Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Opinion

The Difference of Selling your Car Private or Trading it in at the Dealership

Published

2 minute read

This is a question a lot of people ask themselves, and you should when looking
to purchase a new vehicle at a dealership. Your vehicle has been a part of your
life and holds a certain value whether its monetary or sentimental. There are
advantages and disadvantages when making this decision and it is different for
each situation.

Advantages:
• Don’t have to sell privately
• Tax savings passed on to the new vehicle purchase
• Don’t have to wait for a buyer and can drive away in
your new vehicle sooner
• Proper paperwork and process including paying out
your current vehicle lien
• Carrying over a balance of previous loan
Disadvantages:
• Accepting less money for the vehicle than you could
potentially sell it for yourself
• Feeling uncertain that you are getting the best value
• Having to trust what the Salesperson is telling you

When you trade the vehicle in you don’t have to sell the car privately with
people coming to test drive it that you possibly don’t know which can have
risk – your Insurance coverage and theirs, their driving record or habits, theft
along with marketing and advertising the vehicle yourself. For consumers who
want to sell privately we recommend having an AMVIC Inspection, repair any
safety items, have the car detailed and provide a Carproof report for potential
buyers. To help consumers better understand the dealership process we need
to complete all these to prepare the vehicle for sale, pay to advertise the vehicle,
pay commission to a salesperson for selling the car and lastly making some
profit for the business.

If you are looking to sell your car privately we can assist you with that process
too, we offer a variety of inspections with detailing services and will assist on
the ad write up. We hope this information was useful and if you have any
further questions that we can help with please don’t hesitate to contact me at
the dealership 403.343.6633

Kipp Scott GMC Cadillac Buick is a family-owned business that has proudly served Red Deer, and all of Alberta, for over 50 Years since first opening our doors in 1968. Treating our customers with respect has always been our number-one priority, and we believe when it comes to selling vehicles, honesty is the best policy. Rest assured we’ll do everything we can to make sure you leave our dealership 100% satisfied.

Follow Author

John Stossel

The Swamp Survived: Why Trump Failed to “Drain the Swamp”

Published on

From StosselTV

As a presidential candidate, Donald Trump promised to “drain the swamp.” He didn’t.

Trump made government bigger. He hired new employees, doubled federal spending, and started a bunch of new programs. Now the swamp is bigger.

In our new video, Economist Ed Stringham explains the real way to drain the swamp is to cut the spending that swamp creatures feed on.

After 40+ years of reporting, I now understand the importance of limited government and personal freedom.

——————————————

Libertarian journalist John Stossel created Stossel TV to explain liberty and free markets to young people.

Prior to Stossel TV he hosted a show on Fox Business and co-anchored ABC’s primetime newsmagazine show, 20/20.

Stossel’s economic programs have been adapted into teaching kits by a non-profit organization, “Stossel in the Classroom.” High school teachers in American public schools now use the videos to help educate their students on economics and economic freedom. They are seen by more than 12 million students every year.

Stossel has received 19 Emmy Awards and has been honored five times for excellence in consumer reporting by the National Press Club. Other honors include the George Polk Award for Outstanding Local Reporting and the George Foster Peabody Award.

————

To get our new weekly video from Stossel TV, sign up here: https://www.johnstossel.com/#subscribe

————

Continue Reading

conflict

America Is Really Bad At Foreign Interventions. Why Does Biden Think Ukraine Will Be Any Different?

Published on

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By MORGAN MURPHY

 

One of the very first operations undertaken by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) after its founding in 1947 was to create an army to fight the Soviets in Ukraine. Dubbed Operation Nightingale, the CIA aimed to reconstitute Nazi death squads in Ukraine that the Germans called Nachtigall.

The newly created U.S. intelligence community figured we’d partnered with communists to destroy fascism. Now, post war, we could team with the fascists to destroy communism.

Unsurprisingly, Nightingale was a spectacular failure. The Kremlin’s spies discovered every aspect of the plan well before it was initiated.

In its early years, the CIA lurched from one fiasco to another. On Sept. 20, 1949, CIA analysts declared the Soviet Union would not produce a nuclear weapon for at least another four years. Three days later, Truman had to tell the country that Russia had the bomb.

Sadly, things are hardly better today.

In 2021, U.S. intelligence agencies looked into their crystal ball and told senior congressional leaders that Afghanistan’s national security forces could keep the Taliban at bay for a year or perhaps longer. The Taliban took Kabul in a matter of hours.

“Clearly we didn’t get things right” on that intelligence, National Security Council spokesman John Kirby dryly remarked later.

The next year, U.S. intelligence took the opposite tack on Ukraine, predicting the capital, Kiev, might fall within days of Russia’s 2022 invasion. Two years in, Kiev is still in the Ukraine column.

Bonehead analysts even offered to evacuate Volodymyr Zelensky — evidently having learned nothing from the disastrous U.S. evacuation of Afghan President Ashraf Ghani.

What did they get right? Avril Haynes, the Director of National Intelligence, applauded her agency for correctly predicting that Russia planned to invade Ukraine. “We assess President Putin is prepared for prolonged conflict,” she testified in May 2022. You don’t say? The 100,000 troops Putin amassed on Ukraine’s border were likely a helpful clue.

Many in our intelligence community scoffed at Putin’s criticism of America’s heavy hand in Ukraine. Those who dared point out that the CIA had injected former Nazis into Ukraine after World War II were labeled stooges of Russian disinformation. They’d prefer we not recall the U.S.’s more provocative recent history in Ukraine, much of it based on bad American intelligence.

During Ukraine’s Maidan demonstrations in 2013, U.S. officials, including then-Vice President Joe Biden, saw an opportunity to fulfill the predictions of President Jimmy Carter’s national security advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who postulated that “without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire.”

By pulling Ukraine closer to Europe, NATO and the U.S., they reasoned we could de-claw the Russian bear. Thus, the U.S. supported ousting the democratically-elected Ukraine president, Viktor Yanukovych. Victoria Nuland, Obama’s Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, boasted that the United States had “invested” $5 billion to build Ukraine’s credentials to join the European Union.

She passed out actual cookies during the coup. Nuland was later caught on tape plotting who would be Ukraine’s post-coup president and getting Joe Biden to give an “attaboy” that would “F**k the EU” for not being aggressive enough with Moscow.

On cue, Biden endorsed Ukraine’s uprising: “Nothing would have greater impact for securing our interests.” Yanukovych was ousted and in the months that followed, Nuland pushed the U.S. to arm Ukraine and carefully crafted the media message, “I would like to urge you to use the word ‘defensive system’ to describe what we would be delivering against Putin’s offensive systems.”

If Nuland’s regime-change playbook sounds familiar, stop a moment and ponder that her resume also includes serving as Vice President Dick Cheney’s principal deputy national security advisor. Her husband, Robert Kagan, was among the chief proponents of America’s swell idea to bring democracy and stability to Iraq by toppling Saddam Hussein.

Other U.S. players meddled in Ukraine as well. On April 12th, 2014, CIA Director John Brennan secretly visited Ukraine, kicking off a new covert war with Russia.  In a recent report by The New York Times, turns out the CIA has operated a dozen secret bases in Ukraine since his visit. Little wonder Brennan feared a Trump victory.

Trump’s surprising win in 2016 undermined all this maneuvering. “I really hope that you and President Putin can get together and solve your problem,” Trump told Zelenskyy. “That would be a tremendous achievement.” Trump lowered the temperature, but pausing weapons delivery to Ukraine became the root cause of his first impeachment.

Within six weeks of taking office, the Biden administration cranked up aid to Ukraine, delivering $125 million in March 2021. As of two weeks ago, that figure now tops $185 billion.

America holds a long list of failed interventions based on bad intelligence: Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, Panama, Haiti, Serbia, Grenada, Iran, South Vietnam, Congo, Cuba, Guatemala, Albania and the Dominican Republic, among others.

It doesn’t take an intelligence genius to predict the ultimate outcome of our latest dalliance in Ukraine.

Morgan Murphy is a former DoD press secretary, national security adviser in the U.S. Senate, a veteran of Afghanistan.

The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Continue Reading

Trending

X