• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Govt watchdog criticizes handling of car dealers

To possibly make more money.
This is different that it being -necessary for the survival of the company or -the economic recover of the nation-.

that's kind of a different way of looking at it......if the company doesn't survive, NO JOBS survive. how does that help the national recovery?
 
So when a company is losing money, and is very close to bankrupcty,( or in bankrupcty) cutting costs to make more money is not vital to the survival of the company?
The word you need to look at is "necessary".
It has a specific and important meaning, one you seem to be missing.
 
Look, the way I see it is if GM & Chrysler wanted to shut down auto dealerships before they received government bailout funds but couldn't due to contracts, etc., as the USAToday article provided by Lord Tammerlain points out, then the claim made by the AP in the OP is really spin and a moot point. The bailout merely allowed GM/Chrysler to do what it was eventually going to do anyway. It just looks like the government is to blame because the dealerships all closed after GM/Chrysler received government funds to remain afloat. Nonetheless, I contend that it was better to lose a few auto dealerships now than it would have been to lose a major player in the American auto industry as a whole.

The big picture is thus: Lose American's #2 auto manufacturer, lose millions more jobs at auto production plants, metal and wiring shops, plastics companies, frieght services, auto parts stores, marketing and advertising agency jobs...the list goes on and on. If given the choice, I'd rather see a few hundred office clerks/secretaries, salesmen and mechanics collect unemployment than to see millions more doing the same. The action that is so cleverly being blamed on the government may have actually saved an American auto company.

EDIT: There's also this from the OP's article:

GM's initial plan submitted to the government in February 2009 called for the gradual reduction of 1,650 of its 5,750 dealers by the end of 2014. Chrysler pointed to plans to trim its network from 3,181 dealers to about 2,000 dealers by 2014.

After Treasury rejected those earlier plans, the two companies released accelerated efforts to cut their dealership ranks. Chrysler said it would quickly close 789 dealers by June 2009 and GM said it would slash its dealer ranks by 1,454 by October 2010.

GM: Proposed cutting 1650 dealerships, but cut only 1454 under TARP - Diff +196

Chrysler: Proposed cutting 1181 dealerships, but cut only 789 under TARP - Diff +392

Sounds to me like the government did GM & Chrysler a favor in more ways than one.

"The needs of the many out-weigh the needs of the few or the one." - Spock
 
Last edited:
The word you need to look at is "necessary".
It has a specific and important meaning, one you seem to be missing.

you are missing the idea of profit and how GM needs to make one in order to stay operating. If cutting some dealerships will help GM make money then it was needed
 
you are missing the idea of profit and how GM needs to make one in order to stay operating. If cutting some dealerships will help GM make money then it was needed
Again, you fail to comprehend the conditions inherent to the use of the term 'necessary'.

Cutting the dealerships was only -necessary- if failing to do so would have resulted in the demise of the company and the failure of the economic recovery.

You have absolutely NO hope of demonstrating any such thing.
 
Last edited:
Again, you fail to comprehend the implications inherent to the use of the term 'necessary'.

Cutting the dealerships was only -necessary- if failing to do so would have resulted in the demise of the company and the failure of the economic recovery.

You have absolutely NO hope of demonstrating any such thing.

Economic recovery no of course not, but the company yes

GM was and is losing money, it needed/s to cut all the cost it can. The dealerships were one of those costs. Unless you feel the government should be in the business of supporting dealerships

Or more to the point

If the government was to provide GM with even more money in order to keep those dealerships open as part of the stimulus package, without any regards to the long term survival of GM .would that have made you happy. More government money to support the unproductive
 
Last edited:
Economic recovery no of course not...
So you -do- agree with that part of the conclusiom

but the company yes
Show that GM would, with absolute certainty, have failed if the dealerships were not closed -- that there was NO other possible outcome, should the dealerships remain open.
 
So you -do- agree with that part of the conclusiom


Show that GM would, with absolute certainty, have failed if the dealerships were not closed -- that there was NO other possible outcome, should the dealerships remain open.

Is or is not GM losing money right now?

Does that not mean GM has to cut costs and make more money in order to survive? GM can not shut down all its factories or layoff all its line workers, but it has to cut where it can and what it can while still remaining a viable operation. The dealership are part of the cost cutting program, along with other like layoffs of line workers (which you are not upset at by the looks of it) cuts in benifits to all employees. Could GM not have made cuts in one area (like dealership or its line workers) and still survive probably, but it still would not be ideal for the long term of the company.
 
The law of unintended consequences strikes again!
 
Could GM not have made cuts in one area (like dealership or its line workers) and still survive[?] Probably...
So you agree that cutting the dealerships was not NECESSARY, or, as the article states, not shown to be NECESSARY.

And thus, you agree with the two main conclusions of the article.
 
Last edited:
What makes you think it was unintended?

Lets see is this the meme

" The Obama admin wanted the dealerships closed because most of them were owned by Republican supporters"

Did I get that right
 
So you agree that cutting the dealerships was not NECESSARY, or, as the article states, not shown to be NECESSARY.

And thus, you agree with the two main conclusions of the article.

No the cuts were needed for the long term survival of GM, along with the cuts in wages, salaries, benifits, plants operated by GM and the total number of employees. GM could have survived for a short period of time without making the cuts, but not over the long term. GM once out of bankrupcty could not have cut the dealerships without a large financial penalty, and as such it had to make the cuts when it was in bankrupcty to save money
 
Lets see is this the meme

" The Obama admin wanted the dealerships closed because most of them were owned by Republican supporters"

Did I get that right
Lesse..

Closing businesses = higher unemployment

Higher unemployment =
-more people dependant on the government - Good for The Obama
-better case for a 'crisis' = easier to implement policy that expands government - Good for The Obama
+ eventual recovery = more people giving credit for their better economic state - Good for The Obama.

So, its not hard to see how the consequences might not have been so unintended.
 
No the cuts were needed... GM could have survived for a short period of time without making the cuts, but not over the long term
Show that GM would, with absolute certainty, have failed if the dealerships were not closed -- that there was NO other possible outcome, should the dealerships remain open.
 
Show that GM would, with absolute certainty, have failed if the dealerships were not closed -- that there was NO other possible outcome, should the dealerships remain open.

Show that they wouldnt

While you are at it, show that GM did not have to cut wages and benifits, or close plants in order to survive
 
Lesse..

Closing businesses = higher unemployment

Higher unemployment =
-more people dependant on the government - Good for The Obama
-better case for a 'crisis' = easier to implement policy that expands government - Good for The Obama
+ eventual recovery = more people giving credit for their better economic state - Good for The Obama.

So, its not hard to see how the consequences might not have been so unintended.

Lets see
High unemployement generally reflects poorly on the president, usually resulting in election loses. Bad for Obama

High government deficits, reflect badly on the president, bad for Obama.

Overall if Obama wanted high unemployement he could have let GM and Chrysler go under as many wanted. The unemployement rate would have skyrocketed then, by your reasoning Obama would have loved that
 
Lesse..

Closing businesses = higher unemployment

Higher unemployment =
-more people dependant on the government - Good for The Obama
-better case for a 'crisis' = easier to implement policy that expands government - Good for The Obama
+ eventual recovery = more people giving credit for their better economic state - Good for The Obama.

So, its not hard to see how the consequences might not have been so unintended.

onh my. i guess that's all i need to see.
 
Show that they wouldnt
Bszzzzt. Nice try.

YOU are arguing that your legitimate criticism of the conclusion is that GM wanted to close the dealerships anyway. Thus, the onus, given the claims in question, for providing support lies with you.

YOU argue that the closings were indeed NECESSARY to keep GM alive. It is up to YOU to show this to be true - it is up to YOU to show that GM would, with absolute certainty, have failed if the dealerships were not closed -- that there was NO other possible outcome, should the dealerships remain open.

Its clear that you cannot show any such thing - and thus, your question of the conclusions presented falls short.
 
High unemployement generally reflects poorly on the president, usually resulting in election loses. Bad for Obama
You're thnking on too small a scale.
The Obama and His ilk are more than willing to accept short term setbacks for long term gain.

High government deficits, reflect badly on the president, bad for Obama.
See above.
Add to that the fact that the only time The Obama's people care about deficits are when a Republican is in office, as evidenced by the vast multitude of excuses they offer for same.

Overall if Obama wanted high unemployement he could have let GM and Chrysler go under as many wanted.
And lose the long-term political committment of the unions to the Democratic party?
Not a chance.
 
Bszzzzt. Nice try.

YOU are arguing that your legitimate criticism of the conclusion is that GM wanted to close the dealerships anyway. Thus, the onus, given the claims in question, for providing support lies with you.

YOU argue that the closings were indeed NECESSARY to keep GM alive. It is up to YOU to show this to be true - it is up to YOU to show that GM would, with absolute certainty, have failed if the dealerships were not closed -- that there was NO other possible outcome, should the dealerships remain open.

Its clear that you cannot show any such thing - and thus, your question of the conclusions presented falls short.

I have argued that GM wanted to close the dealerships for business reasons, that the government followed through with that. That is all I need to do. It was not a government plot, but a rational business decision to help make GM a more viable operation, rather then some who feel the government should be in the business of subsidizing car dealerships
 
onh my. i guess that's all i need to see.
...which then results of you running away, knowing you dont have anything of value to add.
 
I have argued that GM wanted to close the dealerships for business reasons, that the government followed through with that. That is all I need to do. It was not a government plot, but a rational business decision to help make GM a more viable operation, rather then some who feel the government should be in the business of subsidizing car dealerships
YOU are arguing that your legitimate criticism of the conclusion is that GM wanted to close the dealerships anyway. YOU have to then show how this was NECESSARY for GM to survive. You originally admitted that you could show no such thing, and then reversed yourself.

So, show that GM would, with absolute certainty, have failed if the dealerships were not closed -- that there was NO other possible outcome, should the dealerships remain open.

Else, your 'question' falls short.
 
You're thnking on too small a scale.
The Obama and His ilk are more than willing to accept short term setbacks for long term gain.
The democrats are likely to lose a lot of seats in the up coming midterms, possibly losing control of both Congress and Senate, hard to get anything done in such cases for long term gains
See above.
Add to that the fact that the only time The Obama's people care about deficits are when a Republican is in office, as evidenced by the vast multitude of excuses they offer for same.
I think that goes both ways does it not Republicans only care when it is a democratic deficit, democrats when it is a republican one
And lose the long-term political committment of the unions to the Democratic party?
Not a chance.

But think of the gains that would be made by having another 8% on top of the 9% currently unemployed that Obama could make
 
The report also cannot prove that the dealership closings were not necessary. I fail to see how the administration is at fault here when they took a nearly failed auto business and completely turned it around.
 
Back
Top Bottom