REPORT: Dealers now allowed to kill C4C engines after they get rebate checks
Last week, there were gasps all around as people watched how a Cash-for-Clunkers trade-in meets its smoky end. Even though the program was blessed with a $2B lifeline to continue, there may be fewer silicate glass engine deaths from now on since dealers have been granted the option of waiting to kill engines until after they receive their rebates.
Many dealers complained of having their rebate applications rejected, and if they can't get the rejection overturned, they're left with tons of useless junk on which they've just lost thousands of dollars. In order not to leave dealers in the lurch if their rebate applications are rejected, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will now allow dealers to store the car in working order until seven days after they receive their rebate checks.
We don't know the rejection rate for cars that dealers believed would be approved, but we can't help but wonder what a dealer might do with a car that's not worth at least $3,500 on the open or wholesale market if it's not sure that reimbursement for the rebate's a lock.
[Source: Automotive News, sub. req'd | Image: Flickr, VJnator CC 2.0]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
tanooki2003 11:11AM (8/03/2009)
Are you seriously as dumb as you sound? Do you even hear yourself when you speak?
Reply
Jake 11:11AM (8/03/2009)
First the govt. goes into debt to spend money that they don't have (they will have to borrow it from the Chinese and tax you and me to pay it back at interest later), then they use it to pay to have an asset destroyed (so that it cannot be scavenged, repaired, parts reused,etc) so that another asset has to be manufactured to replace it with the owner being generally lured into debt to accomplish this, and this in the name of efficiency and saving the environment.
Reply
Matt 11:29AM (8/03/2009)
I agree Jake...
I'm to the point now where I just shake my head. These people who are running this country do not have the common sense of a gold fish.
geo.stewart 11:37AM (8/03/2009)
Well,
I would be surprised if the dealers do not have language in the contract you sign that states if the C4C rebate is rejected, that the car owner is on the hook for the difference.
So the question is, what will happen to the people with rejected rebates?
I expect the rebate is to the owner, not the dealer? How many people will then get stuck with an addtional 3500 or 4500 of debt they were not expecting and likely cannot pay for/.
Repos will be up in 3 months.
Mr.Oak 12:05PM (8/03/2009)
Reading your post, gave me a flashback of the L'il Bush years.
Do me a favor, go to the nearest bathroom, flush the toilet. Observe the entire process.
Flush = Financial Crisis
Vortex = Lost Jobs = Lost consumer spending = repossessions & foreclosures.
That delicious sucking sound + disappearance of contents of bowl = What would happen to this country had the government not stepped in.
Just be glad that Glassy Eyed George is not currently the president.
Jake 12:17PM (8/03/2009)
Mr. Oak, reading your post made me wonder what you're smoking.
Luis 12:23PM (8/03/2009)
Mr. Oak - awesome.
Ligor 12:39PM (8/03/2009)
well removing cars that get less than 18mpg means we use less oil (of course i'd have not included any SUV nor CUV that did nt get 25mpg on the rebate either),
the less oil we buy from the middle east the better it is for us - reduces oil dependancy
if you repaired all those cars and they got back in public, then you'd not reduced the oil dependancy, which fluctuates at moments notice when a report comes out and says Americans drove .005% more this month
removing the used parts inventory will also force people to go purchase a new/used car later since there is not parts, boosts economy
sure the environment is not at the top priorty, it's the economy
had Bush not given 700bill to the banks we'd all be poor now (though the dumy left out some necesary rules the banks must follow), and if the current gov't would have not continued to rescue the economy we'd be in a depression and likely siome kind of civil war now
just keep an open mind
tankd0g 12:49PM (8/03/2009)
You know what do when I get a car that gets better MPG? I drive more. You know what I do when I get a new car? I drive it more. Reduced oil dependency, the government just gave a 700 billion dollar injection into the oil dependency business.
Frank 1:16PM (8/03/2009)
Except Scott, we haven't. But nice try adding up all the defense expenditures and saying it's all for Iraq, ignoring Afganhistan, ignoring all our deployements elswhere (that were in place before GWB). Now you can argue whether those deployments make sense or not but don't fudge numbers to make your argument look better. It like the millions of people without health insurance. The number kept going up over the years, hoping we would all go "oh no, there's xx million people without insurance, the government has to do something!". I'm waiting for the number to top 60 million now. You know why the news has been very quiet lately about global warming? It's because it's been getting cooler. So time to fix out attention on something else.
Ray 4:16PM (8/03/2009)
Haven't they been talking about getting off foreign bought oil for something like 30 years now? And this is the solution?
the4thheat 4:43PM (8/03/2009)
Even if such language was in the contract there'd be the fact that the dealer had destroyed the engine of the car, making it pretty much unsellable and making it easy for the customer to argue that it's still the dealer's fault (or most of it).
Brian 11:11AM (8/03/2009)
And these jokers want to run healthcare, too. They can't even get this program right.
Reply
tankd0g 12:40PM (8/03/2009)
I wasn't aware the NHTSA was looking to run health care. You'd think maybe they'd get some medical professionals in on that.
Bubba 2:14PM (8/03/2009)
So Brian you are saying that because there was a larger response to the program than initially anticipated that makes it a failure? That to me makes it a resounding success. Here you have $1 Billion to put over 200,000 people into more fuel efficient cars. BTW you have to spend it by Nov. It appears to me that the program worked as described. Now they want to expand it because it worked so well. Now we get to put more than 600,000 people into new fuel efficient cars. Thus stimulating the economy.
You must be a Republican...
Brian 11:20AM (8/03/2009)
You are witnessing the beginning of the Carter Admin. Actually, this group of wayward Utopian central planners will make Carter look like Lincoln.
You nitwits who voted for these people need a complete check up from the neck up. The previous administration pisses off you independent thinking members of the muddy middle and you guys vote in a cheap imitation of the former soviet Politburo with a printing press. Why not just jab yourself in the head with a screwdriver.
Anyone see or hear Summers or Gheitner over the weekend ? You, the minions of Hopey Changey just screwed yourself. Theses guys are laying the ground work to tax everyone and anyone under the guise that they simply did not know how bad it was. They told you it was the worst economic climate since the dawn of man but now they are telling you they didn’t know how bad it was.
Reply
Matt 11:24AM (8/03/2009)
"Anyone see or hear Summers or Gheitner over the weekend ?"
I read the story. The want to RAISE TAXES to pay for Obamacare.
Maybe...just maybe if the Govt. was not funding a debacle like C4C, stupid and careless energy policies, porkulas bills...they would have enough money for healthcare...with out raising our taxes.
This administration is flushing our rights and our country down the toilet one reckless bill at a time.
Leave it to the libs to make this country WORSE off than it was before they were in office. I didn't sign up for this kind of radical change. I want my vote back so I can do the RIGHT thing with it.
Joe 11:31AM (8/03/2009)
I actually agree with Matt about something. Whoa.
Except the "I want my vote back" thing...I voted Constitution Party, and I'll never look back.
Matt 11:33AM (8/03/2009)
See Joe, it is possible to see the truth...:P
Scott 12:24PM (8/03/2009)
If we hadn't spent 670 billion (so far) in Iraq, we'd have money for lots of things.
Oh wait, I forgot. You only have a problem with spurious spending when it comes from the other side of the aisle, which clearly indicates the larger problem we have in this country: BOTH SIDES are to blame!