Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
Comments
I agree that there are people who will continue to buy low mileage SUV's and trucks. That certainly is their privilege. However, my point was why should I and the other taxpayers subsidize their purchase?
Individual transportation is a quaint notion for a rural USA in the early 1900s---when the car was born in America.
C4C hopefully will not increase the # of cars. We have way too many as it is.
You can see how time and space are influencing the types of cars we drive. Compare 1960 with 2006.
I view C4C as just a small sustaining factor for an industry that must change to survive.
My feeling is since there will be less low priced used cars/trucks on the market, dealers will use this as a reason and scare tactic to raise prices.
Also, people who are close to qualfying may bypass buying now hoping for a revised government program next year. Again, less used vehicles on the market.
Best advice I can give you is to go back and re-read my whole post. The point I was making was that it's almost as beneficial to move someone from a 13 mpg vehicle to a 16 mpg as it is to get someone from an 18 mpg vehicle to a 28 mpg vehicle, in terms of fuel saved.
Personally, I'm not too keen on seeing my tax dollars go to subsidizing ANYBODY's vehicle purchase, whether it's getting them into a more efficient SUV, or a more efficient car. But who knows? In the long run it might work out, reducing our dependency on foreign oil (which if I'm not mistaken, most of it actually comes from Mexico and Canada :P ), and helping to get dollars back in circulation again, get people spending.
Individual transportation is a quaint notion for a rural USA in the early 1900s---when the car was born in America.
I believe horses were individual transportation too. And bicycles in many parts of the world are individual transportation. If you look at many of the largest cities in the world - individual transportation is still the norm on a percentage basis.
Individual transportation is a quaint notion for a rural USA in the early 1900s---when the car was born in America.
Wow!
You may be surprised to learn that we don't all live in NYC, Chicago, LA, etc., even today. Mass transit is a "quaint notion" in a very large number of other metroplitan areas in the USA. It may be nice that it is there for a few senior citizens, unemployed folks, and a very small number of others that actually ride it, but it is hardly vital to anything.
In some cases though, we ARE benefitting from mass transit, even if we're not directly using it. For example, just imagine if Amtrak's Northeast Corridor didn't exist. Just imagine how much more crowded our highways would be between DC and New Yorker. They're bad enough as it is, but just think of all the traffic those trains take off of it. And I'm sure the DC Metro takes a lot of cars off the road, as well.
A lot of people in big cities get by without even having a car. Just think if mass transit went away, and everybody suddenly needed to get a car. The streets would get more crowded, but even more than that, there would be no place to park them! More parking lots and garages would have to be built, and that's more infrastructure to be maintained.
If cities were built upon the premise of every resident having a car, they would stretch out and up even more than they currently do.
Now I agree, mass transit doesn't work everywhere. For instance, if I wanted to take the bus to work, I'd have to walk about halfway TO work, just to get to the nearest bus stop! At that point, might as well just walk the rest of the way. I'd be tempted to bike it on nice days, if the roads weren't so dangerous.
So who should pay for the roads?
By compassion, I meant sometimes you have to give up some things to help others. I think you are oversimplifying things when you compare mass transit to welfare. it's a much more complicated argument than this.
I view this as one of those necessary evils for cities. I travel to DC and NYC frequently. I rather spend $1.50 using the PATH to get into NYC rather than $8 to use the Lincoln Tunnel and another $25-$30 for parking, and hope the person next to me doesn't ding my car. The alternative is you have more people driving, more congestion, the need for more roads, more oil/gas being used, etc.
Because of your posts, I actually paid attention to the people waiting for the buses in my town on the way to work. In my mind, we need to continue to provide public transportation but make it more efficient. Smaller buses, fewer routes, etc. I'm just thankful, I don't have to rely on it.
Be Well, my friend.
Somebody else's taxes go to supporting the Cash for Clunkers program. For example Toyota, Honda, BMW, Merc, Nissan, Mazda all pay more income taxes than any of us ( I think ) so let's just say that it's their taxes that are going to support this program.
No effect.
Preliminary data shows June 09 sales only down around 20% from 08 numbers. In fact Ford is planning to increase production. And this is before the C4C program.
First tell me how many people take these trains each day. Then tell me how many of these people could have stayed in their office, and had a video conference. Third - tell me that as a society we couldn't do a better job of distributing our commuting time. Maybe the problem is too many people need to use the roads for a few hours of the 24 hr/day hmm?
Just think if mass transit went away, and everybody suddenly needed to get a car.
As I said some of the biggest and most densely populated cities do not have much mass transit or car-ownership. Take a look at the giant cities of India, China, Mexico City, Singapore, Hong Kong - walk, bike, scooters. Heck we may even change the use of buildings such that you can live, work, recreate and shop in a 6 block radius (for those who want to live in an urban or suburban area)?
And what's nice about being an American is even if I don't have a say how my money is spent, I have the privilege of being able to grumble about it.
In CA we pay about 60 cents per gallon to maintain the highways and bridges. A large percentage of that goes to mass transit. The roads in CA are poorly maintained for the billions in gas tax we pay. I have no problem with Mass Transit that is self sustaining. It is so bad here that we are now thinking of going about $90 billion further in debt to give a high speed train ride to a few hundred people a day. What a travesty that is for the ignorant masses in CA.
At the turn of the last century the USA had more miles of mass transit than the rest of the world combined. It was all privately owned and profitable. Most of it was to service the growing suburbs around the major cities. Europe had more cars than we did at the time. Then along came cheap cars and the trolleys and trains were no longer profitable in many cities.
I rather spend $1.50 using the PATH to get into NYC rather than $8 to use the Lincoln Tunnel and another $25-$30 for parking
So you accept that welfare because you are the recipient. Looks like you got about $30 in welfare with one trip into NYC. Why don't the rates reflect the savings you enjoyed. The mass transit should cost as much as the car it replaced. Or close to as much. Breaking even would be a big improvement for the cities that are going bankrupt.
C4C may dry up the supply of used cars a bit more, but used car prices are already up there pretty good.
"Compared with new vehicles sales — which are at lows unseen in decades — the used car market is doing well," observed Edmunds.com CEO Jeremy Anwyl. "Desirable used vehicles are becoming harder to find, pushing up their prices, while today's new cars are heavily discounted. This is creating an unusual economic event: It can actually be less expensive to purchase a new car than a used car."
Some New Cars Now Less Expensive than Used Cars, Edmunds.com Reports (March 20, 2009).
Take mass transit away in America and the country would collapse into utter chaos. We *all* know this if we step back and visualize it for a moment. Could you defend the view that it wouldn't matter? Don't think so.
It, public mass transit, is the system that takes up all that a private automobile and current highways cannot do. It's part of a *network* of transportation. Some regions need it more than others.
It also doesn't matter if it pays for itself or not DIRECTLY---it pays for itself a hundred times over in worker productivity, cleaner air and a better life for people too young or too old to drive. Can you bear a jog in Tokyo or Athens? It's tough going and it's not smog from metro trains either.
Sink or swim unregulated capitalism is not a form of government. It is at best a presently dysfunctional and somewhat discredited form of economics.
Bring on C4C. The boat's leaking.
These were very slow sellers when new and near impossible to sell as used cars especially now since the recent news about Pontiac.
Maybe you'll get lucky!
As an example, we are PAYING as much at the auction for some cars then we were SELLING them for recently. Just the market and the "books" can't begin to keep up with the changes.
As a rule of thumb, cars that few people buy when new are usually dogs later as used cars. Nobody wants them even at distressed prices.
It takes a very astute Used Car Manager these days to avoid making a buying mistake. Yesterdays hits don't always win today's ball games.
Best example of this were the "flash in the pan" PT Cruisers.
I think we will have bigger problems with the cut backs in police protection. Many cities are doing just that. Chicago is one of them and it is becoming a war zone. Little girls mowed down on their front yards. Something has to give in this growing welfare system you seem to enjoy. People need to pay for the services rendered. If a bus ride across town cost $10 that is what a person should pay. I dare say that is still a lot cheaper than owning a car. Giving senior discounts on the bus makes about as much sense as the C4C bill. That would be ZERO..
We are not old enough to have EVER experienced unregulated capitalism. I am not sure that any country has ever tried it.
By the way subsidies to corporations are not a tenet of capitalism. It is socialism to the max.
It is AWD and pretty loaded other than leather.
My point though is that I see the used market prices going up.
But to answer your question, my main car is a 325, so I'm used to small cars. Bought the Torrent last fall as my winter vehicle, but never got used the the largeness of it. My son in college has been driving my Grand Prix to commute, but it's getting high in miles and repair costs, so... trading in the Torrent on a Vibe for him and I'll drive the Grand Prix in the winter. I bought the Torrent in November when some excellent deals were out on used, so I'm not even taking too much of a hit on it. Acutally, I'm not sure if I ever used the AWD. It doesn't give you any indication if it switched to AWD. It's not like my old Jimmy where you put into 4W.
Sounds like you are an astute shopper. I'm sure you will make out ok on your trade if you bought the Torrent used and don't need the AWD.
At least that is how I am looking at the C4C program. I'm hoping to take advantage of it in September and since my taxes are going to pay for it one way or another, I figure I'm just getting some of my money back.
I can attest that most of these trains are packed. This train goes through DC, baltimore, Philadelphia, northern NJ and into NYC. Major cities. Sometimes you need to physically be at a location. My job cannot be done by video conferencing.
Some professions can adjust their schedules and to some extent this already happens. Many retailers don't start until 10. Hospitals vary their shifts. Its not a bad idea but not sure hwo feasible it is.
If you feel those international cities are better off than living in any city in the US (minus Detroit) simply because they don't have mass transit, have fun living there. I live 32 miles from work. Driving is the only way I can get to work. I liek th idea of a Star Trek transporter though. :P
Seriously, if they will give you the money you think that Torrent is worth and still sell you a Vibe at 300 over, I wouldn't be picky. I would grab ANY Vibe and run like a thief in the night!
I'm very serious because something sounds wrong!
This is very true. The real question is how much regulation and subsidies do we favor? What percentage of our output of goods an services should be allocated to (federal, state and local) governments? Reasonable, intelligent people will differ on the answers to these questions, depending on how much faith, or concern, they have about government and free markets. However, let's all be clear on one thing, and that is there are important tradeoffs for various mixes of government and free market activities. Make no mistake about that. European countries have tended to favor more government involvement in their economies than the U.S. (until recently, at least). As a result, they tend to have more even income distributions, with fewer extremes. One significant tradeoff, however, is that we've traditionally enjoyed a lower unemployment rate, and less structural unemployment. Also, our young people (again, at least until recently, but maybe now too) have found it easier to find employment and to pursue their economic dreams than their European counterparts. Compare the innovation in the U.S. and Europe. Many Americans say the European system is better, but I've met many Europeans who envy what we have. There's probably some "the grass is always greener on the other side" effect here.
As I've mentioned several times, I favored the rescue of our financial system, because of the devastation that a financial meltdown would have caused, but I have serious reservations about whether the aid given to GM and Chrysler will be worthwhile in the long run. I tend to doubt it, but will try to keep an open mind until we find out whether these two companies survive, and the cost of saving them is tallied. I tend to think that Chapter 11 or 7 would have been preferable. Other companies would have purchased the assets of these companies that are worth saving. For example, someone would have purchased the Corvette brand, and maybe Chevy, Cadillac and Jeep, if not the others. The number of vehicles sold in the U.S. would not have been materially affected. I'm also not convinced that pouring tens of billions into GM and Chrysler will result in a net reduction in unemployment in the end.
Proponents of the bailouts will cite the surge in unemployment that bankruptcies would have caused, and quickly accuse those who favored bankruptcy for GM and Chrysler, and some suppliers, as lacking compassion. It remains to be seem just how compassionate the rescue of GM and Chrysler will turn out to be. It's too early to say whether the jobs saved will, in the end, not be more than offset by the effects associated with the increases in the deficit.
Proponents and opponents of more versus less government frequently accuse those that disagree with them of not "getting it." How often have you heard some variation of "conservatives just don't get it...," or liberals just don't get it...." I think it's more a case of people with reasonable intelligence and judgment reaching different conclusions because their priorities differ.
I would add, my understanding is that home ownership in most European countries, is a small fraction of the USA. One of the real advantages we had to offer in the past. Seems the house of cards is falling and many will lose their homes built on poor economics.
How many will lose their cars when Uncle Sam makes the down payment with the C4C bill? Hopefully the banks are now using sound lending practices that were thrown to the wind over the last decade. The Sub-Prime lending was IMO a direct result of the Feds pushing the lending institutions in a bad direction.
But yeah, it's very possible the D3 are going into some serious re-structuring in the future and may not be recognizable as the corporations they are today.
For some twisted reason, I have a soft spot for the Torrent! A few years ago, when a friend of mine wanted to get a new smallish SUV, he narrowed it down to an Xterra and an Equinox. I wanted him to look at the Torrent, because, while it's the same thing, I just thought it had a nicer looking front-end. But the, I'd choose an Astre over a Vega, too! :P
Well, my friend didn't like its look as much as the Equinox. Ended up being a moot point though, because he got the Xterra.
No one said the train(s?) between DC and NYC aren't packed. That does not answer the question - which was "if the trains didn't exist then the roads would be so much more crowded". I want to know how many trains there are X how many passengers on each train, and how this compares to how many people are on the main roads between NYC and DC. So do the trains move 5,000 people per day, and the highways move 100,000/day? what is this ratio? and how much extra capacity is there on the highways? are the highways bumper to bumper 24 hr/day or just around commuting time?
Really? The cities you mention are fairly expensive and the countries they're in are in population/economic stagnation, with cultural issues from immigration (remember the riots a few years ago in Paris?). Italy is actually getting rather elderly and the population is in decline, with the Mafia having a higher GDP than any other Italian company. Unemployment in the Euro zone is always higher than the U.S. You must be watching the Travel Channel a lot.
C4C is a small welfare program that benefits few. If you've been the good citizen, working hard, paying your bills, saving, and driving a high mpg newer vehicle, then you're getting scrued one-more-time, in not getting the government handouts. As gagrice said the poor, the wealthy, and those that have blatantly screwed-up or used poor judgment are getting bailed-out.
Taking into account just rail/air travel, Amtrak accounts for 47%.