quote NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The National Automobile Dealers Association is urging the federal government to begin shutting down the Cash for Clunkers program immediately. In a statement released Wednesday evening, NADA said that, given the rapid pace at which deals are being done, it will be difficult to say when the program's funds may run out. Dealers have complained of problems and delays in getting payments due to them under the program. But Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said earlier Wednesday that all dealers would be reimbursed. "They're gong to get their money," LaHood said during a press conference. "We have the money to provide to them. We have put an enormous number of people on the task of processing the paperwork. There will be no car dealer that won't be reimbursed." The NADA said, in its statement, that the group had "confirmed elsewhere" that dealers would not get paid if cash ran out. Still, the dealers' group said that it had held meetings with officials from the Department of Transportation and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Wednesday morning in order to reiterate concerns about the program. "As the first order of business, NADA stressed the importance of addressing - as soon as possible - how the program will end, including the possible suspension of the program," the organization said. NADA further warned that dealers who accept Clunkers deals at this point "face a growing risk that they may not be reimbursed. The Senate passed a $2 billion extension of the Cash for Clunkers program on Thursday. The program quickly burned through an initial $1 billion in funding after its official kick-off on July 24. So far, about $1.5 billion of claims have been submitted by dealers who have sold a total of about 360,000 cars.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/0..._clunkers_wind_down/

gong to get their money?

Shhhhh... I hear something.

Sounds like a printer... wonder what's coming off of it??

quote Originally posted by pHoOl: Shhhhh... I hear something. Sounds like a printer... wonder what's coming off of it??

I hear that stock in green ink and wheelbarrows are a good bet.

I hear something too. Jet plane Couriers going back and forth from DC to Bejing hauling US Treasury bonds..

quote Originally posted by maryjane: I hear something too. Jet plane Couriers going back and forth from DC to Bejing hauling US Treasury bonds..

Or maybe US Junk Bonds?

Another Obama bomb.

I can just picture this scenario....."clunker" gets traded in on a new car. Purchaser gets his $4500 rebate and drives off happy. Dealer goes about submitting the paperwork and tells the shagger (or whomever) to go kill the engine. Engine is seized and car is hauled away and crushed. Dealer gets letter from Obama saying "Sorry.....my bad, but we have no more money for the CARS program, so we can't send you your $4500".

A program that is supposed to help the dealerships may very well hasten their demise. Idiocy at it's finest right here.


Another slant to this scenario is the dealership then attaches $4500 to the new car purchasers note (not sure if that is possible, but who knows?). Purchaser says no F'n way.....take your car back and give me my old car back. Obviously that can't happen, so now what?? This could have huge legal ramifications if not handled properly.

And if all dealers do get a guarantee of reimbursement then what happens if the additional $2B dries up before the doors close......just how much more money are we going to throw away on this farce?

Opps, double post. It's early.

[This message has been edited by red88gt (edited 08-20-2009).]

It was a messed up program from the start, but even if it actually worked out aren't we supposed to be stimualting our own countries economy by buying American cars instead of imports? So why are they offering rebates on foreign cars? And don't say that some of the imports are made here because the profits go back over seas. Or am I wrong about that?

And the Obama supporters want the government running their health care? I don't think so.

quote Originally posted by kyunderdawg: So why are they offering rebates on foreign cars? Or am I wrong about that?

Because, politicians in other states which have manufacturing plants of foreign makes demanded it for support of the bill. That and without foreign cars being eligible, it would be seen as a protectionist move in the world of international trade.
And, yes, you are wrong about that.

[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 08-20-2009).]

quote Originally posted by kyunderdawg: And don't say that some of the imports are made here because the profits go back over seas. Or am I wrong about that?

How about the jobs? The bulk of the profits go over seas to the corporation, but there are a lot of Americans working in those "import" plants.
Isn't the point of the stimulus to save jobs?

quote Originally posted by cliffw: Because, politicians in other states which have manufacturing plants of foreign makes demanded it for support of the bill. That and without foreign cars being eligible, it would be seen as a protectionist move in the world of international trade. And, yes, you are wrong about that.

Yep he is wrong about that. Profits ALWAYS go back to the nation of origin--where corporate is located--where registration of ownership is. Always. The only expenditures here are the costs of the vehicle-labor and materials.

The primary purpose, as stated by the Obama administration was to spur sales in the automotive industry--it didn't specify which segment, but it goes without saying, that they needed to reward UAW workers for their voting habits and to try to keep those voters "in the tank".

Profits for Honda, Toyota, etc do go overseas, but the workers salaries and their income tax, FICA dollars stay here. The US automakers use the profits for lobbists to bribe the politicians for bailout $ or C4C programs and the like. The new car buyer will get stuck for the $$ if his C4C car gets rejected. Read the fine print. That C4C deal doesn't look that good when you add back in that vanishing C4C discount.

ACORN for the auto industry.

quote Originally posted by Old Lar: Profits for Honda, Toyota, etc do go overseas, adding to the trade deficit, but the workers salaries and their income tax, FICA dollars stay here. The US automakers use the profits for lobbists to bribe the politicians for bailout $ or C4C programs and the like. The new car buyer will get stuck for the $$ if his C4C car gets rejected. Read the fine print. That C4C deal doesn't look that good when you add back in that vanishing C4C discount.

corrected.

quote Originally posted by red88gt: When you sign for the car, you also sign a paper indicating that if for any reason, the dealership does not get paid from the government, you are liable for the additional cash. Yes, your trade-in will already be long gone by the time the dealer realizes he's not getting paid. It would be a P.R. disaster for the Obama administration if this were to happen. I can't see the individual being held liable, just the taxpayers. I do however think this program will not end well. I believe there's going to be a whole bunch of repos down the road as lots of people bought new cars that couldn't afford'em & only qualified because the government gave them a $ 4,500 down payment. Think about it, these people were driving a clunker with no car payments & just liability insurance. Now, they have a car note & their insurance has doubled because they have a shiny new car & they also now need collision & comprehensive insurance on it. Minimum payment between the two, probally $ 500 a month ?. Do ya really think all those people were driving a clunker because they had an extra $ 500 a month ?

Exactly what I have been telling my friends and neighbors. Very good point!

Tony

The government handing out money: who would have ever thought people would line up to get that free money?

Instead of all these "stimulants" for the economy costing trillions of dollars, we could have just stopped all income tax collection for the whole year and still came out less in debt than we are now. Imagine how much the economy would be stimulated if everyone had $3000+ more money this year?

Naaaa. The administration would rather take your money, then give it back only if you jump through the right hoops so they can control what you do.

The problem with a tax holiday is that it wouldn't buy votes for the dems, who feed on the poor and mis-informed. The only way for dems to get votes is to buy them through programs like "stimulus" and "cash for clunkers"..... I agree, I would rather have the tax dollars.... maybe I would have purchased new windows for the house, or hired a local contractor for a new roof. OH well, I will just wait it out as my money is thrown away by Obama and his mob.

J.

[This message has been edited by jaskispyder (edited 08-20-2009).]

Just another example of a highly successful gov't program!

Doctors have to be wondering how long it might take to get paid from the gov't health care option being proposed after seeing how long it takes to write a few checks to a few car dealers. Instead of 16,000 claimants, the gov't would suddenly have 100 million!

quote Originally posted by the article: have put an enormous number of people on the task of processing the paperwork.

Ironically, the more people they have processing paperwork, the less money the program has for the actual cars.

Messiah Obama had a press converence this afternoon bragging about how this plan is working so well, "dealers havent had these sales for many years" I heard that quote in my own ears watching him say it. Sure its great because he hasnt actually paid any dealers anything yet.

What's wrong with this picture?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009...ness/21clunkers.html

First we--the taxpayer bails them out, cuz they're broke--then they steal ownership from the stockholders and wham bam thank you mam--they have money to "lend" to the govt. What a deal!!

quote DETROIT — General Motors said Thursday that it would begin advancing dealers the cash that they are owed from the government’s “cash for clunkers” program, after the dealers complained of delays in getting reimbursed for rebates they gave to car buyers. Some dealers have pulled out of the program, formally called the Car Allowance Rebate System, saying it was costing them too much time and causing cash-flow problems. A dealers’ group in metropolitan New York said about half of its 425 members had stopped participating as of this week. “Our sales performance in the past two months has exceeded our internal forecast by over 60,000 vehicles, largely driven by the CARS stimulus program,” said Mark LaNeve, vice president for United States sales. “We want to do all we can to provide customers with timely new-vehicle deliveries and dealers the liquidity they need to run their businesses.” The program has created a surge in demand since it began July 24, prompting G.M., the Ford Motor Company and Honda to increase production to replenish inventories on dealers’ lots. G.M. said this week that it would run some plants on overtime and call back 1,350 workers so it could build more vehicles. The program gives a credit of $3,500 or $4,500 to consumers who turn in an older car or truck with poor gas mileage and buy a new, more efficient vehicle. Dealers give their customers the discount, then submit a 13-page application to the Transportation Department for reimbursement. Only a small fraction of the reimbursement requests have been paid. The Transportation Department is tripling the number of workers processing the forms to ease the backlog. “I don’t know one dealership that’s gotten paid yet,” said Laura Sodano, a sales manager at Curry Chevrolet in Scarsdale, N.Y. “If they run out, we’re in trouble. It’s bringing us a lot of traffic, but it’s not a very good program.”

A precursor of how a government run Healthcare Program would work

quote Funding for the program is expected to run out in early September. The National Automobile Dealers Association this week warned that the chances a dealer would get reimbursed could diminish as the program nears an end. G.M. made the decision to give dealers cash advances late Wednesday, after officials said earlier that the company was “not in a position” to do so. G.M. said it would give dealers the amount they are owed for sales that have already been completed and for all new sales made under the program as long as it remains in effect.

Ya still think it's shouldn't be called "Government Motors?

Lets see if I'm understanding this right.
First the government convinces you into thinking your car is a clunker because it gets less than xx mpg.

Then if it does get 1 mpg over the threshold the gov comes up with their own avg mpg and the hell with what the window sticker said it would get new.

Next the gov is going to make it seem like they're offering "you" $4500 dollars to fall for this act if you buy a new car that gets xx mpg better than what you traded.

Then the gov convinces you to allow your old car to be deliberately blown up and then crushed for good measure.

Now its the dealers turn. The gov has the dealers front their own money "$4500" for each car sold with the promise of reinbursing them soooomme-day.

On top of that the dealer is responsible for seeing that the traded car is destroyed before seeing 1 cent from the gov.

Sounds like the new car buyers and the dealers have been suckered.

Some of those so called clunkers I saw crushed on u-tube looked better than some of the stuff I drive. I didn't see one hoopdee being destroyed.

It used to be the dealer $crewing the buyer but now its the gov $crewing the dealer as if he hasn't already seen hard times.

Scotty,,, beam me up !!

Spoon

quote Originally posted by maryjane: The primary purpose, as stated by the Obama administration was to spur sales in the automotive industry--it didn't specify which segment, but it goes without saying, that they needed to reward UAW workers for their voting habits and to try to keep those voters "in the tank".

Yeah, but. Not many, if any, auto workers who work at foreign car plants here in America, belong to the UAW.

quote Originally posted by Doug85GT: The administration would rather take your money, then give it back only if you jump through the right hoops so they can control what you do.

Oh, I am sure you are on the list.

A lot of local dealers here announced yesterday they will not participate any longer in the plan...unless they all get nice big government checks already owed to them before its over Monday. So if you around Columbus, dont go trying to get your $4500 rebate...aint gonna happen.

quote "As the first order of business, NADA stressed the importance of addressing - as soon as possible - how the program will end, including the possible suspension of the program," the organization said.

That there is funny, its a government entitlement program, they never end.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: Yeah, but. Not many, if any, auto workers who work at foreign car plants here in America, belong to the UAW.

And that addressed my post--How?

Here is how cash for clunkers is economic insanity...

Dough for Dumps?
(from Peter Schiff)

After having given away billions faster than even the optimists had anticipated, it was announced today that the federal government's "Cash for Clunkers" program is coming to an early end. But, based on the standards of economic analysis which prevail in Washington, Wall Street and academia, the program must be considered a master stroke of public policy. These experts will tell you that by mandating that citizens destroy older (but still working) vehicles to receive $4,500 toward the purchase of a new car, the program not only revved up the economy by encouraging Americans to borrow more, but it may have, perhaps, made some great strides in saving the planet by reducing carbon emissions.

With this solid win-win now on the books, the time has come to put the strategy to work in other areas. For instance, the government could use these lessons learned to help the moribund housing sector. I propose the "Dough for Dumps" stimulus program. Here's how it would work:

Homeowners struggling to make payments on environmentally inefficient homes can apply for government aid to destroy their old homes and receive guaranteed loans to buy newly constructed houses, provided they are furnished with the latest "green" advancements in energy systems and building materials. As with the "Cash for Clunkers" program, this plan would solve many problems at once.

First, it will help put a floor under falling home prices by reducing the glut of houses currently on the market. The best way to stop prices from falling, and thereby reduce the foreclosure wave, is to reduce supply.

Left alone, the market would do this by lowering prices, which would bring more buyers into the market. But this approach falls on the back of homeowners whose only crime was to overpay for a house. A more socially equitable method would be for all taxpayers to shoulder the burden through a government bulldozing program.

In addition to contracting the supply of homes, the program would also stimulate the economy by providing funds to hire environmentally savvy builders and contractors (not to mention the workers needed to demolish the old homes). The resulting demand would help to reduce unemployment, especially in the housing sector. Government incentives and subsidies could also give an important boost to the developers and manufacturers of "green" windows, solar heating systems, furnaces and water systems.

Once this program has rejuvenated the real estate market, citizens should also be encouraged to burn their old furniture and clothing, thereby sparking demand for new goods from our nation's struggling retailers. When you think about it, the possibilities are endless.

If these proposals seem ridiculous, it is because they are. But they are no less ridiculous than the "Cash for Clunkers" program that inspired them. All are examples of the "broken window" fallacy of economics, which argues that economic activity can be stimulated by the need to replace something that has been destroyed.

Unfortunately, many of our "best" economists subscribe to the notion. But society gains nothing from redundant activities. Digging holes just to fill them up does employ workers, but the work offers no benefit to anyone not receiving the wage. Absent government incentives, such a job would create no profit and could only exist as a result of a subsidy from someone else. Such work also prevents workers from accomplishing tasks that create real wealth and actually benefit society.

In the case of "Cash for Clunkers," the government provided an incentive for citizens to destroy otherwise working assets, fully owned by their users, in exchange for a smattering of "green" tech and a lot more debt. Could anyone look at our country now and determine that our problems stem from a lack of new cars? Given our level of economic output, it is likely that we already have too many cars. On the other hand, it should be obvious to anyone that American consumers are already burdened by too much debt. The program distorts the market by giving car owners a powerful incentive to take out new loans for cars they may not need.

The environmental benefits of the program are much more difficult to quantify and extremely unlikely to overcome the waste inherent in the wanton destruction of working assets. On a practical level, the premature shelving of working cars will add extra pressures to our waste management capacity, and create emissions and pollution through the compaction/incineration processes that accompanies disposal. On an abstract level, this program punishes every consumer who sought to be ahead of the curve in environmental responsibility by using their own resources to upgrade a clunker. Some may think twice before making such a move without government money on the table.

More fundamentally however is the question of making wise decisions in a recession. Given the fragility of our finances, we should use our resources wisely, pay down our debt, replenish our depleted savings, and make investments in time and energy that offer a tangible benefit. The "Cash for Clunkers" program is the exact opposite of what we need and a glaring example of the lack of economic understanding currently on tap in Washington.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Here is how cash for clunkers is economic insanity... Dough for Dumps? (from Peter Schiff) After having given away billions faster than even the optimists had anticipated, it was announced today that the federal government's "Cash for Clunkers" program is coming to an early end. But, based on the standards of economic analysis which prevail in Washington, Wall Street and academia, the program must be considered a master stroke of public policy. These experts will tell you that by mandating that citizens destroy older (but still working) vehicles to receive $4,500 toward the purchase of a new car, the program not only revved up the economy by encouraging Americans to borrow more, but it may have, perhaps, made some great strides in saving the planet by reducing carbon emissions. With this solid win-win now on the books, the time has come to put the strategy to work in other areas. For instance, the government could use these lessons learned to help the moribund housing sector. I propose the "Dough for Dumps" stimulus program. Here's how it would work: Homeowners struggling to make payments on environmentally inefficient homes can apply for government aid to destroy their old homes and receive guaranteed loans to buy newly constructed houses, provided they are furnished with the latest "green" advancements in energy systems and building materials. As with the "Cash for Clunkers" program, this plan would solve many problems at once. First, it will help put a floor under falling home prices by reducing the glut of houses currently on the market. The best way to stop prices from falling, and thereby reduce the foreclosure wave, is to reduce supply. Left alone, the market would do this by lowering prices, which would bring more buyers into the market. But this approach falls on the back of homeowners whose only crime was to overpay for a house. A more socially equitable method would be for all taxpayers to shoulder the burden through a government bulldozing program. In addition to contracting the supply of homes, the program would also stimulate the economy by providing funds to hire environmentally savvy builders and contractors (not to mention the workers needed to demolish the old homes). The resulting demand would help to reduce unemployment, especially in the housing sector. Government incentives and subsidies could also give an important boost to the developers and manufacturers of "green" windows, solar heating systems, furnaces and water systems. Once this program has rejuvenated the real estate market, citizens should also be encouraged to burn their old furniture and clothing, thereby sparking demand for new goods from our nation's struggling retailers. When you think about it, the possibilities are endless. If these proposals seem ridiculous, it is because they are. But they are no less ridiculous than the "Cash for Clunkers" program that inspired them. All are examples of the "broken window" fallacy of economics, which argues that economic activity can be stimulated by the need to replace something that has been destroyed. Unfortunately, many of our "best" economists subscribe to the notion. But society gains nothing from redundant activities. Digging holes just to fill them up does employ workers, but the work offers no benefit to anyone not receiving the wage. Absent government incentives, such a job would create no profit and could only exist as a result of a subsidy from someone else. Such work also prevents workers from accomplishing tasks that create real wealth and actually benefit society. In the case of "Cash for Clunkers," the government provided an incentive for citizens to destroy otherwise working assets, fully owned by their users, in exchange for a smattering of "green" tech and a lot more debt. Could anyone look at our country now and determine that our problems stem from a lack of new cars? Given our level of economic output, it is likely that we already have too many cars. On the other hand, it should be obvious to anyone that American consumers are already burdened by too much debt. The program distorts the market by giving car owners a powerful incentive to take out new loans for cars they may not need. The environmental benefits of the program are much more difficult to quantify and extremely unlikely to overcome the waste inherent in the wanton destruction of working assets. On a practical level, the premature shelving of working cars will add extra pressures to our waste management capacity, and create emissions and pollution through the compaction/incineration processes that accompanies disposal. On an abstract level, this program punishes every consumer who sought to be ahead of the curve in environmental responsibility by using their own resources to upgrade a clunker. Some may think twice before making such a move without government money on the table.

Consider the 'off the lot' depreciation most people will see in 'Value' of the car?
What % of these new cars are being financed?
Banks stand the most to gain. They were the first in line to get bailed out. They may be still at the table?

I hate to see car's wasted........
Recycled, yes, but crushed for political propaganda / someone eles's utopian view?
Is the scrap going to China, or is it being used domesticaly?

------------------
Ol' Paint, 88 Base coupe auto.
Turning white on top, like owner.
Leaks a little, like owner.
Doesn't smoke....... OK, we're trying to quit.