So "obama" closed auto dealerships to HURT WHITES and REPOZ! & help WOMEN & COLOREDS!

busybody..

Literotica Guru
Joined
Jul 28, 2002
Posts
149,503
So "obama" closed auto dealerships to HURT WHITES and REPOZ! & help WOMEN & COLOREDS!

Race Played Role in Obama Car Dealer Closures
By William Tate

The Obama administration, already under fire for unprecedented allegations of racial bias, faces a new bias claim from a most unlikely source: one of the administration's own inspectors general.


Decisions on which car dealerships to close as part of the auto industry bailout -- closures the Obama administration forced on General Motors and Chrysler -- were based in part on race and gender, according to a report by Troubled Asset Relief Program Special Inspector General Neal M. Barofsky.


[D]ealerships were retained because they were recently appointed, were key wholesale parts dealers, or were minority- or woman-owned dealerships. [Emphasis added.]


Thus, to meet numbers forced on them by the Obama administration, General Motors and Chrysler were forced to shutter other, potentially more viable, dealerships. The livelihood of potentially tens of thousands of families was thus eliminated simply because their dealerships were not minority- or woman-owned.


As has been widely reported, the Inspector General's study skewered the Obama Gang for strong-arming the companies into closing 2,000 dealerships, costing an estimated 100,000 people their jobs during a recession.


But the news media has ignored key elements of Barofsky's report -- elements that are far more damaging, if possible, to Obama. As we reported earlier in the week, a top Obama official, manufacturing czar and "Auto Team" leader Ron Bloom admitted that the dealerships could have been kept open, saving those jobs, "but that doing so would have been inconsistent with the President's mandate for 'shared sacrifice.'"


Barofsky says the administration insisted on the closings even though a GM official told him


that GM would usually save 'not one damn cent' by closing any particular dealership. ... Furthermore, a GM official stated that removing a dealership from the network does not save money for GM -- it might even cost GM money -- and that savings cannot be attributed or assigned to any one dealership.


And a reading of the IG's study makes plain that some dealership closings forced by the administration were based largely on politics.


The report is highly critical of how dealerships were selected for closure, or termination. Barofsky notes that


experts said that while metro areas were oversaturated with GM and Chrysler dealerships and reductions were needed in these areas, this was not the case in rural areas where GM and Chrysler had an advantage over their import competitors. [...]


Although sales volume in small towns may be lower, the cost of operating dealerships in small towns is lower as well. In addition, closing dealerships in small towns could ruin the "historic relationship" that GM has had with residents in small towns and force buyers to drive to metro areas, where there are more competitors. In the worst case, the loss of market share in small and medium-sized markets could "jeopardize the return to profitability" for GM and Chrysler, the (the Center for Automotive Research) representative said. Representatives from the National Automobile Dealers Association also concurred that dealership terminations would cause GM and Chrysler to lose market share in rural areas. [Emphasis added.]


Nevertheless, as Barofsky notes, "ultimately close to half of all of the GM dealerships identified for termination were in rural areas."


That is where raw, hard, sewage-filled Chicago politics came into play.


Records indicate that in 2008, Obama lost the vote totals in the nation's 1,300 rural counties by nearly 80%.


The Obama administration's insistence on radical numbers of closures ended up shuttering dealerships in those rural areas disproportionately, while dealerships and jobs in metro areas -- Obama's geographical base -- were left open.


Additionally, it has been widely theorized that dealers targeted for closure as a result of Obama's interference were predominantly those who donated campaign contributions to Republicans. Although evidence to date is largely anecdotal, given what we've already reported about the Obama administration's handling of the auto bailout, such speculation does have considerable grounds for support.


While that last point is leaves room for debate, the details contained in the Barofsky report are not. As Barofsky points out, the Obama administration was given an advance copy, and "Treasury [the Obama Treasury Department] might not agree with how the audit's conclusions portray the Auto Team's decision making or with the lessons that SIGTARP has drawn from those facts, but it should be made clear that Treasury has not challenged the essential underlying facts upon which those conclusions are based."


Included among those undisputed facts:


-"[D]ealerships were retained because they were ... minority- or woman-owned dealerships";


-Thousands of jobs were lost, unnecessarily, due specifically to Obama's "mandate for shared sacrifice";


-A disproportionate number of Obama-forced closings were of rural dealerships, in areas unfriendly to Obama, even though such closures could "jeopardize the return to profitability" for GM and Chrysler.


The media, of course, remain mute about these serious allegations in the Barofsky report. They have limited their coverage to the job loss numbers and tried to place the blame on Treasury Secretary Turbo-Tax Tim Geithner.


For now.


Before long, we'll be reading that it was somehow Bush's fault.
 
this is also something I posted at that time

with the exception of ONE closed dealership

ALL THOSE CLOSED WERE REPO CONTRIBUTORS!

:mad:
 
A good place to start:

The inspector general noted that “it is clear that tens of thousands of dealership jobs were immediately put in jeopardy as a result of the terminations by GM and Chrysler.” After extensive investigation, the watchdog concluded that “the acceleration of dealership closings was not done with any explicit cost savings to the manufacturers in mind.”
 
The real clincher:

Conclusions And Lessons Learned:

The conclusion that the manufacturers should close dealerships more rapidly than originally planned was also criticized as being potentially counterproductive; one expert opined, for example, that closing dealerships in an environment already disrupted by the recession could result in an even greater crisis in sales. ... The fact that, after the mandatory arbitration legislation was passed, suggests, at the very least, that the number and speed of the terminations was not necessarily critical to the manufacturers' viability.

Special Inspector General Neil M. Barofsky notes that the Obama administration rejected initial automaker plans which would have required relatively minimal dealership closings, insisting instead on far more drastic cuts -- as many as two thousand dealerships between the two corporations. He writes that “no one from Treasury, the manufacturers or from anywhere else indicated that implementing a smaller or more gradual dealership termination plan would have resulted in the cataclysmic scenario spelled out in Treasury’s response; indeed, when asked explicitly whether the Auto Team could have left the dealerships out of the restructurings, Mr. Bloom, the current head of the Auto Team, Ron Bloom, a former investment banker and head of collective bargaining for the United Steelworkers Union, confirmed that the Auto Team ‘could have left any one component (of the restructuring plan) alone,’ but that doing so would have been inconsistent with the President’s mandate for ‘shared sacrifice.’



Got that?

They closed the dealerships to SHARE THE SACRIFICE that union car workers were making ...
 
This is the picture that emerges from the Inspector General's report:

an Obama auto industry team made up of people unfamiliar with the auto industry, using data provided by major Obama campaign contributors, and reporting to a Task Force more interested in promoting global warming than in protecting American jobs.

What could possibly go wrong with that?

Just ask the tens of thousands of people who lost their jobs as a result.

And all for Obama's "shared sacrifice."
 
Chilling read.


Neil Barofsky, the federal watchdog overseeing the bank-auto-insurance-all-purpose bailout fund, found that the White House auto industry task force and the Treasury Department “Auto Team” had no basis for ordering the expedited car dealership closure schedules.


They relied on a single consulting firm’s internal report recommending that the U.S. companies adopt foreign auto industry models to increase profits — a recommendation hotly disputed by auto experts who questioned whether foreign practices could be applied to domestic American dealership networks.


The independent watchdog’s damning indictment of the arrogant bureaucrats in charge of nationalizing the U.S. auto industry — or the devastating consequences of politically-driven “shared sacrifice” with Obama, his SEIU cronies, and campaign lackeys behind the wheel.


The inspector general also noted that “it is clear that tens of thousands of dealership jobs were immediately put in jeopardy as a result of the terminations by GM and Chrysler.”

After extensive investigation, the watchdog concluded that “the acceleration of dealership closings was not done with any explicit cost savings to the manufacturers in mind.”



That about says it all.
 
More details here - the official audit:

http://www.sigtarp.gov/audits.shtml




Future audit numbers should include how many billions of dollars will be spent on litigation against those fighting to get their dealerships back. They've got pretty good evidence in the two reports to help support their fight.




...
 
Last edited:
That strikes close to home. also in the report there is quite a bit of Fluff in GM's Accounting ie lost projected incentive payments were shown as costs for wind down Dealerships. Enron Accounting anyone?
 
Back
Top