The Interstate Highway system is owned by the Federal Gov't. It is the primary means of distribution of goods in the US.
I was pretty young. However I believe the thought behind the Interstate highway system was to give fast access to any sudden need of military materials to combat the Communist threat that FDR tied US up in. Also I believe the framers of the Constitution were very much desirous of building a good network of transportation for the growing nation. Jefferson fought like crazy against the Federalist's getting appropriations for Meriwether Lewis to find a good route to the Pacific Ocean.
How building a highway system for all of US to benefit from, equates to deciding which business will survive by injecting tax dollars is a real stretch of the imagination.
By the way, I would rate Ike fairly low as a President. He was a good military man just as Washington was. They were not great Presidents.
The slow process of destroying states rights and making a stronger central socialist style government is taking one freedom at a time. Both parties have been guilty. Think of the frog in the pan starting with cold water.
And Bush II was far below Carter...around the corner and two flights down.
I thought you said Bush saved the auto industry bucking the Congress to give GM & C a Christmas present. GW Bush could have been in the upper end, if he was not such a pushover for the Libs on the left.
OK this is a site about cars, this thread is specifically about the C4C program.
As usual you've hijacked it to continue promoting your rejected neo-con viewpoint and generally to spread your negative outlook on life. Give it a brake!
Hmmm, and you never have to have the last liberal word, right?
Yes it is about C4C, and I will concede that it has very sloppily cleared a lot of crap vehicles off the highway and put a lot of crap vehicles back on the highway. How's that for saying I believe it is a flaky worthless program?
Think of the frog in the pan starting with cold water.
That premise is so false, you don't even have to go to Snopes - Wikipedia even has it. Al Gore likes to use it too.
In the "no one saw this coming but posters in this discussion category" -
"In truth, this program launched at the worst possible time of the year," opined Edmunds.com CEO Jeremy Anwyl. "The annual summer sell-down typically creates a rush of activity for the industry, and this year that rush came right after automakers cut production in response to the floundering economy. It's a simple case of supply and demand, bolstered by a reduced level of negotiation on the part of excited clunker traders. Add to this the automakers' unseasonable reduction in incentives and the message is clear: if you buy a car this summer, you should expect to pay higher prices."
The ones that can take advantage of the program are the more organized and better well-off.
The more organized and better well-off don't need the program if they are better well-off & more organized. C4C is aimed at moving inventory to those who otherwise would not qualify for purchasing a new vehicle.
The last comment in your post is typical of one at the losing end of an argument - fire off a personal negative shot.
I like your boss. He has some common sense. There is no way I would give up my clunker unless I had the best price possible on whatever I was buying, before the $4500 was deducted. This ignorance of giving the dealer some of the gravy is just not going to happen with me. I tell you the look on the face of the VW salesman when I asked him about C4C was priceless. All the color went from his face and he said you don't have a clunker do you. I quickly told him no to avoid a heart attack victim. They had no diesels to sell so it was a non starter anyway. When we stopped by about 1PM Tuesday the dealership was empty. And they also sell Hyundai. Not sure what they had left for sale.
I am sure the money will all be gone before they get the Golf TDIs in stock. Which makes it easier to resist the temptation.
There seems to be wide room for interpretation regarding the term "socialism," depending, to some extent, on the political orientation of the person who's defining it. However, according to Webster's dictionary, socialism is defined as follows"
" any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods 2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state 3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done."
By these definitions, the U.S. is certainly not a socialist country. I would say President Obama and his administration are left of center, in the American political spectrum, just as President Bush was right of center, but the President is no more a socialist than his predecessor was a fascist.
Also, I would differentiate between Social Security, Medicare, and Food stamps, on the one hand, and C4C, TARP, and the GM & C bailouts on the other hand. I would categorize the first three as social welfare programs, whereas the second grouping are economic stimulus measures.
The vast majority of Americans reject pure capitalism and socialism, but embrace the notion of free markets, coupled with a safety net. While rejecting the extremes, this spectrum still leaves a lot of room for vigorous disagreement, as evidenced by the messages in this discussion. Some feel C4C is great, with few or even no negatives. Others see it as deeply flawed, with few or no positives. I don't doubt that each of us is sincere, and would like our messages to win converts to our way of thinking. I doubt that this ever happens. We may concede a point or two, from time to time, but rarely change our initial point of view.
This leads me to believe that the roots of how we feel about C4C run pretty deep. Maybe it's in our hard wiring. For example, I have a deeper dislike of waste than most people do. I also have a stronger emotional attachment for older cars. I don't know why, exactly, but for these reasons the notion of destroying cars that have useful life left in them really bothers me. For many others, maybe the majority, it doesn't matter. Now I don't care if a car that's all used up or has little useful life gets destroyed. No problem. However, I think individual owners - the marketplace - is best equipped to decide when vehicles should be scrapped, and not the federal government. Others obviously disagree.
Sorry if I stated the obvious here, but I did so because maybe these views resonate with other readers.
I hope some of you salesmen are saving the big commission checks you get now. You will need that money when NO ONE is buying after C4C is over, and you're on unemployment.
with 4,500 from C4C, the price I was offered on 2010 Camary is 19,330.92 inclusive of tax and registration - this is suppose to be with 0% financing for 60 months. However, they are offering that at 52 months and pushing me for an extended warranty of 73 mths with extra rush protection for 2,830 - that sounds way to high- when I know there is an exclusive toyota protection that goes to 100K.
I have to make this decision today - can anyone advise - please.
They ALL try to add on an extended warranty. That's money in THEIR pocket, and what good is that doing YOU? Save the difference in the monthly payments, and at the end of 50 months, buy an extended warranty then. That's my opinion anyway. Please also review the contract CAREFULLY for any other unnecessary add ons. As well, any time an offer is only good for today, it may be better to walk away. It is so easy for car salesmen to take advantage of the average person buying a car.
My car salesman made me believe that he was giving me $3700 for my trade-in (just by the way he worded it) when what he ACTUALLY did was give me $2000 for my trade-in and $1700 off the sticker price (pretty much the same deal I was getting at other dealers and he knew that). When I asked him about it later, he denied that he put it that way, but I know what I heard. So please just be careful, and one of the most important things when a buying a car is - DO NOT BE IN A HURRY. WHY is it that you have to make this decision today ? Is it so you won't notice that you're being taken advantage of ? Think about it.
It doesn't matter whether they 'need' it or not. The fact is that the ones more organized and better off are the one that actually are taking advantage of the program. Your first sentence is absolutely false. I see the results of the program every single day.
You're making a supposition based on ideology and not fact.
The vast majority of Americans reject pure capitalism and socialism, but embrace the notion of free markets, coupled with a safety net. While rejecting the extremes, this spectrum still leaves a lot of room for vigorous disagreement, as evidenced by the messages in this discussion.
FINALLY. A sane position, stated without hyperbole. I happen to disagree with you about the merits of C4C, but thank you for posting without the knee-jerk language that we've seen from both the right and left on this matter.
That C4C almost stampeded me into buying something I don't really need.Fortunately,for once my common sense won out and I am keeping my second car "clunker".Your advice is excellent.Never buy without seriously consider the deal at home,not at the showroom surrounded by shiny new cars which are practically shouting at you "buy me,buy me".Fact is there are good deals around without the C4C program, and unless you really were planning to buy a new car,just wait until your "lust" for that shiny new car cools down.That is what I decided, and for a change didn't jump on the bandwagon . There are other considerations.Like when you trade a car in,you don't pay taxes on the full amount of the purchase price.Not sure that applies on the 4500 or 3500 you get on this program. The extended warranty is a good idea,but the price does matter.You can buy it at a lot cheaper price if you haggle.They have a lot of leeway in that respect.Or buy a brand that comes with a great warranty,like the Korean brands,or even GM which comes pretty close.Chrysler offers a lifetime power train warranty but read the fine print.
Mickey and Roxanne - thank you both. The reason for making the decision today is the 0% finance ends tomorrow Sunday. The C4C is good for us as the trade in vehicle is not worth 4,500 - the repairs it needs exceeds this amount. I will keep my 9 year old Honda. What bother me most about this situation is the warranty price and they stayed with the Manufactor sticker price so, the C4C can be good but last month I could have bought the vehicle for 2K less with 3.8% financing. Yes, sales person is making pressure saying there are not enough Camary's around but, he told me earlier in the day they only had 3 left on the lot, when I left last night they had 8. They also wanted a 1K deposit - never heard of such a thing,
Just thought of another reason why C4C is a bad idea. Remember that the program was initially sold on the idea that it would get old inefficient vehicles off the road? We see quite a few SUVs, pickups, large cars etc being brought in to dealers. But I think most people might drive the new car more miles for obvious reasons; tired of the old car, more fun, and cheaper to drive the new one, thereby reducing the gasoline savings to some degree, even negating it altogether. When gas is more expensive, people tend to drive less and vice versa. Of course pollution would be improved considerably as new cars are nearly pollution free.
NY Times on Friday , page B4, has a good article on the importance of the D3 putting out newer models faster.
I think without bailouts and C4C programs, all this would be impossible, for them to get the breathing room they need.
And yeah, if the D2 goes down, those jobs go down with 'em. Of course, some will find other jobs, but at lower pay rates and in other areas. But the initial relief efforts and the hardships will be ghastly.
RE: SOCIALISM --- bingo, you got it. Took a socialist to instruct us that Obama is a committed free market president, (not that the socialist wag thought that a good thing) just like every U.S. President before him. That's how we operate in America.
What is wrong about being organized? With a 1996 Nissan Quest that was hemorrhaging all fluids, and wouldn't hold a battery charge for 48 hours, I started researching a CARS trade at the beginning of July. I read the entire 136 pages of the CARS regulations, as well as the 6-page summary submitted to the Federal Register. As a result, I made a deal for a couple of hundred dollars less than Edmunds TMV, and completed a CARS trade in less than two hours on July 29 with no surprises and no hidden fees.
I also was not one of those people "surprised" by the digital TV conversion on June 12.
"Let us be thankful for the fools. But for them the rest of us could not succeed." -- Mark Twain.
>You mean like $600 billion and counting on Iraq???
Nope. Obama is still a'spending and increasing it on Iraq and Afghanistan, opposite of campaign promises. On top of that his party and he have been just piling on unnecessary spending to get as many favorite things passed before 2010 election.
But....not "peak years"....2005-2007...those were some of the *worst* years.
What years were higher than 2005 at 16,986,154 vehicles sold? 2007 was the worst year since 1998. I thought the 1990s were such great years? Your just spinning now.
And yeah, if the D2 goes down, those jobs go down with 'em. Of course, some will find other jobs, but at lower pay rates and in other areas. But the initial relief efforts and the hardships will be ghastly.
That goes for the millions that have lost jobs since the Democrats took over Congress. There is no doubt in my mind that the days of high school students getting an unskilled job making $100k plus per year are history. Those D3 UAW jobs are going away quickly. The few that remain will have their contracts reduced and then reduced again. They go on strike and they will lose to the hordes just looking for any job. Reuther's socialist utopia is on the down hill slide.
And as for C4C, I would bet there is not a net gain of a single job. A few will hold on a bit longer is the only result.
Note that Unemployment goes up in 2001, drops slowly through the 2006 elections, --until the fan blade hits the radiator during the Wall St. hog fest in '08.
Wow! we had a very simiilar story. Traded in a 93 quest. It had AC issues and a leak somewhere, but still was running very well - with 195k miles. We had cash on hand and had been shopping for a replacement vehicle for several months. We were looking at a two-year old vehicle. When CARS came out, I read all the info and found that the difference in price between new and two-year used was about the same as the $3500 CARS credit. Made $ense to me and we have a shiny new car with no payments.
I still think the program is a mis-use of tax money, makes very little difference to the environment (4mpg qualifies for $3500?!?), and takes vehicles off the road that could have been purchased (or donated) cheap and fixed up, for those who cannot afford newer vehicles. But, hey, once the law was passed, I'd be stupid to pass up on this.
I never said anything against being organized. In fact I said the opposite. Perhaps I wasn't clear.
The response was to the prior post that posited that the unworthy were going to be the ones that were getting the advantage of this program. I stated that in my direct experience just the opposite was true. The organized and well-off were the ones getting the benefit.
In fact the 'redistribution of wealth' that so many herein fear is going in the opposite direction since those better off are more organized and ready to move on a moment's notice to take advantage of a good situation. In addition those better off are not so concerned about meeting a budget, they simply move when a good opportunity arises because the consequences of making an error in a purchase of this size are minor.
In fact the 'redistribution of wealth' that so many herein fear is going in the opposite direction since those better off are more organized and ready to move on a moment's notice to take advantage of a good situation. In addition those better off are not so concerned about meeting a budget, they simply move when a good opportunity arises because the consequences of making an error in a purchase of this size are minor.
You said it. The people who need a more fuel efficient vehicle (living from paycheck to paycheck) are not the ones taking advantage of this (delay the inevitable) program. Those who can afford to buy cars, on a whim, are the ones who quickly take advantage of the situation. The wealth is going in the wrong direction. Of course this is ok with Obama, because he gets points for helping the car companies, and a few consumers at the same time. C4C Stinks. :sick:
If one were to follow the advice of a good segment of the posters herein the ones who really need to dump their clunkers for something newer and more fuel efficient are precisely 'the unworthy' that 'should not' burden themselves with more debt.
According to the party line these people should just stay as they are.
Maybe instead of C4C using tax $ from general collections, a special fund
Simple - use money from gas taxes. Even a small increase.
What better way to encourage fuel efficiency than making fuel cost a little more? Then use the money to get rid of clunkers and get huge improvements in fuel economy for the fleet?
The buying frenzy is widely interpreted to mean that Congress and the administration did a brilliant job of designing the plan. George Mason University economist Russell Roberts contends on his Cafe Hayek blog that it proves just the opposite.
If you put your house on the market and immediately get 10 offers at the listed price, it means you should have asked for more. The stampede, says Roberts, indicates the subsidy ($3,500 or $4,500 per trade) was too rich and the government could have gotten "the same effects with a much smaller amount."
As it is, the House and Senate quickly allocated another $2 billion to consign more cars and trucks to the scrap heap. Isn't that just like our government? A lot of money spent and a lot of wreckage left behind.
They'll be recycled, and more efficient and safer cars are taking their place.
The pollution in the building of a new car still surpasses the pollution put out by a properly maintained vehicle that is 20 years old or less. No net gain in cutting pollution. Small net gain on cutting the use of fossil fuel. Though the biggest sellers are only gaining about 4-5 MPG on paper. I will take a 2001 Explorer or F150 in a crash any day over a Fit or Prius.
Here's a better idea. Eliminate the exemption of trucks and SUV's from the gas guzzler tax.
AMEN. But with one caveat: since many businesses depend on these vehicles, allow bona fide companies to claim a deduction for the GGT on their corporate income tax.
That way, we don't wind up stifling small businesses (contractors, delivery services, etc.) who legitimately need these vehicles, but we do exact a penalty from those who drive them purely for the sake of vanity.
Don't I recall Clinton missed a couple of chances to eliminate the terror threat during his tenure? That would have prevented 9-11. :sick: But at least he destroyed an aspirin factory. :P
>patently false because of the way Bush/Cheney hid the costs of Mr Bush's Personal
Disagree. Were that those who spent 8 years of paranoia hanging everything on a rope around Bush's or Cheney's neck would be able to do the same with the current administration's messes and failures.
In line with the topic: "The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office said Thursday the federal government's budget deficit reached $1.3 trillion through the first ten months of fiscal 2009, on track to reach a record high of $1.8 trillion for the 12-month period."--Extra debt for year will exceed the $1.3 T limit and reach $1.9: but it's only money
Eliminate the exemption of trucks and SUV's from the gas guzzler tax.
I got a better idea. Allow small diesel trucks and SUVs into the US market, so we can save fuel. It is the same US Government that is behind this goofy C4C that has repressive tariffs on much more efficient PU trucks.
>stampede, says Roberts, indicates the subsidy ($3,500 or $4,500 per trade) was too rich and the government could have gotten "the same effects with a much smaller amount."
Note that the stampede is on the part of dealers, as well as customers, who have seen $$$ signs in extra profit as well as extra sales. A few certainly have taken advantage of the opportunity to gain extra profit per deal.
Even the local rag has published wire articles about the real expense of the program's not having been well thought through by Congress. Surprise! Surprise!
The used car markets are going to be much higher priced is their conclusion. Also used parts for cars that people need from recycler yards won't be there.
According to the party line these people should just stay as they are.
"Stay as they are". In other words, bend over, here it comes. You just keep driving your 95 Ford Taurus (which doesn't qualify for the plan), while we use your tax dollars to help your well-to-do neighbor buy a new Hybrid.
Allow small diesel trucks and SUVs into the US market, so we can save fuel. It is the same US Government that is behind this goofy C4C that has repressive tariffs on much more efficient PU trucks.
The US does impose nasty tariffs on trucks. Thus, pretty much all Nissan and Toyota pickups sold in the US are built here.
But that's not why small diesels aren't available in the US. They're not available because trucks under 8600 lbs GVWR are held to the same emissions standards as cars, and truck makers don't want to go to the trouble and expense of certifying them. European manufacturers already have high-tech automotive diesel engines that would meet US regs with minor tweaks, and certainly they and the Asian companies know how to apply the same ideas to bigger truck engines.
But most truck diesels on the world market are dated designs that lack the sophistication of the same companies' passenger car diesels, and it's because the world's truck buyers are more focused on the initial cost than on the potential for greater refinement. Only in the North American and Australian markets are trucks treated as personal transportation, where refinement matters. I can't see a typical suburban soccer mom or dad putting up with the noise and bother of a typical commercial direct-injection diesel in what they consider to be the "family car"--whether or not it's a truck-based vehicle.
Despite the potential for resistance, Mahindra still appears to be ready to go with its diesel for the US market. Reports describe the Mahindra's engine as decidedly unrefined, even agricultural, but that's the market the company is courting. They are planning to sell their truck as a workhorse, not a status symbol, to the same kind of customers who have been buying Mahindra tractors for years. Here's hoping that will awaken the sleeping giants (Ford, Toyota, Nissan) and give them an incentive to compete in this potentially very lucrative market segment.
Imagine a 3.0L turbodiesel Ranger or Frontier or Tacoma, with a six-speed manual and selectable 4wd. Or for that matter, picture the same powertrain in an Explorer, Xterra, or 4Runner.
The technology is already out there. All that's missing is the will.
And to take us back toward the topic of this thread: the real culprit here is the lack of an integrated energy/environment/technology vision on the part of, well, every presidential administration since the advent of the automobile. We need another Teddy Roosevelt to articulate the relationships between energy independence, environmental stewardship, and national security, and put the power of the bully pulpit behind the vision. No ad hoc combination of Cash for Clunkers and Drill, Baby, Drill is going to cut it.
Why won't the parts (used) still be available. The recycler can still strip off any part they want except for the disabled motor. The law does not curtail them from salvaging for example (the transmission, windshiled, all other windows, etc., door handles hoods, etc., etc.)!!!!!
What happened to the rule that the motor is damaged beyond repair, and then the rest of the vehicle is left for 6 months to the recycling yard to sell parts. Then the car must be crushed. I thought the transmission also could not be reused.
Comments
I was pretty young. However I believe the thought behind the Interstate highway system was to give fast access to any sudden need of military materials to combat the Communist threat that FDR tied US up in. Also I believe the framers of the Constitution were very much desirous of building a good network of transportation for the growing nation. Jefferson fought like crazy against the Federalist's getting appropriations for Meriwether Lewis to find a good route to the Pacific Ocean.
How building a highway system for all of US to benefit from, equates to deciding which business will survive by injecting tax dollars is a real stretch of the imagination.
By the way, I would rate Ike fairly low as a President. He was a good military man just as Washington was. They were not great Presidents.
The slow process of destroying states rights and making a stronger central socialist style government is taking one freedom at a time. Both parties have been guilty. Think of the frog in the pan starting with cold water.
I thought you said Bush saved the auto industry bucking the Congress to give GM & C a Christmas present. GW Bush could have been in the upper end, if he was not such a pushover for the Libs on the left.
As usual you've hijacked it to continue promoting your rejected neo-con viewpoint and generally to spread your negative outlook on life. Give it a brake!
Hmmm, and you never have to have the last liberal word, right?
Yes it is about C4C, and I will concede that it has very sloppily cleared a lot of crap vehicles off the highway and put a lot of crap vehicles back on the highway. How's that for saying I believe it is a flaky worthless program?
That premise is so false, you don't even have to go to Snopes - Wikipedia even has it. Al Gore likes to use it too.
In the "no one saw this coming but posters in this discussion category" -
"In truth, this program launched at the worst possible time of the year," opined Edmunds.com CEO Jeremy Anwyl. "The annual summer sell-down typically creates a rush of activity for the industry, and this year that rush came right after automakers cut production in response to the floundering economy. It's a simple case of supply and demand, bolstered by a reduced level of negotiation on the part of excited clunker traders. Add to this the automakers' unseasonable reduction in incentives and the message is clear: if you buy a car this summer, you should expect to pay higher prices."
"Cash for Clunkers" Provides Windfall for Some, High Prices for All
The more organized and better well-off don't need the program if they are better well-off & more organized. C4C is aimed at moving inventory to those who otherwise would not qualify for purchasing a new vehicle.
The last comment in your post is typical of one at the losing end of an argument - fire off a personal negative shot.
I am sure the money will all be gone before they get the Golf TDIs in stock. Which makes it easier to resist the temptation.
" any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done."
By these definitions, the U.S. is certainly not a socialist country. I would say President Obama and his administration are left of center, in the American political spectrum, just as President Bush was right of center, but the President is no more a socialist than his predecessor was a fascist.
Also, I would differentiate between Social Security, Medicare, and Food stamps, on the one hand, and C4C, TARP, and the GM & C bailouts on the other hand. I would categorize the first three as social welfare programs, whereas the second grouping are economic stimulus measures.
The vast majority of Americans reject pure capitalism and socialism, but embrace the notion of free markets, coupled with a safety net. While rejecting the extremes, this spectrum still leaves a lot of room for vigorous disagreement, as evidenced by the messages in this discussion. Some feel C4C is great, with few or even no negatives. Others see it as deeply flawed, with few or no positives. I don't doubt that each of us is sincere, and would like our messages to win converts to our way of thinking. I doubt that this ever happens. We may concede a point or two, from time to time, but rarely change our initial point of view.
This leads me to believe that the roots of how we feel about C4C run pretty deep. Maybe it's in our hard wiring. For example, I have a deeper dislike of waste than most people do. I also have a stronger emotional attachment for older cars. I don't know why, exactly, but for these reasons the notion of destroying cars that have useful life left in them really bothers me. For many others, maybe the majority, it doesn't matter. Now I don't care if a car that's all used up or has little useful life
gets destroyed. No problem. However, I think individual owners - the marketplace - is best equipped to decide when vehicles should be scrapped, and not the federal government. Others obviously disagree.
Sorry if I stated the obvious here, but I did so because maybe these views resonate with other readers.
Article in The Truth About Cars; Analysis by Kelley's Blue Book
I completely agree. Anyone buying a new or used car now, unless they absolutely have to, is making a big mistake.
I have to make this decision today - can anyone advise - please.
No its not it is aimed at moving units. Clearing the lots for the 2010s. Everything else was secondary.
Please also review the contract CAREFULLY for any other unnecessary add ons. As well, any time an offer is only good for today, it may be better to walk away. It is so easy for car salesmen to take advantage of the average person buying a car.
My car salesman made me believe that he was giving me $3700 for my trade-in (just by the way he worded it) when what he ACTUALLY did was give me $2000 for my trade-in and $1700 off the sticker price (pretty much the same deal I was getting at other dealers and he knew that). When I asked him about it later, he denied that he put it that way, but I know what I heard. So please just be careful, and one of the most important things when a buying a car is - DO NOT BE IN A HURRY. WHY is it that you have to make this decision today ? Is it so you won't notice that you're being taken advantage of ? Think about it.
You're making a supposition based on ideology and not fact.
FINALLY. A sane position, stated without hyperbole. I happen to disagree with you about the merits of C4C, but thank you for posting without the knee-jerk language that we've seen from both the right and left on this matter.
The extended warranty is a good idea,but the price does matter.You can buy it at a lot cheaper price if you haggle.They have a lot of leeway in that respect.Or buy a brand that comes with a great warranty,like the Korean brands,or even GM which comes pretty close.Chrysler offers a lifetime power train warranty but read the fine print.
Yes, sales person is making pressure saying there are not enough Camary's around but, he told me earlier in the day they only had 3 left on the lot, when I left last night they had 8. They also wanted a 1K deposit - never heard of such a thing,
Regards, DQ
http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2008/01/04/074386.html (2007)
http://www.theautochannel.com/articles/2007/01/03/032882.html (2006--2005)
NY Times on Friday , page B4, has a good article on the importance of the D3 putting out newer models faster.
I think without bailouts and C4C programs, all this would be impossible, for them to get the breathing room they need.
And yeah, if the D2 goes down, those jobs go down with 'em. Of course, some will find other jobs, but at lower pay rates and in other areas. But the initial relief efforts and the hardships will be ghastly.
RE: SOCIALISM --- bingo, you got it. Took a socialist to instruct us that Obama is a committed free market president, (not that the socialist wag thought that a good thing) just like every U.S. President before him. That's how we operate in America.
While I don't agree with your assessment of FDR, I agree that whoever was considered the worst president prior to #43 has definitely been dethroned.
You mean like $600 billion and counting on Iraq???
I also was not one of those people "surprised" by the digital TV conversion on June 12.
"Let us be thankful for the fools. But for them the rest of us could not succeed." -- Mark Twain.
Nope. Obama is still a'spending and increasing it on Iraq and Afghanistan, opposite of campaign promises. On top of that his party and he have been just piling on unnecessary spending to get as many favorite things passed before 2010 election.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
What years were higher than 2005 at 16,986,154 vehicles sold? 2007 was the worst year since 1998. I thought the 1990s were such great years? Your just spinning now.
And yeah, if the D2 goes down, those jobs go down with 'em. Of course, some will find other jobs, but at lower pay rates and in other areas. But the initial relief efforts and the hardships will be ghastly.
That goes for the millions that have lost jobs since the Democrats took over Congress. There is no doubt in my mind that the days of high school students getting an unskilled job making $100k plus per year are history. Those D3 UAW jobs are going away quickly. The few that remain will have their contracts reduced and then reduced again. They go on strike and they will lose to the hordes just looking for any job. Reuther's socialist utopia is on the down hill slide.
And as for C4C, I would bet there is not a net gain of a single job. A few will hold on a bit longer is the only result.
LOL.
Let's divert from political speculations and stick to numbers--this will be more productive for us I think.
UNEMPLOYMENT RATES, 1999-2009
Note that Unemployment goes up in 2001, drops slowly through the 2006 elections, --until the fan blade hits the radiator during the Wall St. hog fest in '08.
Wow! we had a very simiilar story. Traded in a 93 quest. It had AC issues and a leak somewhere, but still was running very well - with 195k miles. We had cash on hand and had been shopping for a replacement vehicle for several months. We were looking at a two-year old vehicle. When CARS came out, I read all the info and found that the difference in price between new and two-year used was about the same as the $3500 CARS credit. Made $ense to me and we have a shiny new car with no payments.
I still think the program is a mis-use of tax money, makes very little difference to the environment (4mpg qualifies for $3500?!?), and takes vehicles off the road that could have been purchased (or donated) cheap and fixed up, for those who cannot afford newer vehicles. But, hey, once the law was passed, I'd be stupid to pass up on this.
I never said anything against being organized. In fact I said the opposite. Perhaps I wasn't clear.
The response was to the prior post that posited that the unworthy were going to be the ones that were getting the advantage of this program. I stated that in my direct experience just the opposite was true. The organized and well-off were the ones getting the benefit.
In fact the 'redistribution of wealth' that so many herein fear is going in the opposite direction since those better off are more organized and ready to move on a moment's notice to take advantage of a good situation. In addition those better off are not so concerned about meeting a budget, they simply move when a good opportunity arises because the consequences of making an error in a purchase of this size are minor.
You said it. The people who need a more fuel efficient vehicle (living from paycheck to paycheck) are not the ones taking advantage of this (delay the inevitable) program. Those who can afford to buy cars, on a whim, are the ones who quickly take advantage of the situation. The wealth is going in the wrong direction. Of course this is ok with Obama, because he gets points for helping the car companies, and a few consumers at the same time. C4C Stinks. :sick:
According to the party line these people should just stay as they are.
Simple - use money from gas taxes. Even a small increase.
What better way to encourage fuel efficiency than making fuel cost a little more? Then use the money to get rid of clunkers and get huge improvements in fuel economy for the fleet?
The buying frenzy is widely interpreted to mean that Congress and the administration did a brilliant job of designing the plan. George Mason University economist Russell Roberts contends on his Cafe Hayek blog that it proves just the opposite.
If you put your house on the market and immediately get 10 offers at the listed price, it means you should have asked for more. The stampede, says Roberts, indicates the subsidy ($3,500 or $4,500 per trade) was too rich and the government could have gotten "the same effects with a much smaller amount."
As it is, the House and Senate quickly allocated another $2 billion to consign more cars and trucks to the scrap heap. Isn't that just like our government? A lot of money spent and a lot of wreckage left behind.
That makes about as much sense as saying that since Geithner cheated on his taxes we all can.
Mr. President, I bought this 15 MPG Yukon through no fault of my own. Will you help me?
The pollution in the building of a new car still surpasses the pollution put out by a properly maintained vehicle that is 20 years old or less. No net gain in cutting pollution. Small net gain on cutting the use of fossil fuel. Though the biggest sellers are only gaining about 4-5 MPG on paper. I will take a 2001 Explorer or F150 in a crash any day over a Fit or Prius.
AMEN. But with one caveat: since many businesses depend on these vehicles, allow bona fide companies to claim a deduction for the GGT on their corporate income tax.
That way, we don't wind up stifling small businesses (contractors, delivery services, etc.) who legitimately need these vehicles, but we do exact a penalty from those who drive them purely for the sake of vanity.
Don't I recall Clinton missed a couple of chances to eliminate the terror threat during his tenure?
>patently false because of the way Bush/Cheney hid the costs of Mr Bush's Personal
Disagree. Were that those who spent 8 years of paranoia hanging everything on a rope around Bush's or Cheney's neck would be able to do the same with the current administration's messes and failures.
In line with the topic: "The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office said Thursday the federal government's budget deficit reached $1.3 trillion through the first ten months of fiscal 2009, on track to reach a record high of $1.8 trillion for the 12-month period."--Extra debt for year will exceed the $1.3 T limit and reach $1.9: but it's only money
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I got a better idea. Allow small diesel trucks and SUVs into the US market, so we can save fuel. It is the same US Government that is behind this goofy C4C that has repressive tariffs on much more efficient PU trucks.
Note that the stampede is on the part of dealers, as well as customers, who have seen $$$ signs in extra profit as well as extra sales. A few certainly have taken advantage of the opportunity to gain extra profit per deal.
Even the local rag has published wire articles about the real expense of the program's not having been well thought through by Congress. Surprise! Surprise!
The used car markets are going to be much higher priced is their conclusion. Also used parts for cars that people need from recycler yards won't be there.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
"Stay as they are". In other words, bend over, here it comes. You just keep driving your 95 Ford Taurus (which doesn't qualify for the plan), while we use your tax dollars to help your well-to-do neighbor buy a new Hybrid.
The US does impose nasty tariffs on trucks. Thus, pretty much all Nissan and Toyota pickups sold in the US are built here.
But that's not why small diesels aren't available in the US. They're not available because trucks under 8600 lbs GVWR are held to the same emissions standards as cars, and truck makers don't want to go to the trouble and expense of certifying them. European manufacturers already have high-tech automotive diesel engines that would meet US regs with minor tweaks, and certainly they and the Asian companies know how to apply the same ideas to bigger truck engines.
But most truck diesels on the world market are dated designs that lack the sophistication of the same companies' passenger car diesels, and it's because the world's truck buyers are more focused on the initial cost than on the potential for greater refinement. Only in the North American and Australian markets are trucks treated as personal transportation, where refinement matters. I can't see a typical suburban soccer mom or dad putting up with the noise and bother of a typical commercial direct-injection diesel in what they consider to be the "family car"--whether or not it's a truck-based vehicle.
Despite the potential for resistance, Mahindra still appears to be ready to go with its diesel for the US market. Reports describe the Mahindra's engine as decidedly unrefined, even agricultural, but that's the market the company is courting. They are planning to sell their truck as a workhorse, not a status symbol, to the same kind of customers who have been buying Mahindra tractors for years. Here's hoping that will awaken the sleeping giants (Ford, Toyota, Nissan) and give them an incentive to compete in this potentially very lucrative market segment.
Imagine a 3.0L turbodiesel Ranger or Frontier or Tacoma, with a six-speed manual and selectable 4wd. Or for that matter, picture the same powertrain in an Explorer, Xterra, or 4Runner.
The technology is already out there. All that's missing is the will.
And to take us back toward the topic of this thread: the real culprit here is the lack of an integrated energy/environment/technology vision on the part of, well, every presidential administration since the advent of the automobile. We need another Teddy Roosevelt to articulate the relationships between energy independence, environmental stewardship, and national security, and put the power of the bully pulpit behind the vision. No ad hoc combination of Cash for Clunkers and Drill, Baby, Drill is going to cut it.
IRS regs on auto deprecation are in sad need of change. They still define a luxury vehicle as anything over 15,000. LOL
Guess they've never ridden in one. . .
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,