DescentBB

its not bad enough that the government bailed out Detroit for several Billion dollars. then they throw 3 Billion more in the cash for clunkers crap. now they are rejecting 4 out of 5 rebate applications


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08 ... latestnews

Don't worry they will run the health insurance industry much more effectively

Remember reading about back alley abortions? Pretty soon it will be back alley everything!

And the solution is to grow government, go figure.

I would take a government job

honestly there is no reason to complain about Cash for Clunkers. It's been the most stimulative of the government programs dollar for dollar in my opinion (a lot of this due to stock prices/consumer confidence, tough to measure). There was way, way worse crap in the multi hundred billion stimulus bill. This is a drop in the bucket.

not complaining is easy to say if your not the dealership that gets stuck with those cars. the dealership group I work for has 16 franchised. each one has taken in about 70 clunkers that's approx 1120 clunkers total at an average of $4000 per. that's $4,800.00 dollars. if the government is only paying 1 in 5 claims or 20% submitted that will leave my employer on the hook for. about 4 million.

Birdseye wrote:honestly there is no reason to complain about Cash for Clunkers. It's been the most stimulative of the government programs dollar for dollar in my opinion (a lot of this due to stock prices/consumer confidence, tough to measure). There was way, way worse crap in the multi hundred billion stimulus bill. This is a drop in the bucket.

I'd agree that it may be one of their most effective ideas, it put the money into the hands of the people, stimulated business for an industry that needed it and did it now instead of five years down the road etc. but in typical government fashion they started the program before they had the rules figured out and then changed the rules after they had sucked people into the program...

I don't want that kind of management deciding my fate anymore than absolutely necessary.

CUDA wrote:...now they are rejecting 4 out of 5 rebate applications


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08 ... latestnews

Gee, I wonder why. Some dealers cheating maybe? Not showing any proof they disabled the engines maybe? Oh, and FOX NEWS? Is that your primary news source?

This is the kind of thing Sarah would pull...

Bettina

Bet51987 wrote:

CUDA wrote:...now they are rejecting 4 out of 5 rebate applications


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08 ... latestnews

Gee, I wonder why. Some dealers cheating maybe? Not showing any proof they disabled the engines maybe? Oh, and FOX NEWS? Is that your primary news source?

This is the kind of thing Sarah would pull...

Bettina

OMG ya 4 out of 5 are cheating,
yep Fox news, right up there with the Huffington post huh

example for ya Missy, on the title when you snailmail it in the the government your suppost to write,"junk auto at cash for clunkers.gov" one of our employees wrote "junkER auto at cash for clunkers . gov" at it was rejected and this is the government that wants to run our healthcare system

CUDA wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:

CUDA wrote:...now they are rejecting 4 out of 5 rebate applications


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08 ... latestnews

Gee, I wonder why. Some dealers cheating maybe? Not showing any proof they disabled the engines maybe? Oh, and FOX NEWS? Is that your primary news source?

This is the kind of thing Sarah would pull...

Bettina

OMG ya 4 out of 5 are cheating,
yep Fox news, right up there with the Huffington post huh

example for ya Missy, on the title when you snailmail it in the the government your suppost to write,"junk auto at cash for clunkers.gov" one of our employees wrote "junkER auto at cash for clunkers . gov" at it was rejected and this is the government that wants to run our healthcare system

I'm sure that the system is automated to some degree. Writing "Junker" instead of "Junk" would get it rejected. Try it again. Oh, and FOX NEWS is a republican site that you're trying to pass off as gospel. Sure...

Bee

Well you OBVIOUSLY didnt read the article, no big surprise there. because if you did you would have notice that on this Republican bastion for news. it was a Democrat that is complaining.

and Fox new is just one of the 514 news stories addressing this issue on a google search

WOW 514 I didn't realise there were so many republican news papers.

your ingnorance astounds me sometimes.


and I'd still like you to explain why you think 4 out 5 claims submitted are fraudulent

Bee wrote:Gee, I wonder why. Some dealers cheating maybe? Not showing any proof they disabled the engines maybe?

or is it just the evil monger cooperate car dealerships causing all these problems and 4 out of 5 of those are republican??

CUDA wrote:not complaining is easy to say if your not the dealership that gets stuck with those cars. the dealership group I work for has 16 franchised. each one has taken in about 70 clunkers that's approx 1120 clunkers total at an average of $4000 per. that's $4,800.00 dollars. if the government is only paying 1 in 5 claims or 20% submitted that will leave my employer on the hook for. about 4 million.

It's too early to get your panties in a ruffle. Let's let time sort this out, as we know its the government, highly inefficient. But what you can have faith in is that they are GREAT at shelling out taxpayer money without much care/regard, so I'm pretty sure the dealers will eventually be taken care of.

Will Robinson wrote:

Birdseye wrote:honestly there is no reason to complain about Cash for Clunkers. It's been the most stimulative of the government programs dollar for dollar in my opinion (a lot of this due to stock prices/consumer confidence, tough to measure). There was way, way worse crap in the multi hundred billion stimulus bill. This is a drop in the bucket.

I'd agree that it may be one of their most effective ideas, it put the money into the hands of the people, stimulated business for an industry that needed it and did it now instead of five years down the road etc. but in typical government fashion they started the program before they had the rules figured out and then changed the rules after they had sucked people into the program...

I don't want that kind of management deciding my fate anymore than absolutely necessary.

yeah but you are basically complaining about the concept of government, not the program itself

so far thats the only one that I've heard about and why it was rejected. I'm not a sales man I work in the bodyshop. it just came up in conversation with our office manager as an example. I cannot tell you why there is a problem with dealerships getting reimbursed. and yea they love the program. they are selling cars so fast they cant keep any on the lot, so from a sales aspect its great. we'll see how things are \"if\" they get their money back from the government. and thats a big if

Birdseye wrote:...

yeah but you are basically complaining about the concept of government, not the program itself

I'm going to call BS on that one. The concept of government doesn't have to include such a low level of efficiency and it doesn't need to be so compromised by the election process that we first must let the representatives serve their respective party's interest before they can serve the constituency.

I'm complaining about the reality of our government but not the concept as it was originally adopted.

Maybe we needed an fourth branch of government, the Internal Affairs branch!

Will Robinson wrote: Maybe we needed an fourth branch of government, the Internal Affairs branch!

HONESTLY I think thats the best Idea I've heard in a LONG time

CUDA wrote:so far thats the only one that I've heard about and why it was rejected. I'm not a sales man I work in the bodyshop. it just came up in conversation with our office manager as an example. I cannot tell you why there is a problem with dealerships getting reimbursed. and yea they love the program. they are selling cars so fast they cant keep any on the lot, so from a sales aspect its great. we'll see how things are "if" they get their money back from the government. and thats a big if

If that's the case, then why did you feel you needed to make a thread with that title?

I just don't get you.

Bee

you dont get

Bet51987 wrote:

CUDA wrote:so far thats the only one that I've heard about and why it was rejected. I'm not a sales man I work in the bodyshop. it just came up in conversation with our office manager as an example. I cannot tell you why there is a problem with dealerships getting reimbursed. and yea they love the program. they are selling cars so fast they cant keep any on the lot, so from a sales aspect its great. we'll see how things are "if" they get their money back from the government. and thats a big if

If that's the case, then why did you feel you needed to make a thread with that title?

I just don't get you.

Bee

did you even read the article?????

Birdseye wrote:honestly there is no reason to complain about Cash for Clunkers. It's been the most stimulative of the government programs dollar for dollar in my opinion (a lot of this due to stock prices/consumer confidence, tough to measure). There was way, way worse crap in the multi hundred billion stimulus bill. This is a drop in the bucket.

This wasn't part of the stimulus bill.

It was in addition to the stimulus bill. And if 4 out of 5 rebates are denied, then it's only effective because it's a cheat.

Will Robinson wrote:

Birdseye wrote:...

yeah but you are basically complaining about the concept of government, not the program itself

I'm going to call BS on that one. The concept of government doesn't have to include such a low level of efficiency and it doesn't need to be so compromised by the election process that we first must let the representatives serve their respective party's interest before they can serve the constituency.

I'm complaining about the reality of our government but not the concept as it was originally adopted.

Maybe we needed an fourth branch of government, the Internal Affairs branch!

Honestly I think we mostly agree, I think this maybe is a bit semantical. The concept (according to webster), explicitly, does not refer to the bloatware reality we have. However, I didn't mean to postulate we can't do better! You know what I mean.

But wow, the internal affairs branch! Maybe the only new government branch I would approve of. Pay them on commission to find inefficiencies and give bonuses for convictions of corrupt senators and congressmen. On this one, ★■◆● it, guilty until proven innocent!

...I know we can dream. Internal Affairs government branch is like talking about paycuts for congress.



Now Cuda has brought a potential problem to light...but I'm waiting for it to come to fruition before criticizing. Government is notoriously slow and inefficient

Okay, can we get back on topic?

The two main questions I have:

1. Is the 80% denial statistic just for first attempts, or for final approval/disapproval decisions? If the rebate-submission system is as problematic for dealers as I've heard, I wouldn't be surprised at a high denial rate, especially if the documentation requirements are strict. Then again, if it's not just a first-attempt percentage, 80% is a ridiculously poor number for a process which has been in place for weeks now.

2. Does the statistic include the percentage of fraudulent claims? Having worked in insurance claims (where at least 15-20% of claimants were 'padding' values or worse), I'd be surprised if that wasn't at least a small percentage.


P.S. To the partisan rhetoric in here (\"the article is a Republican/conservative conspiracy to defraud the public!\", or \"the government program is a Democrat/liberal conspiracy to defraud auto dealers!\")... I hope you guys don't really believe either of those.

All I know is the government uses every excuse it can, to expand itself.

Foil wrote:P.S. To the partisan rhetoric in here ("the article is a Republican/conservative conspiracy to defraud the public!", or "the government program is a Democrat/liberal conspiracy to defraud auto dealers!")... I hope you guys don't really believe either of those.

I never made it a (D) (R) issue. my thread title says Government. the partisan part was left up to someone that refused to read the article and ASSUMED that since Fox news reported it, it must be anti (D) that person's loss

This wasn't part of the stimulus bill.

Ya I know

It was in addition to the stimulus bill. And if 4 out of 5 rebates are denied, then it's only effective because it's a cheat.

I don't see any reason to get panties in a ruffle over an article, a premature scare.

Obviously I of course agree it sucks if 4 out of 5 cars were denied (that qualified original terms) but we're all flipping out over nothing so far.

Spidey wrote:All I know is the government uses every excuse it can, to expand itself.

Some things never change..

Birdseye wrote:
It's too early to get your panties in a ruffle. Let's let time sort this out, as we know its the government, highly inefficient. But what you can have faith in is that they are GREAT at shelling out taxpayer money without much care/regard, so I'm pretty sure the dealers will eventually be taken care of.

The pols will pocket the money, and leave the dealers in a lurch. Mark my words.

(not admitting to ruffled panties)