Posted on 08/22/2009 12:30:26 PM PDT by george76
The customer?? You mean the one with the new car and their mouth to the teet? (BTW, I'm not a car dealer... I just don't like gub'ment handouts.)
I think you missed the point.
The language of the bill said that the government MUST pay the dealers within 10 days-——
More Hope and Changey-—
Now NObama changes the definition of 10 days!!
No, they won’t make it up on volume. First, they don’t have those trade-ins, so they have less inventory. Second, small businesses, which is what auto dealerships are, are having almost no luck getting credit. That creates a major cash flow problem. Buyers can’t get credit, either, especially on large, depreciating products. So where is all this volume coming from?
True, both the dealer and the customer get the shaft if the government defaults, or at least one of them does. My point was simply that the dealer would never have made the sale in the first place had the rebate program not been in place, yet I’m sure they would have no interest in undoing the whole deal if the goobermint reneges. I realize that to an extent they can’t because the vehicle would now be used, but what about the customer who made a decision they wouldn’t otherwise have made on the strength of the rebate promise, then they’re expected to stand by the purchase even though the deal has been changed on them after the fact? Point is, if the government defaults, BOTH the dealer and the buyer have been put in impossible positions.
Maybe, at least the ones that weren't nationalized.........for now.
Nobody can know what it says.
This on top of the cars they really couldn’t afford. Six months from now the lots will be stocked with the cash for clunkers repos!
The dealers aren’t trying to change the deal after the fact. They are simply asking the customer BEFORE the sale is completed to assume the risk for the government’s default on the $4500 rebate.
If the dealer makes no profit due to the government reneging or just never getting around to meeting their promise, the dealer does not benefit from the sale at all. However, ostammer’s UAW buddies benefit whether the government follows through on the rebate or not because the manufacturer got their money for the vehicle, which then means more cars get built which means more money for UAW workers.
If they’re asking up front then fine. The customer can decide how trustworthy they think the feds are.
Anyhoo, it’s over now, so we’ll see the fall out over the coming months moving toward the new model year and the into the holidays. I hope the dealers have a brisk business and can take in some trades that lower middle-class Americans can take advantage of.
I wish the all well and I hope the dealers get their money and the car buyers didn’t over-commit in the deals they signed onto. If it threw some business toward the suppliers, that’s also good.
I’m withholding judgment. I’m against government subsidies of any kind and don’t like the idea of subsidizing the program and I have no faith in the government to follow through according to their promise, policies and plans except for the military, but on the other hand it’s good to see hard working Americans catch a break for once and the dealers as well. They’ve been hit hard by the economic plunge into darkness.
“The customer gets slammed from every direction.”
No one is forcing customers to buy new cars in the cash for clunkers program. If they choose to and then get ripped off I don’t feel sorry for them. They were trying to get something for nothing. The government is a criminal organization. If you choose to do business with a criminal organization and get cheated, whose fault is that?
What I am referring to is the criminal element.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.