Tell the taxpayers EXACTLY how the GM dealers were chosen to close. Several dealers that were ordered to close were profitable and award winning dealers. At least one in Minnesota only lost their franchise after another dealership about 30 miles away spoke to their congressman about their order to close, which happened to be reversed shortly after.
Tell the taxpayers EXACTLY how the GM dealers were chosen to close
Tags: gm dealer chrysler
Comments (48)
The entire issue of the government forcing themselves into private business is an outrage in itself.
In fact its criminal
"Forcing themselves"? GM has been corrupt for decades. They did this to themselves. I am happy to be a 60% owner now.
Tell us brainstein, just when do you expect your paycheck?
What an idiot you are cmfluteguy
caroebturr, I totally agree with you. The fact that the government is forcing themselves into private business is an outrage and totally against the Constitution, and I can't believe the bankruptcy court was in on this with the Obama Administration.
We are moving more and more into Socialism everyday.
If I remember correctly the auto execs were literally begging- the government forced nothing.
With the benefit of hindsight I, too, wish the gov had stayed out of it, but in the same situation you have to ask yourself what you would have done- how many jobs were at stake?
If you want to know who to blame for the loss of jobs- look to the rich and greedy hee haws who ran the company into the ground.
If anyone will look at all the Government intrusion into the auto manufacturing and using the Law to make almost impossible demands and the heavy taxes the government extracts from ALL Business, you will have the answer as to why manufacturing is failing here.
And being intentionally sold to foreign governments.
America is being destroyed from with-in by an ABUSE OF POWER and CRIMINAL INTENT.
The reason is globalism for the elite and the morons among us do not get it how they are being used to transfer wealth to the very wealthy.
I wouldn't believe anything they said!
yeti descendant
You look at the cost of doing business in America.
All the unneeded weight comes from Government regulations, taxes, fees and government forced benefits.
Today, the people who work in Government have much better benefits than any auto worker, or at the least comparable.
The Government produces nothing, but cost.
At least the auto makers have given us all transportation.
All the jobs being created today are in low paying retail and high paying Government positions.
Everyone of us have a better chance of being named a CZAR of some sort by this crime ridden government of today than to get a good paying job.
All the while the basic costs of our NEEDS go up and up and up.
Food, Housing, Clothing, Transportation and Utilities etc. are all going up as the available jobs decrease in pay.
These are NEEDS, not luxury items we all must have.
As the Obama says it fine for Iran to have Nuclear Power, he says Americans MUST live by the SUN and the WIND!
Get real people, this idiot in the WH is intentionally destroying the American Economy
If you want to stop transferring wealth to the very wealthy- then stop buying things from the very wealthy. Buy locally produced goods- support local farmer's markets, buy used cars, use solar power for your home, power your car on home brew methanol or biodiesel, etc... Stop using cell phones, telephones, internet, cable, tv, toothpaste, running water, deodorant, etc. Make your own clothes, bread, furniture, etc.
Essentially- live like a pioneer off the grid.
Understand the ramifications of this process though- if we all did this there would be no industry to employ people, there would be no stores (that sell these goods) to employ people, and modern conveniences would eventually disappear. It sucks a fat one, but in many ways we depend on the very wealthy to keep this world running.
carpenturr- the government provides government- if they didn't we would have anarchy.
Auto worker benefits are INCREDIBLE, far better than most.
I have no beef with looking at government wastes and trying to correct them, but to blame the government for "forcing themselves into private business" is a ridiculous assertion.
Our costs continually rise to pad the pockets of corporate hee haws- these cost increases have little to do with government interference in the free market.
We do have anarchy, the government does not respect the law!
tsiya- look at your statement "the government does not respect the law!"
The fact that the word government made it into that sentence says that we don't have anarchy.
What laws are they not respecting?
(please don't respond with a birther argument)
yeti descendant
This government is bring anarachy, just like the governments of Italy, Germany and Russia have done in the past.
Instead of enforcing law by blind justice that does not respect persons, rich poor or in-between, they quit enforcing some laws and abuse the law in other situations
I agree that laws aren't always enforced blindly and equally, but what does this have to do with the topic at hand?
What evidence do you have that this government is bringing anarchy?
yeti descendant writes:
I agree that laws aren't always enforced blindly and equally, but what does this have to do with the topic at hand?
================================================
Everything
For the government to take over private business and force a sale to a foreign corporation is a crime against every single reason law exists.
This takeover of private business as no legal, no matter what any court that backs it due to their politics says.
Have you ever read what the Job Description of the President is?
There has never been a time in America the Federal Government took over private business as now being done unlawfully.
There is no basis in law for such a thing to happen
yeti descendant, where in the Constitution do you find authority for most of Obama's actions in the last several months? Federal government is only allowed to do what is defined in the Constitution.
While I don't agree with it, there is a law (of sorts), it is called the Federal Reinvestment and Recovery Act- it passed through an elected congress earlier this year.
If these companies didn't want the money they did not have to take it- instead they begged for it. This isn't a hostile takeover, this is the result of the incompetence of corporate hee haws.
The government never forced anyone's hand in this matter- they didn't threaten anyone- they didn't force bankruptcy- they aren't to blame for mismanagement and inefficiency of these corporations that received funding.
The job description of the President:
Choose cabinet members
Command the armed forces of the country
Meet with leaders of foreign countries
Make treaties with foreign countries
Appoint judges and ambassadors
Propose new laws
Sign bills into law and veto bills
Protect and defend the laws of the US
Pardon criminals
Report to Congress once a year
I still don't see what this has to do with the equal administration of justice...
tsiya
The Constitution allows the Feds the room to make new laws- the Constitution isn't the only legal document ever written.
If you don't like the laws they are making then vote for somebody else next time who will make laws more to your liking....
Actually yeti descendant
This is the only Job Requirements for a President.
Article II
Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows:
Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.
The electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves. And they shall make a list of all the persons voted for, and of the number of votes for each; which list they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted. The person having the greatest number of votes shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such majority, and have an equal number of votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately choose by ballot one of them for President; and if no person have a majority, then from the five highest on the list the said House shall in like manner choose the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by States, the representation from each state having one vote; A quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. In every case, after the choice of the President, the person having the greatest number of votes of the electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal votes, the Senate shall choose from them by ballot the Vice President.
The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.
In case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by law provide for the case of removal, death, resignation or inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what officer shall then act as President, and such officer shall act accordingly, until the disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.
The President shall, at stated times, receive for his services, a compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that period any other emolument from the United States, or any of them.
Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.
He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.
The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.
Section 3. He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.
Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
No where can he lawfully exceed the written law.
To stay and be a nation of laws and not men he must be held accountable to written law himself.
No law passed in Congress can erase a single word or line of the US Constitution WITHOUT following the Amendment Process.
Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
The Constitution does not allow the feds to make new laws. The Constitution is Supreme law! Any other law or ruling MUST comply with constitutional mandates.
carpenturr,
Find me a passage in there that this president has violated. As far as I can see he has acted in accordance with Article II Sec 2.
Article V dictates the procedure of Constitutional Amendment. Nothing in the Constitution has been added or erased in the last six months.
Find me something that has been changed in absence of the procedures of Article V to prove your argument.
-----------------------------------------------
tsiya
The Constitution is a guideline for the creation of new laws. Read the Constitution and find me a passage that says that the Feds can't make new laws.
carpenturr- please, I beg, no birther arguments...
The problem is yeti descendant is the Constitution spells out the duties and does not go into everything some men can dream up.
You show me a single time in America any President, Congress or Senate took over a private business as this man is doing unlawfully
yeti descendant wrote:
carpenturr- please, I beg, no birther arguments.
=======================================
I have no argument to make.
I have a demand he show his records and be transparent
sorry typo- that was supposed to read Article II sec 2 and sec 3..
Is GM the only business to have ever went into bankruptcy?
no
It will not be the last either.
There is no such a thing in law or logic "too big to fail"
No more so than being to small to suceeed.
If the Constitution does not stand inviolate, no one here is safe!
By and large there has been no "takeover" of private business in this administration. There have been "loans" to bailout failing corporations in an effort to save American jobs.
While I see the reason it was done, and I can sympathize with those losing their jobs - I agree that it was a misuse of taxpayer dollars, but there is nothing criminal to it.
As far as I can see there is nothing limiting his power to SUGGEST anything to congress- the President could, if he wanted, suggest any number of ludicrous ideas. The Legislative and Judicial Branches are in place to safeguard the country from ludicrous ideas becoming law.
If you have a problem with this law you have to blame the other branches with just as much vigor.
Again, I ask you to please find me a line in the Constitution that defines these actions as criminal or unConstitutional.
(respectfully, no birther arguments please)
tsiya:"If the Constitution does not stand inviolate, no one here is safe!"
I agree, but find me a line where the Constitution denies the Feds ability to make new laws...
There are existing, and longstanding, laws concerning bankruptcy. What happened to them? Do they now only apply sometimes" Arbitrary and capricious enforcement is dangerous, don't you agree?
Does the end now justify the means?
tsiya- you still haven't found me a single line preventing the addition of new laws by the Feds?
-----------------------------------------
We aren't talking about one single company- we are talking about an entire industry. Existing law was deemed by the gov to be less than suitable given the magnitude of the situation,
No one has rewritten bankruptcy law- the government made a loan of capital to several large corporations in deep financial trouble in an effort to stem the potential loss of industry and thousands of jobs in America. Due to their unwillingness to address their own inefficiencies some of those corporations are now finding that they are no longer viable in the market place, and have now begun to default on those loans.
Again, the government in no way forced this money or situation onto these companies- they literally begged for it... Whether or not you agree with the government answering these pleas you cannot call their actions criminal.
The corporate hee haws' greed and stupidity has cost you money, and is the reason that these companies are now being sold to overseas corporations.
If the President and Congress hadn't authorized these funds to auto manufacturers, what would the public outcry have been against the administration when tens of thousands of people lost their jobs?
My assertion is that the same people now arguing against these funds being loaned would also be calling for removal if the funds hadn't been made available... Crying at that point that the Feds should be more active in protecting the jobs and rights of the American people.
Are we so sure that the funds provided haven't prevented the economy from going further into recession than it has?
I'm not so sure, but hindsight is 20/20 giving me the luxury to disagree now.
People ARE losing their jobs, they just don't happen to be UAW members who supported Obama's campaign. Dealers are losing investments, and stuck with inventory they can no longer sell as new. They still have to repay the loans they took out to buy the inventory. Strangely enough, it seems that quite a few of them did not make contributions to democrat candidates.
Chicago politics, maybe?
"Are we so sure that the funds provided haven't prevented the economy from going further into recession than it has"?
I wondered how long it would take for you to say this!
I've already said numerous times that I think that this was a misuse of tax payer funds- my assertion in the last comment was that many of the people, like you, who are kicking and screaming about the decision that was made would be throwing the same fit if the opposite had been true...
Truth is you are "haters" with nothing to bring to the table but accusation and assumption, and when asked to speak to something that can be proven by evidence you slink back to your same old arguments- and never produce any facts or intelligent criticism of anything.
Since you have been waiting, do you have an answer?
Are you sure?
Found any evidence yet to show that the Constitution prevents the making of new laws?
Still think this is anarchy?
jason:"Tell the taxpayers EXACTLY how the GM dealers were chosen to close."
tsiya:"Dealers are losing investments, and stuck with inventory they can no longer sell as new. They still have to repay the loans they took out to buy the inventory."
I think you might have just answered the question- it's not such a conspiracy now, huh?
The issue here is who and how was the decision made to close the GM dealers. If GM didn't want to finance their floor plan why didn't they just change their policy and let the dealerships decide weather to continue or not. That would have been the fair thing to do if $ was the reason for the closures. Since GM or who ever is in control of it didn't do this they must have had a reason other than cost of the dealerships floorplans
New laws must be constitutional. They also should not invalidate legal contracts dated prior to their passage.
That's a well framed question, jason... Thank you.
I don't have an answer for you on that- my guess is that it is a fairly complex process that goes well beyond my understanding of corporate financing.
Are you or do you know an owner of a GM dealership or anyone working in their corporate offices?
That would be the place I would look first- I'm not sure the role that the govt is taking in deciding how to maintain retail operations. If you know something that I don't please fill me in...
Political prejudice would be an awful way to conduct business at this level, but I doubt this is the case as the public outcry would be pretty enormous.
I do throw it out there that (from a news report I saw last night which may or may not be accurate) many dealership owners are Republicans, and the perceived discrepancies in closings might be due to the fact there are a disproportionately high number of Republican vs. Democrat owned outlets. Just a thought.
Exactly, tsiya- way to back pedal your argument. I'm glad we finally agree that there is a possibility that new laws can be created.
Laws do have to be Constitutional.
There is nothing about the creation of the FRRA that has violated the Constitution.
You still haven't covered violatioon of pre existing contracts. Why are UAW members better than other auto industry workers?
Wouldn't it be strange if the majority of dealerships allowed to continue just happened to be democrats?
Yeti:
I am an engineer for a tier 1 supplier to the auto industry, so yes I do know several GM and Chrysler owners and dealership employees.
I asked the question here because they don't know how the decision was made and have been stone walled when they tried asking the same question.
Because the dealerships themselves can't get an answer, I am very suspicious.
It should not be too much for a dealership to ask why their contract was canceled!
Where are there any violations by the government of pre existing contracts?
The corporate bozo's are the one's you want to point the finger at for not honoring and violating pre existing contracts.
jason- I think that's pretty suspicious as well, and it's great to talk to someone close to the industry who has some insight into this debacle.
It is not too much to ask- car dealers have a large financial stake in their businesses, and should be privy to any and all information regarding the closing of those businesses.
All we can do at this point is speculate as to the reasons why... and that won't get us any where fast.
My argument (speculative) is that GM and Chrysler are the one's to look at for the time being in as much as the government has nothing to profit from in the closing of successful dealerships.
Like I said above- I have absolutely no idea what goes on in the world of corporate finance, but it seems these big wigs have been pretty shady in the past. I wouldn't put it past them to try and pull some kind of a "fast one" out of this.
Chicago politicians have a shady past as well! I see no reason to believe a single word from any of them.
yeti descendant
tsiya wrote:"If the Constitution does not stand inviolate, no one here is safe!"
yeti descendant responded:
"I agree, but find me a line where the Constitution denies the Feds ability to make new laws"
So show the law that gave the government the right to take over a Private Business.
None exist, and your support for the crime will not change it to being legal
I didn't support it, carpenturr, Congrees did- I have stated and restated that already on a number of occasions...
What I have already pointed out is that it isn't illegal.
From your post above:
"Section 3. He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient."
I'll make it simple for you. The above statement(from the Constitution)is what happened first. Next, the issue of FRRA was presented to the Legislature for a vote and passed. The last step was the President signing the Legislature's approved Act. That puts it into law.
Doesn't make it right, but it does make it legal.
If it's not right, and follows more or less the spirit of the Declaration of Independence, chances are it is not legal; but got legal through political manipulations. It could be overturned, but there's so much in the "overturn bad stuff" hopper, that it will take a few thousand lawyers working round the clock for a few decades.