Car Dealers say Clunkers a Failure

[think]

Originally Posted by JMJ

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 seems to be pointing directly at NADA. And like I said before if you want the actual numbers then go ask NADA.

Like I said YOUR source from YOUR post with THESE survey results are NOT from NADA:

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
.

Who cares what other sources you come up with if they don't contain the same statistics you are promoting as NADA survey results in your original post? I am not debating whether or not NADA had a survey. It is obvious they did.

And what is now obvious is that AutoNews.com did a survey as well and who ever created the article on CarDealerReviews.org conveniently combined the two surveys and allowed the readers to believe ALL the statistics were from NADA.

I'm not sure I can make this any simpler............

[JMJ]

Originally Posted by think

Like I said YOUR source from YOUR post with THESE survey results are NOT from NADA:



Who cares what other sources you come up with if they don't contain the same statistics you are promoting as NADA survey results in your original post? I am not debating whether or not NADA had a survey. It is obvious they did.

And what is now obvious is that AutoNews.com did a survey as well and who ever created the article on CarDealerReviews.org conveniently combined the two surveys and allowed the readers to believe ALL the statistics were from NADA.

I'm not sure I can make this any simpler............

Until you can show me the actual numbers disproving it your argument is useless. I'm not saying the numbers are correct because the survey isn't publicly available. There seems to be discrepancies in the numbers and I noted that myself. Maybe someones bad math? I don't know. If and when we see the actual survey then I guess we'll both know.

[think]

Originally Posted by JMJ

Until you can show me the actual numbers disproving it your argument is useless. I'm not saying the numbers are correct because the survey isn't publicly available. There seems to be discrepancies in the numbers and I noted that myself. Maybe someones bad math? I don't know. If and when we see the actual survey then I guess we'll both know.

You do understand we are talking about the results of two completely different surveys and not just one survey right?

Your own source CarDealerReviews.org now shows that AutoNews.com was the source for the numbers in the article NOT NADA. The Autonews.com survey was an UNSCIENTIFIC ONLINE POLL. The only source for this poll information is CarDealerReviews.org.

Why should anyone believe the results of an unscientific online poll that can't even be properly sourced?

[Edit]
I was incorrect in posting that NADA did not make the statement that they claimed dealers may not get paid. CarDealerReviews.org did have a link to a press release I missed that did include this claim:

http://www.nada.org/MediaCenter/News...Down+Phase.htm [/Edit]

In fact by accident I found this statement that shows NADA backed the Cash for Clunkers legislation:

Editor's Note: This video contained details that became outdated after the House and Senate passed the NADA-backed 'Cash for Clunkers' legislation. To avoid confusion, we have removed the video.

http://www.nada.org/MediaCenter/NADA...r_clunkers.htm

None of these statements by NADA reflect any of the nonsense associated with them in the post that started this thread. The CarDealerReviews.org article is fraudulent and deceptive. Period. End of story....

[JMJ]

Originally Posted by think

You do understand we are talking about the results of two completely different surveys and not just one survey right?

Yes you have said it time and time again. You have also stated time and time again that there is/was no NADA survey. The original source obviously lied about certain things and got caught and they corrected it. Sound good? Do you think that doesn't happen even in the mainstream news? How many times have you seen them correct their disinformation?

Originally Posted by think

Your own source CarDealerReviews.org now shows that AutoNews.com was the source for the numbers in the article NOT NADA. The Autonews.com survey was an UNSCIENTIFIC ONLINE POLL. The only source for this poll information is CarDealerReviews.org.

Why should anyone believe the results of an unscientific online poll that can't even be properly sourced?

I don't care about the poll. What I care about is the NADA SURVEY.

Originally Posted by think

In fact by accident I found this statement that shows NADA backed the Cash for Clunkers legislation:

I'm sure they did back it. Hell they probably came up with the original legislation.

Here I edited the original post for you

"In an Automotive News survey of nearly 800 dealers, "

Better now?

Actually now that I think about it how do we know that both "survey's" aren't one and the same? What if NADA outsourced the job of doing the survey to Auto News? Wouldn't be at all surprising. But then we run into the percentage discrepancies. I dunno..

[Raider]

Why is it that every time this country has a problem, in this case the economy, the Liberal solution is to throw money at it, rather than finding the root of the problem and correcting it?

[JMJ]

Originally Posted by Raider

Why is it that every time this country has a problem, in this case the economy, the Liberal solution is to throw money at it, rather than finding the root of the problem and correcting it?

Because the root of the problem is those in control of the purse strings. To solve the problem they would have to admit that we would be much better off without them. So to keep up the appearance that they are needed they play each side off each other. Works quite well. Republicans are in control of the money the left is complaining. Dems are in control the Republicans are complaining. Only what we have occurring now is both sides are catching hell and deservedly so.

[Doc Com]

How did the NADA get maligned in this thread?

All they have done is provide dealers with factual and updated material.

Does anyone even know what NADA stands for?

If you don't look at the logo and the type between the lines.

Here is a direct link to posts they have made regarding the Cash for Clunkers program:

http://www.nada.org/

[jberryhill]

That's pretty funny, Doc.

http://www.nada.org/MediaCenter/News...nkersReact.htm

NADA: ‘Clunkers’ Program Exactly What Consumers, Economy, Auto Industry Needs

Dealers Expect Program to be Successful

http://www.nada.org/MediaCenter/News...rs+Program.htm

Auto Dealers Applaud Congressional Funding to Extend Cash for Clunkers Program


WASHINGTON (August 6, 2009) – Car shoppers and dealers across the country breathed a sigh of relief today when the Senate approved a House measure adding $2 billion to the wildly successful “cash for clunkers” initiative. The additional funds will allow dealers to continue offering consumers up to a $4,500 incentive to trade-in an older gas-guzzler for a new, more fuel-efficient car or truck.

Late last week, the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) advised the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) that the program’s funding was running dangerously low because of glitches in the government computer program which caused an overwhelming backlog of transactions.

“Cash for clunkers is a resounding success,” said John McEleney, NADA chairman and a multi-franchise dealer in Iowa. “With the additional $2 billion, even more ‘clunkers’ will be taken off the road and replaced with more fuel-efficient vehicles. Extending the ‘clunkers’ program benefits the environment and the economy. It’s the best kind of stimulus.”

So, some phony organization claims to have done a self-selected "survey", and then wrote a piece posted on an anonymously-registered website and pumped it out through press releases, to make it look as if NADA didn't support the program.

Slick.

[Doc Com]

Over and over, the same people posting the same unsupported and unsubstantiated threads keep getting shot down.

I would be embarrassed as **** to post some of the bullshit getting posted.

Of course, this is the internet and any one can fabricate and type anything and there will be someone somewhere who will read it, believe it, and repeat it.

This type of bullshit is much more infectious than any virus or bacteria I know of.

Potentially, I think it may also be deadly because it clearly rots the brain and turns it to mush.

I guess those HULU commercials were not too far off.

[Raider]

Originally Posted by Doc Com

I would be embarrassed as **** to post some of the bullshit getting posted.

I know what you mean, Like that demented idiot who suggested Bush's Stimulus was "Cash for Votes" to get McCain/Palin elected. What a moron.

Oh wait a minute, that was you wasn't it?

Originally Posted by Doc Com

I think it may also be deadly because it clearly rots the brain and turns it to mush.

I knew your problem was something like that.

[JMJ]

So much for a free ride. lol

But many of those cashing in on the clunkers program are surprised when they get to the treasurer's office windows. That's because the government's rebate of up to $4500 dollars for every clunker is taxable.

"They didn't realize that would be taxable. A lot of people don't realize that. So they're not happy and kind of surprised when they find that out," Nelson said.

Nelson adds that if you did recently purchase a vehicle, ensure your dealer gets you the paperwork in time because if they don't you could pay extra interest and penalties.
http://www.keloland.com/NewsDetail6162.cfm?Id=0,89084

[jberryhill]

But many of those cashing in on the clunkers program are surprised when they get to the treasurer's office windows. That's because the government's rebate of up to $4500 dollars for every clunker is taxable.

"They didn't realize that would be taxable. A lot of people don't realize that. So they're not happy and kind of surprised when they find that out," Nelson said.

Where "Nelson" here is a county treasurer in South Dakota who is wrongly being interpreted as referring to federal law here.

http://www.cars.gov/faq#category-06

Is the credit subject to being taxed as income to the consumers that participate in the program?

NO. The CARS Act expressly provides that the credit is not income for the consumer.

From another article:

As it turns out, each state determines whether to tax the clunker money. Pennsylvania doesn't, for example, but Maryland applies its 6 percent excise tax to the incentive.

"We treat that $4,500 as a down payment toward his car. We still tax the total value of the car," says Caryn Coyle, a spokeswoman with the Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration, which collects the excise tax.

...

If it's any consolation, there's no federal tax on the clunker incentive and you may be able to deduct on your federal tax return any state or local taxes paid on a new vehicle purchased this year from Feb. 17 through Dec. 31.

Effectively, the discount is treated by some states - SOME states - as they would normally treat the trade-in value of a used car applied as a discount to the purchase of a new car.

Why?

Because states do not normally treat a trade-in purchase as two sales - i.e. the sale of the old car to the dealer, and then the sale of the new car to the customer.

It is not the discount which is being taxed. What is being taxed is the value of the new car that was purchased.

Your problem, here, JMJ is with a county in South Dakota.

[Doc Com]

Originally Posted by jberryhill

It is not the discount which is being taxed. What is being taxed is the value of the new car that was purchased.

Bingo!

When you do a trade in to a dealer, the value of the trade in, rebate, incentives, and any discount is taken off the top.

The buyer is still responsible for all tax and fees associated with any new car purchase.



I find it amazing how much time someone spends to dig up anything (even one damn sentence misconstrued) to support one shot down statement only to have their additional points shot down.



I saw one person on TV accuse the dealership he was at as using "bait and switch" tactics.

He claimed the incentive was for $4500 but the dealer would only give $3500 and there were no Camry's left on the lot so the dealer was trying to put him into something "more expensive".

This is a prime example of how stupid someone can look by not being informed and also a person who's sole intent was to be on TV. Someone who waits until the last moment (a couple of hours) before the program ends, someone who does not know what vehicles qualify for the $3500 and $4500 rebate, and then immediately calls a television station and that TV station rushes to the site to interview this person on this "HOT" news.

I am not sure who is more dumber(er)...the jerk being interviewed or the TV news for airing such a piece.

[jberryhill]

When you do a trade in to a dealer, the value of the trade in, rebate, incentives, and any discount is taken off the top.

The buyer is still responsible for all tax and fees associated with any new car purchase.

Of course state laws haven't changed. That's why JMJ has been railing against manufacturer rebates on new car purchases for years.

Not.

[JMJ]

Originally Posted by jberryhill

Where "Nelson" here is a county treasurer in South Dakota who is wrongly being interpreted as referring to federal law here.

http://www.cars.gov/faq#category-06


From another article:



Effectively, the discount is treated by some states - SOME states - as they would normally treat the trade-in value of a used car applied as a discount to the purchase of a new car.

Why?

Because states do not normally treat a trade-in purchase as two sales - i.e. the sale of the old car to the dealer, and then the sale of the new car to the customer.

It is not the discount which is being taxed. What is being taxed is the value of the new car that was purchased.

Your problem, here, JMJ is with a county in South Dakota.

I'll give you that one. I was actually feeling much better about the program if buyers were being taxed on it as income. Now I'm back to square 1.

[tas38]

I thought the clunker deal was good, then thought how the auto makers will now use that money they made on it. To pay off the gov't the money they owe, and just think some dealers was crying they didn't get the rebate yet.

The bottom line here is auto dealers walked away with the money, and will likely use it to pay of the gov't the money they owe. The same thing with the banks, they took all that money and some was to go towards helping home owners. So instead the bank took the money, and give some of the worst deals to home owners and some got no help.

[Creature]

Originally Posted by Raider

I wonder what Obama's next stimulus will be?...hmmm

Cash for Computers
Cash for Homes
Cash for Clothes
Cash for Jewelry
Cash for Guns
Cash for Stash
Cash for Appliances
Cash for Furniture
Cash for Cameras
Cash for Coins
Cash for Condos

I figure by the time we trade in all our assets for new ones, I'll be over a million dollars in debt... But hey, I'll have all new stuff right? You cant get any better than that.

LMAO

'Appliances', check:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/bw/20090824/...20090821304909

[Raider]

I have a better idea Mr. President, How about cutting income taxes, and providing tax incentives for businesses so they can grow and create jobs, Putting Americans back to work so they use their own money to buy WHAT they want and WHEN they want it, without Socialist A-holes like you trying to do it for them?

[jberryhill]

How about cutting income taxes

350 billion of the "700 billion dollar stimulus" was in tax cuts, nitwit.

[Raider]

Originally Posted by jberryhill

350 billion of the "700 billion dollar stimulus" was in tax cuts, nitwit.

Oh yeah, I see... $350 Billion consists of ONLY income tax cuts for ALL indiviiduals and tax incentives for ALL businesses right? Nothing else?

You really need to pull your head out of your a*s on this one JB.... Really!

The Stimulus Plan: How to Spend $787 Billion