Change we can beleive in

[BanginJimmy]

I have already posted several links that pointed out how much Obama has had to do with this, yet you just ignore them. No one said Obama picked this exact dealership to close, but he is the one pulling the strings.


Still no one has answered why Chrysler shutting down a profitable franchise though. It simply makes no sense as it costs the Chrysler Corp no money to grant a franchise. Market saturation obviously isnt a problem either, as this one dealership was profitable.

BTW, did a little asking around, 1 reason many dealerships keep their inventory on credit is for insurance purposes. Another reason is for tax purposes. Since the vehicles are on credit they are not considered assets and can more easily be moved if a dealership closes down.

[joecoolfreak]

I have already posted several links that pointed out how much Obama has had to do with this, yet you just ignore them. No one said Obama picked this exact dealership to close, but he is the one pulling the strings.


Still no one has answered why Chrysler shutting down a profitable franchise though. It simply makes no sense as it costs the Chrysler Corp no money to grant a franchise. Market saturation obviously isnt a problem either, as this one dealership was profitable.

BTW, did a little asking around, 1 reason many dealerships keep their inventory on credit is for insurance purposes. Another reason is for tax purposes. Since the vehicles are on credit they are not considered assets and can more easily be moved if a dealership closes down.

It's very simple. To answer your question, this is why Chrysler has chosen to do so: http://www.detnews.com/article/20090...its-franchises

Landry said dealers were evaluated based on their sales, share, shipments, customer satisfaction scores, facility, location, whether they sell all three brands and if they operate with a competitor, which is the case for 44 percent of the rejected dealers.

Landry said 83 percent of the rejected dealers sell more used cars than new vehicles and should be able to remain in business as used car dealers.

The guy that has this dealership says he is "profitable" obviously has a different outlook than Chrysler does. I still agree with you that Obama has his hands in the pot, but I have yet to see any source even hint that this decision ( to cut dealers) had anything to do with him.


What you haven't shown or explained is why you think Obama or anyone else would decide to close down profitable dealerships. If there is no good explanation, what is the motivation? Are you suggesting that Obama is just sabotaging small business because it's fun? Or is it that he wants Chrysler to fail even more? What exactly is the motivation behind what you feel is such a poor fiscal decision?