Car Dealers say Clunkers a Failure

[jberryhill]

If the Federal Government is all about bailing or buying out failing elements of our economy, then why not just give the incompetent auto industry the tax dollars directly?

Because a $4500 incentive to purchase a Ford Focus (the most popular car purchased) is not the same as handing anyone $4500. The list price of the Focus is $15,995 - $18,485.

The actual amount of the incentive depends on the car taken off the road and the car purchased, and is not $4500 in each instance.

[Doc Com]

Um...JB.

Why are explaining the Cash for Clunkers program 3 pages and 41 posts into the conversation?

No one posts a comment or a reply without knowing the sides of the point being raised.

[PRED]

thats a great hemorrhoid treatment domain you have in your siggy doc

[think]

Originally Posted by JMJ

Survey: Car Dealers say Clunkers a Failure as 97% Report Problems, Call for Program to Stop

Car Dealer Review

8/20/2009

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.

But Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said earlier Wednesday that all dealers would be reimbursed.

However, the NADA said, in its statement, that the group had “confirmed elsewhere” that dealers would not get paid if cash ran out.

In a survey nearly 800 dealers,

97% of dealers who responded, say the government is not reimbursing fast enough
13% of dealers have dropped out the program because the government is not reimbursing fast enough and overall concern payment problems
87% percent of dealers are concerned the money will be exhausted
3% of CARS program deals have been reimbursed
66% of dealers have not received one payment from the government
25% of dealers are experiencing serve re cash flow problems that require short-term loans to fix
11% of submitted applications have been approved (though dealers still are waiting for the money)
16% of submitted applications have been rejected
55% of dealers are not confident they will get reimbursed for every deal
40% do not want the program to continue, even if changes are made to the CARS program
.

READER REACTION

“The lack of cash is killing us,” one dealer said in the survey. “The lack of any kind of feedback from the government for the rebate applications is appalling.”

“My office manager got so fed up last week, she threatened to quit.”

“As I stated when the program first started, do not roll out a program until all the i’s are dotted and the t’s are crossed. That is just good business 101.”

“We stopped because we have only gotten two payments out of 120,” another dealer said. “They keep rejecting for various reasons, and the process is entirely too slow.”

“As a dealer, I would just as soon this program had never been approved despite the sales,” one respondent said. “It is a nightmare for all of us.”

http://www.cardealerreviews.org/?p=116533

After doing a great deal of research it is apparent that this is a hit piece. A hit piece is where someone takes a sliver of truth and then alters it in order to make it look like a certain group is taking a position and saying things when they aren't.

Here are five very important things to note:

1. NADA did not do this survey as it is implied by the article. (The article has been changed at the site since this posting to show the poll was done by AutoNews.com but does not disclose this is an unscientific online poll.)

2. CarDealerReviews.org is a website with a domain registered July 30 2009 with the owner hidden by proxy.

3. The author of the article is ADMIN.

4. The comments are attributed to no one and do not appear on any statements by NADA

5. After searching the entire internet every article posted in regards to this survey points back to CarDealerReviews.org as their source.

The article at CarDealerReviews.org was completely misleading as originally posted above as NADA did not do that survey as it seemed. The site now shows the poll was done by AutoNews.com not NADA. AutoNews.com is a publication of the Crain Communications group, a large publishing conglomerate:

Crain Communications Inc is a major publishing conglomerate based in Detroit, Michigan. The company publishes a variety of trade newspapers, including some city-based business newspapers, such as Crain's Cleveland Business, Crain's Chicago Business, Crain's Detroit Business, and Crain's New York Business, and Crain's Manchester Business. These weeklies follow the same formula, including finance, manufacturing, health care, real estate, technology, and government sections, as well as an "in-depth" section. In addition to newspaper production, the editors maintain Internet versions of these papers and offer e-mail news briefs free of charge.

Crain also produces a number of major industry/trade periodicals, including Advertising Age, TelevisionWeek, BtoB, Creativity, Automobilwoche (in German), Automotive News, Automotive News Europe, AutoWeek, American Coin-Op, American Drycleaner, American Laundry News, Business Insurance, Business Insurance Europe, European Rubber Journal, Financial Week, Investment News, Modern Healthcare, Pensions & Investments, Plastics News, RCR Wireless News, Rubber & Plastics News, Tire Business, Urethanes Technology, Waste News, and Workforce Management. All have web sites as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crain_Communications

Truthaboutcars.com noted this and made sure the poll was attributed to AutoNews.com and that the site had admitted the poll was an online poll and not scientific:

Would you believe that two-thirds of all car dealers are still waiting for their first clunker check? Could you imagine that only three percent of all clunker deals have been been blessed by NHTSA? Automotive News [sub] has the survey for you! The only problem is that AN admits the poll was unscientific. Plus, it was an online poll. Still, the headline looks good beneath a headline in which NADA admonishes that dealers are “at risk” in making further clunker deals. And NADA’s internal surveys show that all the clunker money is already gone, reinforcing the apocalyptic tone of the AN survey.
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/dea...-for-clunkers/

However, you cannot find this poll or it's results anywhere on the Autonews.com site or elsewhere on the internet. also neither NADA nor Autonews.com have any public statements that reflect the results of this supposed poll.

This thread exemplifies how hard it is to get the truth and what some individuals and corporations will do to color the truth of the debate. I hope you can see through these hit pieces from unknown sources that are working to undermine Obama's efforts on the economy and health care.

[JMJ]

Originally Posted by think

After doing a great deal of research it is apparent that this is a hit piece. A hit piece is where someone takes a sliver of truth and then alters it in order to make it look like a certain group is taking a position and saying things when they aren't.

Here are five very important things to note:

1. NADA did not do this survey as it is implied by the article. (The article has been changed at the site since this posting to show the poll was done by AutoNews.com but does not disclose this is an unscientific online poll.)

2. CarDealerReviews.org is a website with a domain registered July 30 2009 with the owner hidden by proxy.

3. The author of the article is ADMIN.

4. The comments are attributed to no one and do not appear on any statements by NADA

5. After searching the entire internet every article posted in regards to this survey points back to CarDealerReviews.org as their source.

The article at CarDealerReviews.org was completely misleading as originally posted above as NADA did not do that survey as it seemed. The site now shows the poll was done by AutoNews.com not NADA. AutoNews.com is a publication of the Crain Communications group, a large publishing conglomerate:



Truthaboutcars.com noted this and made sure the poll was attributed to AutoNews.com and that the site had admitted the poll was an online poll and not scientific:



However, you cannot find this poll or it's results anywhere on the Autonews.com site or elsewhere on the internet. also neither NADA nor Autonews.com have any public statements that reflect the results of this supposed poll.

This thread exemplifies how hard it is to get the truth and what some individuals and corporations will do to color the truth of the debate. I hope you can see through these hit pieces from unknown sources that are working to undermine Obama's efforts on the economy and health care.

It wasn't a poll it was a survey done by NADA itself. It's all over all other auto news sites. In your extensive research you apparently didn't google the terms "nada clunkers dealer survey" or various other combinations. Hell it was even on my local news the day I posted this.

[think]

Originally Posted by JMJ

It wasn't a poll it was a survey done by NADA itself. It's all over all other auto news sites. In your extensive research you apparently didn't google the terms "nada clunkers dealer survey" or various other combinations. Hell it was even on mylocal news the day I posted this.

I did Google the term and I actually READ the articles. Go back to your source and read it again as they have changed it right at the source! They added two words which changes the whole context of this piece of shit article. "Automotive news" :

In an Automotive News survey of nearly 800 dealers,

http://www.cardealerreviews.org/?p=116533

The survey NADA only stated that the program should be halted as it showed the funds allotted were depleted. It had nothing to do with the numbers you posted. The poll was done by AutoNews.com and that is the main body of your posted article and has all the bullshit that is suppose to be representative of car dealers based on an unscientific online poll (That means they weren't checking to see who was clicking!):

According to the NADA chairman John McEleney, "National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) officials have asked the government to suspend the cash for clunkers program because a survey by the group found that the $3 billion fund has been exhausted."

As McEleney said, "We asked them to put a halt to the program." This announcement came yesterday morning. By suspending the program for now, dealers will have time to submit all pending clunkers claims allowing the government to determine if any additional money is left after all claims are accounted for.

NADA made their suggestion to the government after conducting an electronic interview of its 18,000 dealer members throughout the U.S. earlier this week. According to the survey results, which included only a limited number of respondents,
http://www.allcarselectric.com/blog/...am-ends-monday

Show me one article on the internet where NADA says:

* 97% of dealers who responded, say the government is not reimbursing fast enough
* 13% of dealers have dropped out the program because the government is not reimbursing fast enough
* 87% percent of dealers are concerned the money will be exhausted
* 3% of CARS program deals have been reimbursed
* 66% of dealers have not received one payment from the government
* 25% of dealers are experiencing severe cash flow problems that require short-term loans to alleviate
* 11% of submitted applications have been approved (though dealers still are waiting for the money)
* 16% of submitted applications have been rejected
* 55% of dealers are not confident they will get reimbursed for every deal
* 40% do not want the program to continue, even if changes are made to the CARS program

That fact is you can't because it is totally untrue!

[Seraphim]

Originally Posted by jberryhill

Because a $4500 incentive to purchase a Ford Focus (the most popular car purchased) is not the same as handing anyone $4500. The list price of the Focus is $15,995 - $18,485.

The actual amount of the incentive depends on the car taken off the road and the car purchased, and is not $4500 in each instance.

What I meant was direct funds for restructuring well above and beyond the 3 billion in jump start incentives. Something more robust that could create jobs, help fund greener auto technologies, and would be aimed more at the long term health and sustainability of the industry. In a time where people are supposedly tight on cash, is encouraging more personal debt and financial risk the best solution? I'm not an auto executive or an economist, but the picture that was painted by our own government is that the American auto industry is in ruins. If $3 billion in purchase incentives was all the shock therapy the industry as a whole needed to recover, then why the bankruptcies? Is GMC filing bankruptcy not as bad as what it's being made out to be?

And actually, according to the Wall Street Journal, the two most popular cars purchased via this program were the Toyota Corolla and Honda Civic, with the Ford Focus coming in third. This fact adds a bit more fog to the playing field too, because both the Civic and Corolla are heavily tied into Japan's auto industry. To what degree they benefit the US auto industry in comparrison to our own domestic automobile manufacturers I can't say. I will try and find an answer to that.

[JMJ]

Did you read this article.

"NADA, which claims that 92 percent of U.S. automobile dealers are members, polled them in a survey that ended Monday. The survey found that 17 percent of the clunker applications totaling $544 million have not been submitted yet to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which is in charge of this program.

More than 70 percent, or nearly $2.2 billion, in reimbursement claims have been submitted but not processed.

Slightly more than 6 percent of the applications have been rejected for various reasons, including missing or incorrect data. These can be resubmitted.

The NADA survey found that 5 percent of applications have been approved and await payment totaling $196 million. And less than 3 percent of the claims, totaling $108,000, have been paid as of Monday.

The NADA surveyed 2,866 members."

http://billingsgazette.com/news/loca...cc4c03286.html

Another

"Our survey opened the eyes of the Transportation Department."

Read more: http://www.autoweek.com/article/2009...#ixzz0P2h14dXM

Another

“We asked them to put a halt to the program, I think we said ‘very soon’, but a suspension at midnight tonight would make sense,” McEleney said in an interview Wednesday. “Our survey opened the eyes of the Transportation Department.”

http://scoop.chrysler.com/2009/08/20...nkers-program/

There quite obviously IS a survey. And you can assume that since these numbers are different than the OP that the numbers are being updated as more information comes in.

And in regards to John 30 day payment guarantee

"Dealers are supposed to be reimbursed within 10 days of the application being accepted, but that hasn't happened because of high demand. The NHTSA is trying to triple the number of workers handling the claims."

A classic case of keeping information from the public. They don't want the negative news about the program to be reported. Just like you don't want it to be true.

[think]

Originally Posted by JMJ

Did you read the very first article?

"NADA, which claims that 92 percent of U.S. automobile dealers are members, polled them in a survey that ended Monday. The survey found that 17 percent of the clunker applications totaling $544 million have not been submitted yet to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which is in charge of this program.

More than 70 percent, or nearly $2.2 billion, in reimbursement claims have been submitted but not processed.

Slightly more than 6 percent of the applications have been rejected for various reasons, including missing or incorrect data. These can be resubmitted.

The NADA survey found that 5 percent of applications have been approved and await payment totaling $196 million. And less than 3 percent of the claims, totaling $108,000, have been paid as of Monday.

The NADA surveyed 2,866 members."

http://billingsgazette.com/news/loca...cc4c03286.html

There quite obviously IS a survey.

You are now posting survey results that are completely different than the ones in the original post.

In fact some of the results CONTRADICT your original post!:

Original post:

16% of submitted applications have been rejected

Now you post only 6% of submitted applications have been rejected according to the NADA survey. WHICH IS IT?

Here are the numbers that are scathing and make it look like auto dealers are outraged and these are survey numbers YOU posted:

* 97% of dealers who responded, say the government is not reimbursing fast enough
* 13% of dealers have dropped out the program because the government is not reimbursing fast enough
* 87% percent of dealers are concerned the money will be exhausted
* 3% of CARS program deals have been reimbursed
* 66% of dealers have not received one payment from the government
* 25% of dealers are experiencing severe cash flow problems that require short-term loans to alleviate
* 11% of submitted applications have been approved (though dealers still are waiting for the money)
* 16% of submitted applications have been rejected
* 55% of dealers are not confident they will get reimbursed for every deal
* 40% do not want the program to continue, even if changes are made to the CARS program

NADA's survey has nothing to do with the AutoNews.com poll except for the misleading article which allowed readers to assume it was the same survey. The sad fact is there are many websites now quoting the original misleading article. That makes people think this was the results of a National Auto Dealers Association (NADA) survey.

The actual survey by NADA of it's membership carries a great deal of weight as far as credibility goes and is no no way comparable to some UNSCIENTIFIC ONLINE SURVEY which is the basis for the numbers in the article. I know when I first read your article I was thinking the information was being provided by NADA and considered it a reliable source for this information.

This is lying through deception. This is why the author's name is ADMIN. This is why the site was created on July 31 2009 with the whois info hidden. This is why the quotes in the article aren't attributed to anyone but leave one to believe it is part of data from the NADA survey.

Yes some of the information in the article is true. But the main message has been altered and facts omitted in order to imply things that are completely bullshit. IT IS A HIT PIECE!

[JMJ]

Look man. We aren't going to get the complete truth from any one source this day and age. Especially with so many hidden agendas. This is why you have to look at MANY different sources and draw your own conclusion. There is disinformation coming from all sides of many arguments. The simple fact of the matter is there obviously is a survey and it obviously shut the program down. If you want the actual numbers then call NADA up and ask them for them. While your at it ask them why they didn't make them public to begin with. Maybe because they "opened the eyes of the Transportation Department” and they didn't want to open the eyes of the general public?

[jberryhill]

If $3 billion in purchase incentives was all the shock therapy the industry as a whole needed to recover, then why the bankruptcies?

Not only is the question based on a premise which nobody claimed, but the question is chronologically defective.

We're not going to know for certain which cars were the top purchases (nor how many models of each manufacturer were among the top). CNN, for example, has the Focus at #1, but considering that the program is still going on as we speak, rankings are premature.

Look man. We aren't going to get the complete truth from any one source this day and age. Especially with so many hidden agendas. This is why you have to look at MANY different sources and draw your own conclusion

No, that is not how one evaluates information. Basic critical thinking skills do not involve looking at a range of data and then applying confirmation bias. Your response to the effect that the same source was cited in numerous articles is not a counterargument to Think's observation that those numerous articles all cite the same source. What one might do is, as Doc Com and I have both done, is to determine whether actual DEALERS are supporting the program. What I found was that either the dealers in my area are wildly unrepresentative, or something is screwy with the figures.

But, really, claiming an exigent crisis over not receiving payments in less than 30 days from a claim remains amazing to me.

[JMJ]

Originally Posted by jberryhill

No, that is not how one evaluates information. Basic critical thinking skills do not involve looking at a range of data and then applying confirmation bias. Your response to the effect that the same source was cited in numerous articles is not a counterargument to Think's observation that those numerous articles all cite the same source. What one might do is, as Doc Com and I have both done, is to determine whether actual DEALERS are supporting the program. What I found was that either the dealers in my area are wildly unrepresentative, or something is screwy with the figures.

But, really, claiming an exigent crisis over not receiving payments in less than 30 days from a claim remains amazing to me.

None of those articles quote anyone but the mysterious NADA survey. My critical thinking teacher in High School was asked to resign because she claimed I cheated on her exam after making a 100 and it was proven otherwise. So don't try and tell me how to think and decipher information.

[jberryhill]

Ah, ah, ah JMJ. Remember. You aren't talking to me anymore.

[Seraphim]

Originally Posted by jberryhill

Not only is the question based on a premise which nobody claimed, but the question is chronologically defective.

We're not going to know for certain which cars were the top purchases (nor how many models of each manufacturer were among the top). CNN, for example, has the Focus at #1, but considering that the program is still going on as we speak, rankings are premature.

Lawyer talk for I won't admit I was wrong, and have no source? Is that question chronologically defective as well?

Toyota Corolla still Cash for Clunkers top seller - The Associated Press
Toyota biggest beneficiary of clunker cash - The Detroit News
Toyota's Corolla Top-Selling Vehicle In US 'Clunkers' Program - Wall Street Journal

[jberryhill]

Lawyer talk for I won't admit I was wrong, and have no source. Or is that chronologically defective as well?

You are commingling two things.

You asked:

If $3 billion in purchase incentives was all the shock therapy the industry as a whole needed to recover, then why the bankruptcies?

I didn't think you needed it spelled out in response that:

1. Nobody claimed it was "all the shock therapy the industry as a whole needed to recover" and

2. GM was bankrupt BEFORE C4C.

As far as sources on which cars are most popular, CNN has the Ford Focus as #1:

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2009/...lunker_top_10/

As does Yahoo Autos:

http://autos.yahoo.com/articles/auto...-and-new-cars/

1. Ford Focus
2. Honda Civic
3. Toyota Corolla
4. Toyota Prius
5. Ford Escape
6. Toyota Camry
7. Dodge Caliber
8. Hyundai Elantra
9. Honda Fit
10. Chevy Cobalt

The point being that the numbers are not all in yet. But from that list, you don't know whether the net of Ford (Focus, Escape) is, or is not, greater than the net of Toyota (Corolla, Prius, Camry). Off the top of my head, though, I don't know which Toyota or Honda models are built in the US. The fact remains, though, that I am hard pressed to find any US car manufacturer, dealer, or consumer who thinks the program was a bad idea. I'm sure there must be, but as Think pointed out, the "survey" posted here seems to have come from nowhere.

But, I'll tell you what gets really tiring in these childish discussions. Yes, I'm a lawyer with advanced degrees in engineering, so we can all ***** about "lawyer talk".

I guess if I signed up under a pseudonym, so that nobody knew I was a grade school dropout who parked cars for a living, then I'd be SO much more credible. Is that your point?

[think]

Originally Posted by JMJ

None of those articles quote anyone but the mysterious NADA survey. My critical thinking teacher in High School was asked to resign because she claimed I cheated on her exam after making a 100 and it was proven otherwise. So don't try and tell me how to think and decipher information.

Your own source CarDealerReviews.org now says the survey results you posted are from an AUTOMOTIVE NEWS survey not from the NADA survey.

What is there to decipher?

NADA did not produce the survey results quoted in your original post. It's that simple!

[jberryhill]

My critical thinking teacher in High School was asked to resign

I knew that attorneys can be disbarred for malpractice, but I never knew they did that to teachers.

[JMJ]

Originally Posted by jberryhill

Ah, ah, ah JMJ. Remember. You aren't talking to me anymore.

You're so childish John and that's exactly why I take back that comment. I'm not going to sit around anymore and take your BS. This is a warning to you and the Admins. You make another comment about me I'm going to tear into you like no other even if it leads to my banning. You've done nothing but act like a kid on a playground. If you would like for me to post the list of childish comments you've made about me I'll be more than glad to. I've done nothing but try and have a debate without the use of personal attacks unlike yourself.

Originally Posted by jberryhill

I knew that attorneys can be disbarred for malpractice, but I never knew they did that to teachers.

I don't know what happened to her after she got the boot. I'm sure she didn't lose her teaching license but what I do know is she wasn't teaching my class or at my school any longer at the request of the principal. She tried to ruin me with her accusation and grade. She got what she deserved.

[Seraphim]

Originally Posted by jberryhill

But, I'll tell you what gets really tiring in these childish discussions. Yes, I'm a lawyer with advanced degrees in engineering, so we can all ***** about "lawyer talk".

I guess if I signed up under a pseudonym, so that nobody knew I was a grade school dropout who parked cars for a living, then I'd be SO much more credible. Is that your point?

Don't get all salary and education on me John. You've already hit bd77 over the head with that bat so many times, he could probably file your taxes for you. I thought we were having a cordial discussion about Cash for Clunkers? I'll dig around in another thread I suppose, no worries...

[JMJ]

Originally Posted by think

Your own source CarDealerReviews.org now says the survey results you posted are from an AUTOMOTIVE NEWS survey not from the NADA survey.

What is there to decipher?

NADA did not produce the survey results quoted in your original post. It's that simple!

Show me where in this article it says anything about anyone other than NADA

http://billingsgazette.com/news/loca...cc4c03286.html

Or this one

http://www.autoweek.com/article/2009...#ixzz0P2h14dXM

They both seem to be pointing directly at NADA. And like I said before if you want the actual numbers then go ask NADA. I've already addressed the fact that not ONE source is going to give an unbiased opinion. The REAL simple fact is that there IS a survey, that survey resulted in "We asked them to put a halt to the program--I think we said 'very soon'--but a suspension at midnight tonight would make sense" and "Our survey opened the eyes of the Transportation Department." coming directly from NADA Chairman John McEleney, and the survey is not publicly available.

Now all you have to do is ask yourself. If things were going so well then why the rush to shut it down? If it's such a great program and doing the World so much good then why not continue it? Car dealers obviously love to sell cars. I'm sure they are jumping for joy to sell them. Bankers obviously love to write loans. But there was some underlying reason why it could not continue. What is that reason? Money? The government seems to have a blank check as far as that's concerned so what is it?