Agreed.

You gotta talk to some people in the only language they understand, repetition.

I never mentioned anything about the yellow cake issue and honestly know very little about it, not enough to make any kind of argument besides saying "I don't know enough". In the end it's Gov't regardless which party is in charge, they all politicians either way.

Haha, very true....sadly. That goes for anyone: republican, democrat, or a purple people eater.

Mm, I think someone else did; ID i think.

If the objective is to sell more cars, why on earth would we want to shut down dealers? It just doesn't seem to make any sense. 

Ahhh, but it does.  Instead of thinking about this as "closing" dealerships, think about it as "consolidating" dealerships.  Fewer dealerships will (probably) mean that the remaining dealers get larger.  Larger dealers are better able to advertise, take advantage of economies of scale, provide a broad selection, and other services.  This will - theoretically - enable you to sell more cars with less overhead. 

All that is cold comfort if you are one of the dealers - or an employee - who is getting shut down, but there IS logic to the plan.

While Velwins comment makes sense to me, my question would be not be about selling more cars but more about the people losing their jobs. Wasn't the Obama Admin suppose to be creating jobs? How exactly does closing dealers accomplish this? Would that make people lose jobs? And wouldn't this allow the dealers that remain to abuse the lack of competition? I am having a hard time seeing how closing these dealers down to downsize and save the company outweighs the number of people lsoing their jobs and the possible abuse of lack of competition. I doubt the Obama Admin will be able to over see every dealer and stop the possible abuse.

I think alot of this has to do with the financing and dealerships work.  My understanding is that each dealership puts a liability on the manufacturer (I am too tired to remember or look up exactly how).  They have to close some of them because they are too big of a liability risk to the Manufacturer.

Keep in mind this is happening so that they can file bankruptsy.

Hope that helps, Anthony.

Richard Armitage was not a member of the Bush White House staff.  But then, I wouldn't expect Arty to deviate from the party propaganda.

On the subject of the OP, where's the 'empathy' and compassion here?  Where's the 'transparency' promised by the administration touting itself as the most honest & transparent in history?  There seems to be no rhyme or reason to closure decisions, which would be no big deal if the Feds weren't doing the closing - Chrysler & GM could use any basis they wished if they were doing this without our money, but they aren't.  However, dealer network contraction, being fundamentally anti-competitive, would probably be looked at more sceptically if they were simply going through bankruptcy on their own.

Thank goodness for the 'stimulus' bill - 'saving jobs' at the rate of minus 500k a month.  Guess we shouldn't complain, especially since it was all Bush's fault.

Did GM say just NO? You'll have to refresh my memory.

People that want to buy a GM (and apparently a Chrysler) vehicle are going to probably buy it anyway. Reducing the number of dealers will reduce competition, raising the price of the vehicle. This is important as the government tries to dictate the type of cars that we will buy (by reducing our choice) they can ensure the proper price (i.e. highest) price can be obtained from the consumer. IMO this will push consumers into the foreign and last non-government owned US company (Ford), so long as they produce what the folks want.

Unless Government Motor's politician/automobile engineers get lucky and come up with a winner and buyers overcome the skittishness of buying from a bankrupt company , the others can expect to do well,even in these lean times.

GM's new commercials actually tout less choice (less brands, less models). I'm not suggesting this is bad from a business standpoint. One has to ask why GM didn't do this 10, 20, or 50 years ago, just now that the government owns them. That's right they (the govt.) are business experts, they know best, right? I believe GM will sink much lower before (if) things get better for them.

What will be interesting is what the gov. will do to make the others produce their cars. Ford watch your back.

Ford's lookin' good just now.  Barring a Chavez-like move, which I don't think even BO could get away with, they'll be better able to produce & sell vehicles people actually want once the economy starts to recover, as opposed to what the clueless pseudo-CEO's in DC dictate.  If I had any money to invest, I'd consider buying some Ford stock.

If this was Bush, the left would be demanding investigations and such.  The hypocrisy as usual.

"The armies of the Left are also deploying to defend the president and his auto panel. Nate Silvernot the non-partisan, independent and non-profit OpenSecrets.org, but the partisan and very biased Huffington Post. Silver's hasty conclusion, "There's no conspiracy here, folks...," is hilariously akin to that old pearl, "Nothing to see here, folks. Move along."

http://www.redstate.com/josh_painter/2009/05/29/dealergate-update-what-we-have-so-far/

Of course even if the figures were correct (and I'm a scientist who uses stats and they really don't look very good to me) it would not 'prove' that they were being shut because who they were being run by.

It is possible that the there is another factor at play that causes a suprious link.  The classic example is that in ye olden days if you wore a top hat you did not get cholorea.  Top hats do not prevent cholorea, the wearing of a top hat is linked to wealth, which is linked to the chance of getting cholorea.  

For one, possible, example perhaps the democrates are based in different areas and it is the areas that are getting chosen.

Right.  Let me show you an article of what may happen in Russia.  Oh yeah if we keep going down this path Obama is leading us down this chicken will be coming home to roost.

LINK

Business can say 'no' all they want but the gov't will get their way.  Just look at GM and Chrysler.

They work to nationalize (ie gov't takeover and run) just ask ms. watters on the oil companies.