Why are people opposed to selling Chrysler to Fiat?

The politics of the situation are what people object to. Rather than go through regular, legal channels as outlined by Chapter 11 of the tax code, which offers stringent restructuring guidelines aimed at making a company stronger and healthier upon its emergence, this deal was brokered by the United States Government. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the President or the Government even remotely have the authority to do this.

When a company restructures, there is an "order of payment"., i.e., what money the company does have is to be paid to creditors, stockholders, employees, etc., following a specific structure, and in percentages that are decided upon by the court. Generally, the bondholders (those who have loaned the company money) are first in line to receive payment.

Under the Chrysler deal, Obama "strongarmed" the bondholders, calling them "greedy" and threatened to unleash the full force of the White House press corps upon them, publicly smearing them, if they did not accept lesser terms than they deserved. He then took what was legally due the bondholders and gave it to the UAW, which, aside from being legally entitled to nothing, gave Obama huge financial support during his campaign.

The bond holders are not fatcat Wall Street executives, by the way, they are Mutual Fund managers who manage the pension assets of teachers, fireman, policemen, and other working class people. These managers have a fiscal responsibility to their investors, they follow laws which have been skirted by the government in order to reward their own constituency.

Imagine that someone approached you and asked you for money so that he could start a business. He offers you a contract, in which he says that he will pay you interest on your money for a certain period of time, then pay you back the original amount. Your contract is backed by law, which states that if the business fails, you are to be paid first, before anyone else.

The business fails, the law is on your side, but then someone else who has a lot of power says, "No, sorry, you don't get all your money - this business has to give most of its money to my friend, instead".

That's what the Chrysler deal is about. The sale to Fiat, a foreign company, allows this deal to go through because the application of US law is much looser, or does not exist in a sale like this. It's a loophole to pay back the UAW for getting Obama elected.

THEY are worried about Foreign investment in an essential industry.

No one cared when Chrysler bought into Simca in the 60's(France) Maserati in the 70's (Italy) or Whoever made the Alliance line for Chrysler in the 80's ( car of the year in '84). Fiat is /was a socialist supported govt entity but not our govt.

The Foreign component didn't object when Nissan,Toyota and Mercedes-Benz built here, Fiat is just buying a building and equipment.

Fiat has poor reputation in terms of reliability, it can't sell well even in the less developed countries. It tries to break into the US market by taking over the control of Chrysler. Not much of political motives but business sense.

Fiat's aren't the best vehicles to drive and their reliability is apalling. If you let them buy your great American heritage, you too will be driving small poorly assembled sh*t boxed. No more Hemi's for you. By the way I'm not American and couldn't care less who buys Chrysler, but you could do better that Fiat.

Unfortunately, I think Fiats are cute, so I don't have a problem. But I'm sure people have their reasons. And you're right, it probably involves politics and finances.

I think the pension funds will suffer a huge loss if they take the deal as is. I'm not sure, but from the little I've bothered to pay attention to, this is a concern.

Have you ever DRIVEN a Fiat? What a piece if sh!t and they will do it to Chrysler.