Obama's Socialists Deciding Which Car Dealers Shut Down...

Chrysler dealers were shuttered based on partisan grounds.

Evidence shows a overwhelming decided bias against dealers who donated to GOP causes or to anti-Obama Democrats. If you didn't donate to Obama and donated against him, your dealership was closed.

Quote from an attorney who Deposed Chrysler's president last week:

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

If you owned a Chrysler dealership and were a large Democrat (Socialist) donor, not only will you remain open in all locations, but you now have your competition eliminated... and/or you can purchase Obama's closed dealerships for pennies on the dollar.

There was only a single Obama donor (and a minor one at that: $200 from Jeffrey Hunter of Waco, Texas) on the closing list.

It would appear to be further proof that the Obama administration is willing to step over any line to advance its socialist agenda.

 

At least you are consistent (consistently wrong that is)

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/05/news-flash-car-dealers-are-republicans.html

 

If he was a Republican, it would be the factory workers would probably be taking it more in the shorts instead of the car dealers. That's what happens when politicians own our businesses. It gets covered with the same political stench. Same thing that happens in government. New party takes over, all the old party people get fired and replaced with the new party.

 

The point is that there are very close to NO Dem car dealers therefore most closed car lots will be Republicans.

 

That is my point too. An easy target for political business decisions. No political loss in closing car dealerships.

 

There may be a bit of truth too the assertion that the blue collar UAW workers would have taken it in the shorts under a Republican leadership.
It is also true that there are too many car dealers and some would have to close shop no matter who is calling the shots.

Either way the right wing bloggers got it wrong. They were saying that the particular dealers who are Pubs were targeted and it turns out that they are (almost) all Pubs. They did not do their research.

 

Somehow I am less than shocked that you see the truth in the one side (the possibility of screwing UAW workers) but not the other side (the actual screwing of Car dealers). rofl

Either way, it shouldn't be the President making those decisions because he shouldn't own the car companies in the first place...whether he be a Pub or a Dem. It's one thing for Ford to decide to close dealerships. It is quite another thing for the President to tell the other companies to do so.

 

I could be wrong.(hehe, I often am) but I think Danr is just stating that Most of the Dodge and Chrysler dealers contributed more to Republican campaigns than democrat. Therefore its perceived that the government is being biased. For example; If you had nine workers and seven were black and two were white and you had to fire five. It would appear that more blacks were fired than whites. And from what I understand is that most of these dealerships have more than one brand, i.e. Bob's Chrysler here and Bob's Dodge here are owned by the same guy. Bob's Chrysler gets close, but he just moves his inventory over to his Bob's Dodge dealership.

 

How about if there are 5 black people in one area of your company - sales - and 5 white people in another area of your company - manufacturing. You decide to fire 4 people and they all 'happen' to be from the sales part of your company.

And, from what I thought I understood about car dealerships, all 5 employees in sales were working for free while the 5 in manufacturing are costing you an arm and a leg.

That is what I am getting at in that the perception is that closing dealerships has no political downside so it is an easy thing to do. Who cares, they are Republican donors anyway. Lets take them out of business. Is that what is happening? Who knows. But that kind of appearance of impropriety is going to always be there when government owns businesses.

 

http://www.azcentral.com/community/scottsdale/articles/2009/01/07/20090107sr-motormile0108.html

look at the date on this story, I am pretty sure that more have closed since and Obama has had nothing to do with it.

 

So, left to their own devices, the dealerships that aren't making money would go out of business without Presidential intervention. Then why manipulate the process? The market would take care of it. No need for Pres Obama or anyone else to pick and choose which dealers should go out of business.

 

I was only talking about the perception of bias. Dont get me wrong. I dont think the government shouldve been allowed to take majority ownership. However, those car companies werent forced to acquiesce. They shouldve went bankrupt and reorganized. But would you rather a foreign entity take ownership? I'm not taking the government's side. But I'd hate to see a ' Abdul's camels and Chargers' sign down the street.

 

You seem to be intent on wondering from the point that the right wing bloggers accused Obama of an untrue thing. He was not picking on specific dealers as they said he was.

 

Sadly, GM probably will go though bankruptcy anyway (tune in Monday) and Chrysler will be owned by a foreign entity...only it will be a Luigis's Pasta and PT Cruisers sign instead.

I sure hope Ford hangs on. They deserve to make it though all this intact if for no other reason than they have so far managed not to sell their soul (government ownership). I have nothing but GM and Chryslers right now but I hope Ford holds on so they can be my next car when I need one. At least any firings they make in their company won't have the appearance of being polluted by political, partisan stench.

 

there is no possible way that the gov could do a worse job than management has been doing for the last decade. For one thing they have to let consumers buy on the internet and have the vehicle delivered to their house (that would shave thousands of dollars off of the car lot price). I say car lots need to go.

 

Aren't you the one who finds it easy to believe in a huge 911 conspiracy with explosion rigged buildings and vast cover ups ranging throughout the government?

But, yet you find it unthinkable that politics played a part in which car dealers were closed or that the companies suddenly had to close all these dealers at once? lol

 

So far the government hasn't done any better. One is being sold to a foreign company and the other is almost certainly headed into bankruptcy on Monday. Other than firing a bunch of mostly Republican car dealers, it seems like the same thing that would have happened without government intervention.

Yeah. I sure want to buy a car online, sight unseen and undriven. Buying a car isn't like buying a toaster in my way of thinking. Did you buy your house over the internet too?

 

Oh and GMs stock has gone from about $4.50 a share to 75 cents a share in the last 6 months while Ford's stock has gone from about $2.50 a share to $5.75 a share in the same period. Yep, heck of a job there, Washington. Heck of a job.

 

Lets look at it in another way How many auto workers have lost there jobs in the past 8 years and how many auto dealerships have been closed
Any onr wish to give me the figures

 

Or one could ask....How many of those auto workers lost their jobs under government ownership in those 8 years? Not counting the GM CEO that was fired by Obama a while back, I mean. lol

When Ford closes dealerships or fires people, there isn't any question who decided it, who made the lists, why the lists were made, whether there was political influence or not. Totally different story when the President/government is the owner.