Change we can beleive in

[BanginJimmy]

is proving to be a socialist's wet dream and a capitalist's nightmare.


http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/let...rican-thinker/

A member of our Best and Brightest spotted this letter to the editor on the American Thinker website. While plenty of industry watchers could have seen ChryCo’s meltdown coming—DID see it coming—it’s still a failure with a human face. And here it is.

My name is George C. Joseph. I am the sole owner of Sunshine Dodge-Isuzu, a family owned and operated business in Melbourne, Florida. My family bought and paid for this automobile franchise 35 years ago in 1974. I am the second generation to manage this business.

We currently employ 50+ people and before the economic slowdown we employed over 70 local people. We are active in the community and the local chamber of commerce. We deal with several dozen local vendors on a day to day basis and many more during a month. All depend on our business for part of their livelihood. We are financially strong with great respect in the market place and community. We have strong local presence and stability.

I work every day the store is open, nine to ten hours a day. I know most of our customers and all our employees. Sunshine Dodge is my life.

On Thursday, May 14, 2009 I was notified that my Dodge franchise, that we purchased, will be taken away from my family on June 9, 2009 without compensation and given to another dealer at no cost to them. My new vehicle inventory consists of 125 vehicles with a financed balance of 3 million dollars. This inventory becomes impossible to sell with no factory incentives beyond June 9, 2009. Without the Dodge franchise we can no longer sell a new Dodge as “new,” nor will we be able to do any warranty service work. Additionally, my Dodge parts inventory, (approximately $300,000.) is virtually worthless without the ability to perform warranty service. There is no offer from Chrysler to buy back the vehicles or parts inventory.

Our facility was recently totally renovated at Chrysler’s insistence, incurring a multi-million dollar debt in the form of a mortgage at Sun Trust Bank.

HOW IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CAN THIS HAPPEN?

THIS IS A PRIVATE BUSINESS NOT A GOVERNMENT ENTITY

This is beyond imagination! My business is being stolen from me through NO FAULT OF OUR OWN. We did NOTHING wrong.

This atrocity will most likely force my family into bankruptcy. This will also cause our 50+ employees to be unemployed. How will they provide for their families? This is a total economic disaster.

HOW CAN THIS HAPPEN IN A FREE MARKET ECONOMY IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?

I beseech your help, and look forward to your reply. Thank you.

Sincerely,
George C. Joseph
President
Sunshine Dodge-Isuzu

[tony]

Right, cause the man who just got elected in January is the reason for the downfall of Chrysler. This problem started well before Obama got close to the oval office. The cause of bankruptcy takes a lot more than 5 months. Another reason why the republican party is crumbling, still too busy throwing shots at the other side when their own house isn't settled.

[joecoolfreak]

I am just not seeing how this is Obama's or even the government's fault at all. For all you that keep saying that free market and capitalism is the way to go, this is the result. The owner of the dealership went into a contract with a business that was doomed. He didn't try to sell is franchise when the company was having troubles. He relied soley on a product that wasn't financially sound and he bought that product to sell on credit. Sounds like he was a pretty bad businessman and now the free market is taking him out. What is it that you would have liked to happen. He "owned" a franchise with a company filed for bankruptcy. That means their contracts aren't valid anymore. He signed that contract and that's his own fault. They aren't confiscating his inventory, he just doesn't think he can sell it. When someone buys crap then can't afford to pay for it, do you think the government should "bail" him out by forcing someone else to buy the crap?

Sounds like the capitalists are suddenly becoming a little socialist around here when they see the results of a "free market".

[T.C.]

^I hope you would sing the same tune if your business was taken away.

[BanginJimmy]

I blame this on Obama because it was the govt that forced these changes on Chrysler. That means it was Obama that forced these changes on Chrysler. Just like the govt forced the bankruptcy terms that heavily benefited the unions at the expense of the bond holders.

What about this whole thing doesnt reek of Obama?

[tony]

^I hope you would sing the same tune if your business was taken away.

Chrysler downsized, simple as that. If you get laid off did you lose your job or did they take it away from you? It was given to you.. he owns his franchise and still does, his supplier has now cut him off.

I don't see how anyone could say this is Obama being socialist or attacking capitalism when this process IS capitalism, just not the pretty side of it.

[joecoolfreak]

Again, his business isn't being "taken" away. He is losing it because he failed at business.

If my only source of income was to sell Product A and the manufacturer of Product A files for bankruptcy...what do you suggest should happen to me?

[tony]

I blame this on Obama because it was the govt that forced these changes on Chrysler. That means it was Obama that forced these changes on Chrysler. Just like the govt forced the bankruptcy terms that heavily benefited the unions at the expense of the bond holders.

What about this whole thing doesnt reek of Obama?

The hell? I usually have some faith in your arguments but this one is asinine and obviously biased. I can't even argue that logic.

[BanginJimmy]

He relied soley on a product that wasn't financially sound

What product was that? The business was profitable, therefore financially sound.

and he bought that product to sell on credit. Sounds like he was a pretty bad businessman and now the free market is taking him out.

The financed value just means that it what the vehicles on the lot cost. They may or may not be paid for. Then he was forced by Dodge to perform multi-millions worth of renovations. In a bad economy he didnt have the cash on hand to pay for it.

What is it that you would have liked to happen. He "owned" a franchise with a company filed for bankruptcy.

This is not a function of a free economy though. The dealership was profitable. Profitable businesses are not shut down by a free economy.

That means their contracts aren't valid anymore.

I wonder if this holds true for the parasitic unions that DONT make money and simply cost money.

They aren't confiscating his inventory, he just doesn't think he can sell it.

But they are devaluing his inventory by ~50% with no compensation.

When someone buys crap then can't afford to pay for it, do you think the government should "bail" him out by forcing someone else to buy the crap?

Your messiah is doing with with people that lied on their mortgage applications, why not someone owning and running a profitable business?

Q. What if you lied on your mortgage application?

A. The measure doesn't bar people who got their loans in the past without submitting complete or accurate financial documentation. However, the homeowner would be required to give the bankruptcy court a good-faith plan, including proper documentation, for repaying his debts.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/03...y4848122.shtml

Sounds like the capitalists are suddenly becoming a little socialist around here when they see the results of a "free market".

Name a single portion of this is the result of a free market. The free market does not force a business to shut down a profitable franchise. The free market forces a business to eliminate unproductive portions of their business, such as the unions.

[BanginJimmy]

Let me clear 1 thing up before I respond, as I can see how you can be confused by my statement. I dont blame the fall of Chrysler on Obama, I blame the bankruptcy and everything that comes of it on Obama.

The hell? I usually have some faith in your arguments but this one is asinine and obviously biased. I can't even argue that logic.

You cant argue it because it is true. Even the NY Times reported that Obama forced the terms of the bankruptcy that benefited the UAW.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/01/business/01auto.html

CBS agrees, check out the fifth paragraph down.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/...n4997900.shtml


What other proof do you need?

[BanginJimmy]

Chrysler downsized, simple as that. If you get laid off did you lose your job or did they take it away from you? It was given to you.. he owns his franchise and still does, his supplier has now cut him off.

agreed

I don't see how anyone could say this is Obama being socialist or attacking capitalism when this process IS capitalism, just not the pretty side of it.

This process is NOT capitalism as this man's business was profitable. This is socialist is the govt is FAR too involved in running businesses. That is so far out of the scope of the fed govt's authority it needs no explanation.

[BanginJimmy]

Again, his business isn't being "taken" away. He is losing it because he failed at business.

How is running a profitable business being bad at business?

[joecoolfreak]

What product was that? The business was profitable, therefore financially sound.

The Chrysler vehicles produced by Chrysler. In case you missed the news, they filed for bankruptcy. That means they weren't profitable or financially sound. They were producing the products he was selling through a contract he signed with them. That means he wasn't very financially sound. This also didn't happen suddenly. He had plenty of opportunities to try and prevent himself from getting into this mess.

The financed value just means that it what the vehicles on the lot cost. They may or may not be paid for. Then he was forced by Dodge to perform multi-millions worth of renovations. In a bad economy he didnt have the cash on hand to pay for it.

They aren't paid for, he borrowed money to sell product he didn't own:

My new vehicle inventory consists of 125 vehicles with a financed balance of 3 million dollars.

That means he still owes 3 million.

This is not a function of a free economy though. The dealership was profitable. Profitable businesses are not shut down by a free economy.

His source of income was selling a product under contract with a failed business. When the manufacturer of your products goes out of business, it doesn't matter if you were successful at selling those products, the free market has still shut you down. You should have known better than to sell a product under a contract that was not likely to exist in the future.

I wonder if this holds true for the parasitic unions that DONT make money and simply cost money.

I hope so. I would love for anyone that goes bankrupt to void their contracts with the unions and start a more profitable business. Irrelevant to this discussion though.

But they are devaluing his inventory by ~50% with no compensation.

Who is? No one is devaluing his inventory. He just can't sell his product he bought (on credit) without rebates from the manufacturer (who doesn't have to give him those incentives). That sounds like a bad businessman to me.

Your messiah is doing with with people that lied on their mortgage applications, why not someone owning and running a profitable business?

My messiah? I have never stated as such. I just don't blame him for everything under the sun. And again, an irrelevant point.

Name a single portion of this is the result of a free market. The free market does not force a business to shut down a profitable franchise. The free market forces a business to eliminate unproductive portions of their business, such as the unions.

All of this is free market. Chrysler was a crappy business. They filed for bankruptcy. Most of the Chrysler dealers are getting the shaft. That is because they chose to do business with a crappy business. The only thing that wouldn't be free market, is if the courts or the current administration did something to force Chrysler to buy back the inventory or uphold the franchise contracts.

[BanginJimmy]

Joe, I'm not argueing that Chrysler has the right to viod its contracts when they declare bankruptcy. That doesnt change the fact that Chrysler would not be shutting down profitable franchises without govt interference. Why would they? Give me a single reason why a corporation that is hemorrhaging money would get rid of a profitable franchise.

[BanginJimmy]

My messiah? I have never stated as such. I just don't blame him for everything under the sun. And again, an irrelevant point.

So why didnt Bush get this same free ride from liberals? Hell, Bush is still blamed bad a bad economy when its obvious that the groundwork for the downfall was a Clinton baby.

[joecoolfreak]

Joe, I'm not argueing that Chrysler has the right to viod its contracts when they declare bankruptcy. That doesnt change the fact that Chrysler would not be shutting down profitable franchises without govt interference. Why would they? Give me a single reason why a corporation that is hemorrhaging money would get rid of a profitable franchise.

Show me some evidence that this is a fact, and I will agree that we were arguing different points. The long and short of it is that Chrysler has to shut down some franchises and there is no "fair" way to choose. Do you really think that the dealership down the street that will be picking up his franchise had secret ties to the obama administration. It's really simple, a few dealerships will get lucky enough to keep theirs and the rest are going to shut down. Personally, I think that they deserve it because they weren't smart enough to diversify their product line.

[BanginJimmy]

Show me some evidence that this is a fact, and I will agree that we were arguing different points.

Read the articles that I posted for Tony. They show how deeply Obama was involved.

Personally, I think that they deserve it because they weren't smart enough to diversify their product line.

Ever seen a dealship that sold new Fords and new Chevys? How about new Hondas and new Toyotas?

When you sell new vehicles you cannot diversify.

[joecoolfreak]

Read the articles that I posted for Tony. They show how deeply Obama was involved.

I read both and besides saying that Obama was involved and mentioning the dispersal to creditors, you haven't shown one ounce of evidence that says if obama wasn't involved, that this dealership would still get to keep his franchise. It's just as likely that if Obama didn't get involved that none of the current dealerships would have been allowed to keep their franchises. For all we know, he was the one pushing for some of them to be kept. I still don't see how any of what was mentioned in the article has to do with this dealership and his problems. What he is dealing with is the results of a free market situation. What the debtors that loaned money to chrysler while it was failing are going to receive is a completely different situation. That is a perfect example of government budding into private business, but there isn't any evidence that it is to the detriment of anyone except creditors yet.

Ever seen a dealship that sold new Fords and new Chevys? How about new Hondas and new Toyotas?

When you sell new vehicles you cannot diversify.

http://www.covertauto.com/

Look into Covert here in Texas. They have been around since 1909 and are still a small family owned business.

I am pretty sure they know how to diversify

[BanginJimmy]

I read both and besides saying that Obama was involved and mentioning the dispersal to creditors, you haven't shown one ounce of evidence that says if obama wasn't involved, that this dealership would still get to keep his franchise. It's just as likely that if Obama didn't get involved that none of the current dealerships would have been allowed to keep their franchises. For all we know, he was the one pushing for some of them to be kept. I still don't see how any of what was mentioned in the article has to do with this dealership and his problems. What he is dealing with is the results of a free market situation. What the debtors that loaned money to chrysler while it was failing are going to receive is a completely different situation. That is a perfect example of government budding into private business, but there isn't any evidence that it is to the detriment of anyone except creditors yet.

I never said that Obama personally dictated that this dealership would be saved. I am simply showing how deeply Obama is involved and that Obama's version of bankrputcy hurts everyone but the UAW. Bond holders and private businesses are to blame, but the UAW is going to save Chrysler?

http://www.covertauto.com/

Look into Covert here in Texas. They have been around since 1909 and are still a small family owned business.

I am pretty sure they know how to diversify

I saw links for several different dealerships. That has nothing to do with diversity as none of those dealerships are diversified and are all separate entities. If they owned a Dodge dealership they are just as likely that they would be screwed alongside the guy in Florida.

[joecoolfreak]

I haven't seen anyone that it does hurt, except for some investors. I don't necessarily agree with supporting the unions, but that is beyond the point at the moment. All of those dealerships are owned by the same person/family. The point is the same person has a ford and a chevy dealership and there isn't anything stopping them. Sometimes, they are right next to each other.

Same thing here; http://www.championdealer.com/

Same people own a BMW, Acura, Cheverolet, Ford, Hyundai, Isuzu, Nissan, Scion, Toyota, Maybach, and a mini dealership. That is diversity. Even if they had a dodge dealership, I don't think they would have to go bankrupt now would they?

Let's look at it another way. Let's say that I buy a Subway franchise. I purchase the rights to sell their stuff and buy their products and use their name. In a few years from now, I look at the economy and realize that subway is not doing well. Their profits are down 48% and they are relying on creditors and investors to keep them alive. They are spending vast amounts of money and not turning any profits. Now, keep in mind, I am still selling sandwiches and doing quite well. If I continue the course and just hope for the best, then I am a crappy businessman, regards of how well I am doing now, because when subway files for bankruptcy and refuses to supply me with more product and the bankruptcy court invalidates my contract with them, then I have store full of product I can't sell and I should have seen it coming. The auto manufacturers didn't suddenly start to have problems. The long and short of it is that if you sell new cars for a living, especially if you sell one of the big three, you are taking a big gamble for long term stability right now. That is just the free market talking, no politics. The current politics don't effect any of this.

[SL65AMG]

I blame this on Obama because it was the govt that forced these changes on Chrysler. That means it was Obama that forced these changes on Chrysler. Just like the govt forced the bankruptcy terms that heavily benefited the unions at the expense of the bond holders.

What about this whole thing doesnt reek of Obama?

He gets the praise when things are good, but he cannot do anything wrong; someone else did it.

[BanginJimmy]

I haven't seen anyone that it does hurt, except for some investors. I don't necessarily agree with supporting the unions, but that is beyond the point at the moment. All of those dealerships are owned by the same person/family. The point is the same person has a ford and a chevy dealership and there isn't anything stopping them. Sometimes, they are right next to each other.

Same thing here; http://www.championdealer.com/

Same people own a BMW, Acura, Cheverolet, Ford, Hyundai, Isuzu, Nissan, Scion, Toyota, Maybach, and a mini dealership. That is diversity. Even if they had a dodge dealership, I don't think they would have to go bankrupt now would they?

Let's look at it another way. Let's say that I buy a Subway franchise. I purchase the rights to sell their stuff and buy their products and use their name. In a few years from now, I look at the economy and realize that subway is not doing well. Their profits are down 48% and they are relying on creditors and investors to keep them alive. They are spending vast amounts of money and not turning any profits. Now, keep in mind, I am still selling sandwiches and doing quite well. If I continue the course and just hope for the best, then I am a crappy businessman, regards of how well I am doing now, because when subway files for bankruptcy and refuses to supply me with more product and the bankruptcy court invalidates my contract with them, then I have store full of product I can't sell and I should have seen it coming. The auto manufacturers didn't suddenly start to have problems. The long and short of it is that if you sell new cars for a living, especially if you sell one of the big three, you are taking a big gamble for long term stability right now. That is just the free market talking, no politics. The current politics don't effect any of this.

You typed all of that and all you had to do was say that you believe a small businessman should be punished for not owning several different franchises.

Maybe he didnt want to own more than 1 franchise? Maybe he had plans to, but then the economy tanked and he decided not to?

I'll have to look it up, but what does it cost for Chrysler to sell their vehicles to a dealer? I would think that it would cost Chrysler nothing and they had everything to gain, just like your Subway franchise.

[joecoolfreak]

No, I think a small businessman should go out of business when his product does. It's that simple. That is capitalism. Forcing anything else is headed to socialism.

[BanginJimmy]

No, I think a small businessman should go out of business when his product does. It's that simple. That is capitalism. Forcing anything else is headed to socialism.

But that is exactly what Obamabots want, socialism. EVERY policy idea Obama has had since he got in office leads towards socialism.

[joecoolfreak]

But that is exactly what Obamabots want, socialism. EVERY policy idea Obama has had since he got in office leads towards socialism.

Which is why I find it ironic that you, who claim to be so capitalistic, are crying when it happens. Why an upstanding conservative like yourself would be pushing for a more socialistic response is what I am pointing out is funny.

Everybody likes the idea of a free market. No one likes the results of a truly free market.

[BanginJimmy]

Which is why I find it ironic that you, who claim to be so capitalistic, are crying when it happens. Why an upstanding conservative like yourself would be pushing for a more socialistic response is what I am pointing out is funny.

Everybody likes the idea of a free market. No one likes the results of a truly free market.

When did I ever say he should be bailed out? This is the result of Obama's mettling with the free market though. If Chrysler dumped the UAW instead of being forced forced to give them more power, Chrysler would be profitable immediately.

[joecoolfreak]

There are way too many "if's" to talk about what would/could have happened. The simply fact is that he had a contract and the contract became null/void when they declared bankruptcy. They could have chosen to keep more dealers or chosen to keep less under other circumstances. There is no evidence that links the president's mettling to why they chose to keep some but not others. The only fair assumption in my opinion given the available facts is that this dealer would have suffered the same fate regardless of the the administration's involvement. Take the whole dealer part you started with and the original article out of the equation and I agree that obama shouldn't have had his hands in the deal, but it in no way effected that this dealership was going to lose either way. and that's the free market I am talking about.

[TIGERJC]

LOL if they weren't getting a bailout period, maybe all the dealerships would have been closed.

[BanginJimmy]

LOL if they weren't getting a bailout period, maybe all the dealerships would have been closed.

They would simply go into chapter 11 and re-structure. If it wasnt for politicians the Big 3 might have a chance to dump the UAW and actually become profitable again.

[TIGERJC]

They would simply go into chapter 11 and re-structure. If it wasnt for politicians the Big 3 might have a chance to dump the UAW and actually become profitable again.

The UAW is just one of their many problems. I get sick and tired of people saying the union is the reason why Detroit is failing. When Detroit was making money, they still made bad decisions like not seeing that suvs and big trucks sells were not going to last.

[hondachik]

The American Automakers bullshit had to be failing plenty of years in the making and they knew it. You kinda hire people to keep up with your profit on a day to day, month to month, and year to year basis. If they saw this BS coming and didn't try to stop it from happening, its on them. You all can't group up at the last second and decide you want an economic bailout just months before Bush leaves office. Kinda puts him in a hard spot, just like it put Obama in a bad spot when he came in to office. With all this BS going on with the US in the past few years (including Iraq, healthcare, medicare, medicare, social security benefits).....the US = Failure.

[BanginJimmy]

The UAW is just one of their many problems. I get sick and tired of people saying the union is the reason why Detroit is failing. When Detroit was making money, they still made bad decisions like not seeing that suvs and big trucks sells were not going to last.

The UAW is the reason detroit is failing. Because of their political support they can bully the Big 3 into pretty much any contract they want. Until recently, GM sold more vehicles than any other car maker, yet they were losing money. Why do you think that is? The legacy costs imposed my the UAW. Things like 95% retirement, and amazing medical coverage. The UAW prevented any type of 401k or other pension plan as it may not be worth as much.

You can try to spin it any way you want, but GM pays about $70 per man hour to build a vehicle while Toyota pays about $45. Yet a comparable Toyota costs more than a GM. This allows Toyota to keep more cash on hand to weather these downturns far better.

[One_Bad_SHO]

With all this BS going on with the US in the past few years (including Iraq, healthcare, medicare, medicare, social security benefits).....the US = Failure.

You should move to France.

[preferredduck]

I am just not seeing how this is Obama's or even the government's fault at all. For all you that keep saying that free market and capitalism is the way to go, this is the result. The owner of the dealership went into a contract with a business that was doomed. He didn't try to sell is franchise when the company was having troubles. He relied soley on a product that wasn't financially sound and he bought that product to sell on credit. Sounds like he was a pretty bad businessman and now the free market is taking him out. What is it that you would have liked to happen. He "owned" a franchise with a company filed for bankruptcy. That means their contracts aren't valid anymore. He signed that contract and that's his own fault. They aren't confiscating his inventory, he just doesn't think he can sell it. When someone buys crap then can't afford to pay for it, do you think the government should "bail" him out by forcing someone else to buy the crap?

Sounds like the capitalists are suddenly becoming a little socialist around here when they see the results of a "free market".

dude are you smoking crack. this sounds like every car company. do you own a home, well it;s a similar deal. i know plenty of developers who pay interest only on their property not selling, kind of like a car lot. hell most business out there have some form of credit or $ owed. you are plain retarted. but obama owns like 80% of the company now and is basically taking everything this man owns and posessions laready had and is giving it to someone else for free it seem. you are a joke buddy.

[tony]

dude are you smoking crack. this sounds like every car company. do you own a home, well it;s a similar deal. i know plenty of developers who pay interest only on their property not selling, kind of like a car lot. hell most business out there have some form of credit or $ owed. you are plain retarted. but obama owns like 80% of the company now and is basically taking everything this man owns and posessions laready had and is giving it to someone else for free it seem. you are a joke buddy.

Please do explain, I'm interested to be enlightened on what you claim in this post.

[joecoolfreak]

dude are you smoking crack. this sounds like every car company. do you own a home, well it;s a similar deal. i know plenty of developers who pay interest only on their property not selling, kind of like a car lot. hell most business out there have some form of credit or $ owed. you are plain retarted. but obama owns like 80% of the company now and is basically taking everything this man owns and posessions laready had and is giving it to someone else for free it seem. you are a joke buddy.

I can't even understand what you are trying to say. Please come back and try again when you are capable of creating simple sentence structure so the rest of us who do speak English can figure it out.

That being said, I am aware that most car dealerships don't pay cash for their inventory, rather that they are on credit. I know that's how they do things, but it doesn't make it any less risky or a good idea. Since you made an analogy to home development, haven't you seen or heard all of the stories about the recent housing market? People who were relying on interest only loans and other "not so good" methods of affording what they couldn't afford for the purpose of reselling got royally screwed. I don't feel sorry for them either. If you buy something on credit and it can't be resold, then you are going to go down. No one has taken any possessions from this dealer. He still has all his inventory. That's most of the problem right there. He wants the government to stick their head into a private business and tell them what to do and you crying about his situation means that you support that kind of behavior from the federal government.

You might want think about that.

[preferredduck]

But that is exactly what Obamabots want, socialism. EVERY policy idea Obama has had since he got in office leads towards socialism.

agreed on this one. we are on a one way trip to having no rights and never running our own business.

[preferredduck]

Please do explain, I'm interested to be enlightened on what you claim in this post.

On Thursday, May 14, 2009 I was notified that my Dodge franchise, that we purchased, will be taken away from my family on June 9, 2009 without compensation and given to another dealer at no cost to them--quote from article. this means that HIS $$ time, and everything else invested is being taken from him and given to someone else, he may have spent $1 maybe 2million who knows but he lost all of it period.


Additionally, my Dodge parts inventory, (approximately $300,000.) is virtually worthless without the ability to perform warranty service. There is no offer from Chrysler to buy back the vehicles or parts inventory.--quote from article. he spent $300k on parts inventory most likely required by chrysler to have on hand that he will not get compensated for, yes he can slowly sell some of the parts via the web etc, but if it's anything like mack trucks you must have a certain amount and type of inventory to do warranty work that comes out of the owners pocket(i ran the parts room for gainesville truck center).

Our facility was recently totally renovated at Chrysler’s insistence, incurring a multi-million dollar debt in the form of a mortgage at Sun Trust Bank.--quote #3--- this is something that most dealers had to do, ford included. they don't want their name with a crappy facility. so he renovated at their expense and now has a great showroom that the new owners could use for free, i doubt it though b/c he probably owns the land and building but with a mortgage with the bank you should kiss it goodbye also.

yes i understand that staying with a crappy brand is a risky move, but to take away things from someone who was trying to do "good for the company" is pretty crappy never the less. even thouygh the brand sucks he cannot sell his inventory as a "new" car anymore and cannot get revenue from servicing the vehicles that are on the road and the customers that have probably been coming there for years.

[preferredduck]

I can't even understand what you are trying to say. Please come back and try again when you are capable of creating simple sentence structure so the rest of us who do speak English can figure it out.

That being said, I am aware that most car dealerships don't pay cash for their inventory, rather that they are on credit. I know that's how they do things, but it doesn't make it any less risky or a good idea. Since you made an analogy to home development, haven't you seen or heard all of the stories about the recent housing market? People who were relying on interest only loans and other "not so good" methods of affording what they couldn't afford for the purpose of reselling got royally screwed. I don't feel sorry for them either. If you buy something on credit and it can't be resold, then you are going to go down. No one has taken any possessions from this dealer. He still has all his inventory. That's most of the problem right there. He wants the government to stick their head into a private business and tell them what to do and you crying about his situation means that you support that kind of behavior from the federal government.

You might want think about that.

that was a weak insult, my turn now. you must not speak english b/c everthing is on credit, including you.

i do not support the government in private business, but consider the fact that the obama admin owns 80% of chrysler guess what just happened to that guy. and the housing market, dont get me started on that one b/c i was a loan officer for a few years and i do not feel sorry for even my friends who lost their home b/c of an interest only ARM. It wasn't just people trying to resell a home that got screwed either, mostly people who wanted to keep up with the jone's etc lost their homes. you can thank our gov't for derregulating the mortgage industry years ago and coming up with these crap loans that interest only is paid on. freddie mac and fannie may are going belly up too b/c of the mess. but again you can thank washington DC and the federal reserve for that. the fed controls the interest rate for mortgages, credit cards, you name it they control it. hell i think it was alan greenspan who basically came out and said they were responsible for the meltdown in housing. i will say this, it's not over, look for uncle sam to own morre of america, and guess who owns uncle sam, the federal reserve bank, and you guessed it it's a private bank.

so that being said i guess it is america's fault b/c every dime the gov't gets is on CREDIT. every last penny of it is borrowed. does that put a new spin on things for you WE ARE ALL ON CREDIT, that tax $$ that comes out of your check is going to pay interest on the loans that some dumbass politician borrowed for a pet project, sounds fun huh. so BASICALLY WHAT YOU SAID MEANS THAT WE NEED TO SHUT DOWN OUR GOV'T, HIGHWAYS, FOOD DELIVERY, ETC. it's all borrowed $$ so what do you think.

[joecoolfreak]

On Thursday, May 14, 2009 I was notified that my Dodge franchise, that we purchased, will be taken away from my family on June 9, 2009 without compensation and given to another dealer at no cost to them--quote from article. this means that HIS $$ time, and everything else invested is being taken from him and given to someone else, he may have spent $1 maybe 2million who knows but he lost all of it period.


Additionally, my Dodge parts inventory, (approximately $300,000.) is virtually worthless without the ability to perform warranty service. There is no offer from Chrysler to buy back the vehicles or parts inventory.--quote from article. he spent $300k on parts inventory most likely required by chrysler to have on hand that he will not get compensated for, yes he can slowly sell some of the parts via the web etc, but if it's anything like mack trucks you must have a certain amount and type of inventory to do warranty work that comes out of the owners pocket(i ran the parts room for gainesville truck center).

Our facility was recently totally renovated at Chrysler’s insistence, incurring a multi-million dollar debt in the form of a mortgage at Sun Trust Bank.--quote #3--- this is something that most dealers had to do, ford included. they don't want their name with a crappy facility. so he renovated at their expense and now has a great showroom that the new owners could use for free, i doubt it though b/c he probably owns the land and building but with a mortgage with the bank you should kiss it goodbye also.

yes i understand that staying with a crappy brand is a risky move, but to take away things from someone who was trying to do "good for the company" is pretty crappy never the less. even thouygh the brand sucks he cannot sell his inventory as a "new" car anymore and cannot get revenue from servicing the vehicles that are on the road and the customers that have probably been coming there for years.

Since you still don't get it, the only thing that was taken away was his franchise. That is simply a contract with Chrysler that allows him to sell their product under their name. All he lost was his contract. No one took his money, his inventory, his building, or his land. He still has all of those. That being said, Obama had NOTHING to do with that. That happened because Chrysler filed for bankruptcy. Stop blaming Obama for the fact that this guy is a poor businessman. I will again ask: what is it you would have liked to happen in this case?

that was a weak insult, my turn now. you must not speak english b/c everthing is on credit, including you.

Hmm, I was simply remarking that 80% of what you post is unintelligable because you can't form complete sentances in english. I seriously have a difficult time deciphering half of what you write because you don't even attempt to capitalize letters or finish your thoughts in complete sentance structure. I don't claim to spell correctly or have perfect grammer, but I do attempt to write in correct english so that other people can understand what I am saying. It would be the same if you just mumbled for a while, as we don't know what you mean. If you doubt me, look back at some of your posts and read them back out loud.

i do not support the government in private business, but consider the fact that the obama admin owns 80% of chrysler

This would be where Tony's question comes into to play. There is no fact here. Obama doesn't own any part of chrysler. You also failed to provide any evidence as Tony asked.

guess what just happened to that guy. and the housing market, dont get me started on that one b/c i was a loan officer for a few years and i do not feel sorry for even my friends who lost their home b/c of an interest only ARM. It wasn't just people trying to resell a home that got screwed either, mostly people who wanted to keep up with the jone's etc lost their homes. you can thank our gov't for derregulating the mortgage industry years ago and coming up with these crap loans that interest only is paid on. freddie mac and fannie may are going belly up too b/c of the mess. but again you can thank washington DC and the federal reserve for that. the fed controls the interest rate for mortgages, credit cards, you name it they control it. hell i think it was alan greenspan who basically came out and said they were responsible for the meltdown in housing. i will say this, it's not over, look for uncle sam to own morre of america, and guess who owns uncle sam, the federal reserve bank, and you guessed it it's a private bank.

Ok, you may not feel sorry for people who lost their homes to ARM and neither do I. It was their fault, not the governement's. Now if you are saying that I can blame the governement for derregulating the mortgage industry, doesn't that mean you are for more regulation (more government intervention)?

so that being said i guess it is america's fault b/c every dime the gov't gets is on CREDIT. every last penny of it is borrowed. does that put a new spin on things for you WE ARE ALL ON CREDIT, that tax $$ that comes out of your check is going to pay interest on the loans that some dumbass politician borrowed for a pet project, sounds fun huh.

What is the relevance of this? Does the government do things on credit? Sure. Does that mean people can buy everything they want on credit and not have to pay it back? I don't get your point at all here. The simple fact is that the owner of the dealership got what was coming to him and I don't feel sorry for him at all.

I will ask a final time, What do you think should have happened? When Chrysler filed for bankruptcy, what do you think is the proper course of action as it applies to this dealership in question?