Who says anything about paying to keep his dealership open the guy wants to operate it on his own. Those businesses are considered small to medium size businesses and normally owned by one guy or a couple of guys. So your not getting the point it isn't costing you any tax dollars.
Chrysler is losing money, and the money they are losing is coming out of taxpayer pockets right now... agree?
One of the reasons Chrysler states that they are losing money is that there are too many dealerships... agree? (check out this source for why they state they are losing money by having so many dealerships: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i_QEalIZURaSxibsGhxgF1RwFVEAD98MPHNG0
So if you want to keep all those dealerships, you must accept that Chrysler is going to lose some money (a little over 2 billion dollars annually) on them and that the money spent by Chrysler to keep them will come out of taxpayer pockets... agree?
Might as well be another bailout directly to the dealership because the end-result is the same... it's going to cost you and me money and they've never done anything to earn our business, so why should they be allowed to take the money we worked hard for and earned?
Your missing the point here just because you have already screwed up doesn't mean you have to follow the logic. What does GM have to do with this conversation anyways it's Chrysler that is doing the guy in. Yes they got money was it the wrong thing to do yes it was. But just because that's the case doesn't mean you follow the same stupid logic to find a solution to all the dealerships that are getting the shaft right now by Chrylser.
Sorry, I was using Chrysler and GM interchangibly because they are both in the same position respectively... both are costing the govt. (taxpayers) money and both are cutting dealerships.
Not adding any taxes to the federal payroll. Do you honesty think that Chrysler strokes the checks to this employees? They are owned by people they only buy product off of Chrysler. If it goes under later on so be it but you can't just take it away.
According to them, they are losing money on them... and that money is coming out of our collective pockets... that's good enough for me.
If we weren't the ones footing the bill for Chrysler's debt right now, then I would agree with you. But we can't just ignore the fact that we are the ones paying for their losses... and it's not exactly ethical to steal from Peter in order to keep Paul in business.
Just for fun I crunched a few of the numbers... Chrysler testified before congress that they are losing 2.033 billion dollars annually on these 789 dealerships. Divided evenly amongst them, that's $2,576,679 each, per year. At first that didn't seem like a big number to keep 50 people employed, but to be sure I just wanted to crunch the numbers one more time to figure out how much it was costing us per employee... divided by 50 we get $51,533 that it's costing us each year, per employee, which could well be more than their entire pay + benefits package to begin with! Now, call me crazy, but I think there are probably better things that taxpayers can do with $51,533 than to pay one person to be a car salesman in an economy where people aren't buying many cars to begin with.
Yeah but you and i and everyone that has ever used credit is to blame for this mess. See doesn't make sence to buy a house on a 30 year loan and pay 3 times what that house it worth. Get rid of everyones debt and the problem is solved. Simple and easy as that we are all to blame and we will be until we wake up and start taking responsiblity for our own actions. Government can be blamed as much as you want to but the fact of the matter is if we all didn't act like debt is a good thing then they would never had to weigh in on Chrysler, GM, AIG, and the banks.
I disagree, I think people who got in over their heads with credit and culdn't pay their bills are to blame (mostly, though I also place some blame on our continuing addiction to oil which is sending many hundreds of billions of our dollars overseas each year). I also think they would have had to weigh in on Chrysler and GM anyway, because of the price of gas and (as usual) American auto-makers refused to put vehicles on the market that consumers want in times of high fuel prices or fuel shortages (remind you of the '70's? Guess they didn't learn their lessons... same mistakes, same financial problems resulting from those mistakes).