$$$$ 4 Clunkers over 8/24 8PM

dmc · Aug 21, 2009

campgottagopee said:
Yes, that's correct. My point to that is we "dealers" aren't making any more $$$$ on these transactions than we would any other day. Yes, the volume, for now, is great so bottom lines are good, but what happens in the months to come when inventory levels are low and we've already forced the market. This is far from over.

So I guess - it would've been better not to do this at all - since the problem will just come back again... Sounds kind of shortsighted to try and use taxpayers $ and give a boost to a dying industry...

I was hoping for some momentum from this.. Not delay the inevitable... But you sound like this will not happen.. must be tough to see no future in your industry.

bummer... I now feel bad supporting this initiative to help you guys out.. And me too...
I thought it was going well... Best wishes to you...

campgottagopee · Aug 21, 2009

dmc said:
So I guess - it would've been better not to do this at all - since the problem will just come back again... Sounds kind of shortsighted to try and use taxpayers $ and give a boost to a dying industry...

I was hoping for some momentum from this.. Not delay the inevitable... But you sound like this will not happen.. must be tough to see no future in your industry.

bummer... I now feel bad supporting this initiative to help you guys out.. And me too...
I thought it was going well... Best wishes to you...

lol---Just keepin it real

dmc · Aug 21, 2009

campgottagopee said:
lol---Just keepin it real

your my only window into this issue... I'm being serious...

campgottagopee · Aug 21, 2009

dmc said:
your my only window into this issue... I'm being serious...

Gotcha, please don't missunderstand. I'll say it again---this was great for biz and if it ever comes around again we will do it. The problem, albeit a good one, nobody saw this type of responce from this program, nobody, so the inventory to replace what was forced isn't readily available. Again, good problem to have and we'll figure something out, always do.

thanks for your concern

mondeo · Aug 21, 2009

dmc said:
So I guess - it would've been better not to do this at all - since the problem will just come back again... Sounds kind of shortsighted to try and use taxpayers $ and give a boost to a dying industry...

Where have I heard that before...oh yeah, it's what I said when the program started.

Funny, I can't find anything from the GAO on the rebate program. Probably because it was shoved through too quickly to actually study its impacts.

dmc · Aug 21, 2009

mondeo said:
Where have I heard that before...oh yeah, it's what I said when the program started.

Funny, I can't find anything from the GAO on the rebate program. Probably because it was shoved through too quickly to actually study its impacts.

Wow... your so smart...

ENOUGH STUDYING!!! We need action... And thats what this was... And to a large degree successful... And it may stimulate more car sales in the future... And keep someone in their house for another few months until this crap turns around..

How about we need to do stuff NOW so we don't slip into a depression... And trust that it can be done and eventually done right...
My vote went to the future... not hanging around in the past...

hammer · Aug 21, 2009

mondeo said:
Where have I heard that before...oh yeah, it's what I said when the program started.

Funny, I can't find anything from the GAO on the rebate program. Probably because it was shoved through too quickly to actually study its impacts.

The same could be said for the TARP program...and a lot more $$$ was set aside for that...

BTW, if you really wanted to have a complete study on this or any other program, you would not have seen it implemented for years. Ever worked on a government program? Even basic engineering decisions can take months...

These are tough times, and I have to give the federal gov't credit for trying to do things to boost the economy, even if they aren't perfect.

mondeo · Aug 21, 2009

hammer said:
The same could be said for the TARP program...and a lot more $$$ was set aside for that...

BTW, if you really wanted to have a complete study on this or any other program, you would not have seen it implemented for years. Ever worked on a government program? Even basic engineering decisions can take months...

These are tough times, and I have to give the federal gov't credit for trying to do things to boost the economy, even if they aren't perfect.

And the same goes for TARP. The GAO is actually pretty decent at this stuff and could spin out numbers in a month or two. They did a full review of the Air Force tanker aquisition decision in 3 months. There's no reason not to set up a fast track GAO process that can get stuff done in a month limit for stuff deemed critical. That'll give everyone involved some time to calm down after a panic starts and to get systems in place to handle whatever Congress is trying to shove through. It's not like the government can impact the economy within a month anyways; this is a good example of that. Give the GAO a month to study the program, while they're doing up set up the processes to handle the paperwork from dealers. Dealers actually end up getting their money at the same time, factories spool back up a little to bump up inventory, and we actually have an idea of what the program will actually do, and, say, if it needs $3bn instead of $1bn.

drjeff · Aug 21, 2009

campgottagopee said:
Gotcha, please don't missunderstand. I'll say it again---this was great for biz and if it ever comes around again we will do it. The problem, albeit a good one, nobody saw this type of responce from this program, nobody, so the inventory to replace what was forced isn't readily available. Again, good problem to have and we'll figure something out, always do.

thanks for your concern

Camp, Is there any "in the industry" concern that this will become another event similiar to what 9/11 did, where it had dealers suddenly dropping their financing rates to 0.0% to get customers into the dealership and then the customer base basically not being interested in buying unless they kept getting 0.0% for a number of years after???

I could see some of the public basically saying "well the economy still stinks, so congress will probably do another cash for clunkers in the future, so I'll wait rather than buy now" type thing happening.

dmc · Aug 21, 2009

drjeff said:
I could see some of the public basically saying "well the economy still stinks, so congress will probably do another cash for clunkers in the future, so I'll wait rather than buy now" type thing happening.

i think Americans are psyched to buy new cars... Lots of people just stopped.. And the CFC program nudged them... And these are people with good credit...etc...

i love a new car... I always buy new... i take a lot of heat from friends... Telling me I'm wasting $$... blah blah blah... whatever..

Dr Skimeister · Aug 21, 2009

drjeff said:
Camp, Is there any "in the industry" concern that this will become another event similiar to what 9/11 did, where it had dealers suddenly dropping their financing rates to 0.0% to get customers into the dealership and then the customer base basically not being interested in buying unless they kept getting 0.0% for a number of years after???

I could see some of the public basically saying "well the economy still stinks, so congress will probably do another cash for clunkers in the future, so I'll wait rather than buy now" type thing happening.

To me, this begs the question of what is/was the original intent of the "Cash For Clunkers" program. Was it instituted to try to stimulate consumer confidence? Was it instituted to encourage people to trade-up to vehicles that are more efficient in fuel use so as to lessen the country's dependence on oil? Was it instituted to encourage more new car sales which then stimulates both new car production in an attempt to restock inventory and the banking industry that's making the loans for these purchases?

I would hope that the intent is to answer all of these questions with "yes". Win/win/win for consumers, the auto industry (top to bottom, that is if we exclude the parts manufacturers that will take a hit as people part with older cars) and the banking industry.

Seems pretty well thought out for a program that was implemented in such a relatively short amount of time.

hammer · Aug 21, 2009

dmc said:
i love a new car... I always buy new... i take a lot of heat from friends... Telling me I'm wasting $$... blah blah blah... whatever..

I also like to buy new...I looked at CPO cars the last time around and it wasn't quite the same so I stuck with a new car. I feel that it's worth it as long as you keep your car for long enough...buying new and trading within a few years is not the best way to go financially.

drjeff · Aug 21, 2009

dmc said:
i love a new car... I always buy new... i take a lot of heat from friends... Telling me I'm wasting $$... blah blah blah... whatever..

With you 100% on all aspects of your statement DMC!

tjf67 · Aug 21, 2009

Dr Skimeister said:
To me, this begs the question of what is/was the original intent of the "Cash For Clunkers" program. Was it instituted to try to stimulate consumer confidence? Was it instituted to encourage people to trade-up to vehicles that are more efficient in fuel use so as to lessen the country's dependence on oil? Was it instituted to encourage more new car sales which then stimulates both new car production in an attempt to restock inventory and the banking industry that's making the loans for these purchases?

I would hope that the intent is to answer all of these questions with "yes". Win/win/win for consumers, the auto industry (top to bottom, that is if we exclude the parts manufacturers that will take a hit as people part with older cars) and the banking industry.

Seems pretty well thought out for a program that was implemented in such a relatively short amount of time.

Seems they touched all of those issues. The one thing I would have liked to seen is that a certain percentage of the car needed to be produced here in the states. Or at least exclude any vehicles that have nothing produced over here.

drjeff · Aug 21, 2009

Dr Skimeister said:
To me, this begs the question of what is/was the original intent of the "Cash For Clunkers" program. Was it instituted to try to stimulate consumer confidence? Was it instituted to encourage people to trade-up to vehicles that are more efficient in fuel use so as to lessen the country's dependence on oil? Was it instituted to encourage more new car sales which then stimulates both new car production in an attempt to restock inventory and the banking industry that's making the loans for these purchases?

I would hope that the intent is to answer all of these questions with "yes". Win/win/win for consumers, the auto industry (top to bottom, that is if we exclude the parts manufacturers that will take a hit as people part with older cars) and the banking industry.

Seems pretty well thought out for a program that was implemented in such a relatively short amount of time.

To me atleast Doc, it seems like the reasoning behind it was 2 out of 3, where I'm guessing the consumer confidence issue was the left out 1. But fuel efficiency and ramping up the sales + manufacturing side of the auto industry I'd certainly hope were goals of this program from the folks in Washington that put it together.

My guess is though that once in the new car, the consumer confidence may very well be something that shows up down the road(no pun intended

)

dmc · Aug 21, 2009

hammer said:
I also like to buy new...I looked at CPO cars the last time around and it wasn't quite the same so I stuck with a new car. I feel that it's worth it as long as you keep your car for long enough...buying new and trading within a few years is not the best way to go financially.

My cars usually have over 150k on them when I get rid of them...

For some reason I'm really lucky with repairs... My Subi's seem to blow the head between 150k an 200k... thats when i get rid of them...

Last one was around 150k when I totaled it by hitting a moose...

My newest car was paid for in cash... which was awesome... Never made such a big cash expenditure in my life...

Marc · Aug 21, 2009

dmc said:
You don't seem to be the guy thats getting your hackles up... I just wanted to use the word hackles...

Takes a lot for me to get my hackles up. I'm just not a very hackley person in general I guess.

/hackle

dmc · Aug 21, 2009

Marc said:
Takes a lot for me to get my hackles up. I'm just not a very hackley person in general I guess.

/hackle

hackle... hackle...

Warp Daddy · Aug 21, 2009

I don't have any hackles either just a healthy skepticism about another "READY FIRE AIM " approach to governmental CONTROL

.Better planning and communication and elimination of game playing ( allowing one to buy a truck getting 3 more mpg than the clunker )might have made for a smoother initiation .

I hope the dealers all make out and that cash flow problems abate . I am yet to be convinced that deemand will continue and the precedent that was set is a very slippery slope for future bailouts . Hope i'm wrong here but time will tell

Glenn · Aug 21, 2009

Dr Skimeister said:
To me, this begs the question of what is/was the original intent of the "Cash For Clunkers" program. Was it instituted to try to stimulate consumer confidence? Was it instituted to encourage people to trade-up to vehicles that are more efficient in fuel use so as to lessen the country's dependence on oil? Was it instituted to encourage more new car sales which then stimulates both new car production in an attempt to restock inventory and the banking industry that's making the loans for these purchases?

I would hope that the intent is to answer all of these questions with "yes". Win/win/win for consumers, the auto industry (top to bottom, that is if we exclude the parts manufacturers that will take a hit as people part with older cars) and the banking industry.

Seems pretty well thought out for a program that was implemented in such a relatively short amount of time.

I'll disgree with you on this. Allbeit, the most politely way that I can. :beer:

It stimilulated things...only temporarily. I see dealers being in the same situation they have been unless the economy as a whole picks up.

+3 mpg isn'g going to do a heck of a log of "greening". This program required the vehicles to be running, not "push, pull or tow". So we're taking functional vehicles and destroying them. When it comes to environment, more harm than good.

Again, :beer: just my take. Classic version of someone seeing the glass as half full and one seeing it half empty.

$$$$ 4 Clunkers over 8/24 8PM

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

Active member

New member

Well-known member

New member

New member

Active member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

New member

New member

New member

Active member

Active member

Similar threads