and Kendra Marr, "Chrysler Pulls Out of Hundreds of Franchises," Washington Post, May 15, 2009); and if so, why is the government facilitating such a move? Is it reasonable and fair for GM to impose liability for disposing of unsold cars on dealers with which it severs relations, as Chrysler has apparently done?
Tens of billions of taxpayer dollars are being poured into Chrysler and General Motors, ostensibly to "save" the US auto industry. Yet, the companies have acknowledged that they plan to use the money to shutter factories, lay-off tens of thousands of factory workers and dramatically downsize dealership networks -- at the cost of as many as 100,000 additional jobs.
think these two quotes show pretty clearly that the most the government can be accused of here is "facilitating" the closing of dealerships. It seems to lay out the decision to close dealerships, and which one, and how as being with the automakers, not the government.
From the second link:
Again, any problem here is giving money to businesses that are going to shut down factories and dealerships.
No where does either article say that the government has either called for, or required any dealership closings.
I read this as the government is requiring Chrysler and GM to cut costs, and some are not happy with how they are doing it.
Obama's unelected, unaccountable Auto Industry Task Force is the entity that is behind these dealership closings. Chrysler downsizing and eliminating dealerships was part of the agreement that the troubled auto Co's made with the AITF in order to receive further funding from the taxpayer to "re-structure" the auto industry.. The power was first delegated by Congress to the Executive then subsequently to this bureaucracy from the President.
Anyone who claims that the Government isn't behind these dealership closings is full of it. If you pay close enough attention, they are the very same people who insisted prior to the election that Obama wasn't a Socialist, & that a "Socialist" would do things like Nationalize the banking industry and turn the corporations over to the Unions.
I have a problem with this neo-bankruptcy where the Government (those who spend your tax money) can set the terms as to what kind of products a Company can make, how much of the product they can make, where they can make it, who can make it, etc...
Further, will "government" (Australia's, acting under U.S. scrutiny) preside over and sanction and provide the force for the actual theft / transfer of the property ?
Florida, not Australia.
Melbourne, Florida
What are not such good questions are strictly speculative ones. Did the government tell Chrysler to close down dealerships, and which ones? No evidence at all of this, and it makes no sense.
Is the government telling auto makers what they have to make? No evidence of this.
Is the government giving special deals to the UAW in Chrysler's bankruptcy? Sorta, but it is nor inappropriate or improper as the hedge fund owners who hold Chrysler's debt are suggesting.
At the same time, there is no evidence that economical factors or sound reasoning played a role in which dealerships were closed. I never said that the reasoning behind which dealerships would close and which dealerships would remain open would "make sense" either. Our Auto-industry is controlled by the Government & it is now up to Big Bro who will be the winners and losers. Until a clear reasoned plan emerges as to why the dealerships were closed, all we are left with is speculation as to who gave the orders & why?
Auto industry: Obama orders new carbon emission standards - Nachrichten English-News - WELT ONLINE
Doesn't the Government already require that car companies live up to various safety standards, fuel economy standards, emissions controls, noise controls, vehicle recycling mandates, substances of concern, vehicle damage controls, and theft prevention requirements before Obama's newly forged standards?
You're damn right it's unfair and Argentina-like to boot! I thought only people like Jaun Peron could have told a bondholder firm representative that they must accept .33 on the dollar while the Unions get .50 -threatening that if the representative didn't capitulate, the force of the press would bear down on them & on whoever else stood opposed.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?