• 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!

A Letter from a Dodge Dealer

A Letter from a Dodge Dealer -- How Badly Screwed

  • Really bad -- similar to extreme eminent domain seizures

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    8
  • Poll closed .
Well, after you read the article, it certainly isn't anything to defend or apologize for , is it ?

Not following, sorry. Could you restate that.
 
No. It is perfectly clear as written.
 
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...

As the story unfolds, its obvious that the man is a liar...if not, then he is delusional...
Kelo vs New London....is this another pile of manure from the conspiracy theorists ??
Maybe I have too much faith in government, which is not so wise.
 
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.

It IS the government's fault, because in its bailout plan, it SEIZED the business and is now calling the shots.

Yes, all of America would be a lot better off if the government had kept its nose out and let the free market work.


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.

Read the letter carefully. It WAS profitable and making money. But the loss of the franchise will turn it upside down.


Chrysler had to lower their margin so that the dealership could stay in business and compete with the Chrysler dealership down the street.

Read the letter. The government is seizing it and GIVING it to someone else.


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.....:confused:

Why don't you call up Mr. Joseph and ask him? He should be listed in the Melbourne, FL yellow pages.

He did go to the newspapers. That's where the letter was first published.


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.

The government seized the company in its bailout plan and now owns at least 51% of it. Whether Chrysler agreed to it or fought it, I don't know. I do know that if it was still in private hands, it obviously would not close down a profitable franchise. But as you should already know, government does not like small businesses (unless operated by "qualified" minorities) and cares nothing about the profitability of the company.

I do have ONE huge question: WHAT SPECIFIC INDIVIDUALS IN THE GOVERNMENT CALLED THE SHOTS ON CLOSING DOWN MR. JOSEPH'S BUSINESS (AND NO DOUBT OTHERS)?

Perhaps some of you could research that.
 
It IS the government's fault, because in its bailout plan, it SEIZED the business and is now calling the shots.

I reserve the right to respond to the rest later, if it should prove to be necessary. I don't think it will be, dealing with this first part should take care of the rest.

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.

Note, I work in the auto industry. Chrysler and the other big 3 auto makers(and Toyota and other foreign auto makers) do not treat those it deals with well. Has not ever, and probably won't. First thing that happens when Chrysler starts to lose money is they go to their parts suppliers and tell them that they will no longer pay the agreed upon price for parts, that if you want to keep selling them, you have to cut your cost by X %. If you cannot afford to do that, you are just out of luck, Chrysler pulls the contract and gives it to some one else.
 
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.
.


That's what I have been trying to figure out.


Now I do feel bad for the guy but come on, he didn't see this coming? Have a little business sense (which after owning his own business for 40 years he should have a little) for crying out loud. I mean really- if you own a meat market and everyone has become vegetarians, are you seriously going to keep selling meat? There is just no good market right now for new cars, especially ones that are constantly in the news about going bankrupt. Does this guy not care or keep up to date with the product and business he is a part of or what?
 
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.
 
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.

Source please.
 
This sounds like the dealership didn't live up (in some way) to the franchise agreement.

I used to do books for a guy who owned a few Pizza Time franchises. He had to jump through all kinds of hoops maintain the franchise.

How is this Obama's fault?

:confused:
 
Two quotes from the source you linked:

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?

Bolding is mine, not from the article.

I 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.

Edited to add: you linked a second, reading it now.
 
Last edited:
From the second link:

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.

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.
 
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.

That really is still unclear as there hasn't been any real information released as to what the criteria was that Chrysler used to determine which dealerships to close. Although many of the closings are smaller dealerships, there is no discernible pattern to explain why Chrysler removed their franchises where they did.

Here:
Mr. Steve Rattner
Auto Task Force
U.S. Department of the Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20220

Dear Mr. Rattner:

We are contacting you on behalf of our constituents who either own or are employed by the Chrysler and General Motors (GM) auto dealerships recently notified that their contracts with these companies will soon be terminated. Due to questions these constituents have raised, we have several concerns about the decisions that were made as part of the auto restructuring efforts you currently oversee. While we understand that your office was not directly involved in deciding which or how many dealers should be closed, you do have direct responsibility for reviewing, approving, and overseeing the implementation of the restructuring plans submitted by Chrysler and GM. To that end, we seek your help in getting answers to our constituents' questions.

Concerns have been raised by many of our constituents that Chrysler and GM did not provide dealers with a complete understanding as to why each of their dealer contracts were being terminated. They have been given virtually no understanding of the criteria used to select their dealership as one for termination, nor an understanding of how such criteria will lead to the long-term viability of the companies. Many Missouri dealers are asking us why certain profitable dealers, costing the auto companies nothing, were selected for closure. From this perspective it appears an arbitrary standard may have been used to make these decisions. We are seeking your help in getting the transparency and answers these dealers are owed.

Specifically, we are asking that you and your team provide to us information regarding the criteria used to decide how many and which dealers were eliminated; the role that your office played in the development of that criteria; how those criteria will help the auto companies reach long-term viability; how the Task Force is ensuring dealers are given the proper time, ability and criteria to appeal the decision for closure; and what help, if any, the Auto Task Force will be providing to these dealers in their time of transition.
We understand that these were not easy decisions for the companies to make and we firmly believe that it is critical to our nation’s economy and the long-term viability of our domestic auto industry. However, these dealers deserve a little more than just a pink slip in the mail. Many of them have been loyal to GM and Chrysler for over thirty years. They are entrenched in their local communities, providing good paying jobs and quality vehicles. Now that this all may be slipping away, the least they deserve is a full explanation of their termination.

On a related issue, we have also heard from constituents who are individual GM bondholders. They are concerned that they have been left out of the restructuring efforts. These constituents are not institutional investors, hedge funds, or private equity firms; they are individual investors who have in some cases invested significant portions of their savings in GM bonds. We understand there are tens of thousands of these individual GM bondholders across the nation. While all of the stakeholders will be required to make some sacrifice if GM is to be restructured successfully, we are concerned that these individual investors are not participating in the Administration’s efforts to facilitate that objective. We request you provide us with a description of the steps that the Task Force will take to ensure that these individuals are represented in the restructuring efforts for GM.

We appreciate your immediate attention to these matters and look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Claire McCaskill Christopher Bond
U.S. Senator
U.S. Senator​
.: United States Senator Kit Bond :: Press Room :.
 
From the second link:
Again, any problem here is giving money to businesses that are going to shut down factories and dealerships.

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...
Seeing as how the Big Auto Unions where instrumental in electing Obama "old bankruptcy" where all binding, production-killing union contracts are scrapped and true re-structuring occurs, was from the jump - totally out of the question.


No where does either article say that the government has either called for, or required any dealership closings.

This re-structuring process is different from Chrysler's 1979 bailout. Back then Congress, not a panel appointed by the President oversaw the whole thing.

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.

It is still pretty unclear as it if the Government set the terms (criteria) for the dealership closings themselves, had a role in it, or had no role in it at all.
 
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 ?
 
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.

This from a Conservative...a Rush Limbaugh Conservative ??
Any credibility at all ??
 
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...

There is no real evidence that this is happening. Speculations and accusations, but I have yet to see any solid evidence. The truth is, the government, both under this administration and President Bush's, has done more to help the auto industry than they had to, or where required to. I understand the complaints. Why are we giving money to a business that is going to cut jobs? Why are we giving money to a business that should be allowed to fail? Why are we propping up the UAW? Those are good questions, and ones I ask myself. I work in the auto industry, and yet I wonder if it was really appropriate for the government to bail GM and Chrysler out.

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.

There are an absolute ton of things wrong with the auto industry. I could tell you stories that would make you want to go and close down the factories yourself. So far the governments involvement is not one of those things based on publicly known information.
 
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
 
Florida, not Australia.

Melbourne, Florida

Holy Smokes ! My Bad, I had completely misunderstood where the man was from. Apologies for any errors this may have contributed to.
 
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.

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?

Is the government telling auto makers what they have to make? No evidence of this.

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?

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.

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.
 
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?

You have yet to show that the auto industry is controlled by the government. I would also add that the government could hardly do worse than Chrysler has.

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?

1) standards are not telling the auto industry what to make, only that what it does make is required to conform to certain standards.

2) the government has been doing this type of thing for decades. There are legitimate reasons why society as a whole has a vested interest in the quality of products.


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.

That is not exactly what is happening. The quickest and easiest way I can think of to explain a topic which I am far from an expert in is that the government has made a side deal with the union to give it some money and some of the governments stake in Chrysler in exchange for the union making concessions. It's a sweetheart deal to unions that I do disprove of, but not illegal or inappropriate in terms of the bankruptcy filing.
 
Back
Top Bottom