Vote

eric lavine wrote: if need be, I'll shoot some pics of the front end of these cars

I believe you Eric, Everybody makes trade offs for stenght vs. fuel economy, repair cost etc..ALso differnet manufacturers have differnt answers to crumple zones for safety. I wont even claim to argue american vs foriegn quality, they are very comparable. In the mid 80's I could have but not today. I do think some manufaturers do things better than others. I think Honda and toyota have great motors that go for ever and dont leak. If I owned a farm or ranch and was going to be off road everyday, I would buy an american truck with a frame. If I was a road enthusiast it would probably be BMW. Safty might still be volvo, but not by the margin it used to be. you have to balance ability, purchase cost , long term operation cost and figure out what provides the best value for how you are going to use it. Side note, when searching for my moms Vue, the tinniest doors on a test driven car was the ford escape.

Nothing wrong with buying American but I look at straight value for the dollar. If I can find a quality item at a lesser price, or a better quality for the same price, that increases my standard of living.

I like shopping at the small local store even though it costs more, as long as the owners are decent to deal with. Cars are far more confusing. I've bought 2 new Chevy trucks and 1 new Ford truck that were made in Canada. My daughter just bought a Honda made in the USA. It seems her Honda purchase was more supportive of the local economy.

63 Skier wrote: but not the same as buying a U.S. made car from a U.S. company. Maybe the answer is to buy U.S. made cars made in the U.S., easy to check where they are built.

I don't think such a thing exists, unless you mean "assembled" in the U.S.

I think the American cars have improved by leaps and bounds since the 80's. What do you think the reason is? What is your theory? (This question is to everyone)

I think that American car companies could do a lot better to make the car a better value with some tweaks on the way business is done. But, the unions would never let that happen. That's an advantage that foreign car companies will always have, especially when their plant is located in this country. They used to be at a little more of a disadvantage when the whole car had to be shipped over here, not just the parts.

Riley wrote: I like shopping at the small local store even though it costs more, as long as the owners are decent to deal with. Cars are far more confusing. I've bought 2 new Chevy trucks and 1 new Ford truck that were made in Canada. My daughter just bought a Honda made in the USA. It seems her Honda purchase was more supportive of the local economy.

The local supermarket chain now has another chain up the road in competition with them. Item for item (same brand, same size) considerably less, sometimes upto almost 50% less. as much as I like to support the local merchant, a < 10 min drive one town over can save $100-$200 food bill.


Same goes for gas & fuel. We are a border town with CT which has higher fuel costs. Ours are artificially higher than surrounding towns because we are still less than CT. Drive 5 north mins away and save $.17 -$.20 a gallon. For those nearby from CT that extra 5 min ride is more like $.25- $.35 per gal. Again in a truck that drove to CT dumps fuel, drives to our town, dumps fuel and goes north and dumps the same fuel.

Now I can maybe understand CT being higher because of taxes. Watching the tanker go by knowing 5 mins away is $.17 - $.20 less just doesn't make any sense. Now that there are no more service stations, just gas/ convienience stores there is no reason to be loyal if you can save some money.

Riley wrote: I like shopping at the small local store even though it costs more, as long as the owners are decent to deal with.

Convienence definitly has a value, I use the local litle guys when I am in a hurry, even though I pay more.

I'll give a quick story, I have 2 cars at my shop, not to be redundent but, the front ends are both off, even i have a hard time identifying them, they are a 2010 fusion and a 2009 honda accord, they were rentals so they keep the MSRP tags in the trunk, the fusion is 18,997 the accord is 23,596.
once again a long time family friend, die-hard anti american car guy (drives a Sequoia) he also has a 99 tahoe that he plows with that has 204k on the clock, I made him look at both cars from the front. normal guy, knows nothing about cars, I made him pick merely by eye what had more qaulity, he said, this has got to be the Honda.....it wasnt.
normal conversation, why does your plow truck have 200k on it? would you ever put a plow on that other turd your driving? the answer was no. it would rot to the ground.
What I take from this, is maybe a strong word, ignorance, many volumes of the rag consumers digest "the bible"
the accord was a year older but roughly 5 k more, he admitted the qaulity of the ford was 10 times. in my eyes the nips had their day, and a persona was created, merely marketing...
when you hear something reptitively and not experience something first hand it tends to bond to your brain, this is how marketing works.
so to wrap up, when you but an accord, you are paying roughly 20% more and you are getting half the qaulity..
maybe a flip flop from the 80's, but key here is realizing that

eric lavine wrote: normal conversation, why does your plow truck have 200k on it? would you ever put a plow on that other turd your driving

They even write it on the rear quarters   "TRD" go figure!

OverMyHead wrote: 63 Skier wrote: Yes, China has to ship on containers. But, the $1.50/hour labor rate more than offsets that. I believe American made goods are superior in quality to imports for the most part. So, if we have to compete with foreign labor on price, we lose every time. And, even if you eliminate the union issues, we still lose. So, do we just always pay the lowest Walmart price because the goods are made with $1.50 labor, while the worker here would need $15/hour? To me that's a strategy that will bury us long term. That was my point, If US companys want to compete in a global economy they need to level the playing field. That means the textile worker who is bent out of shape at his job going off shore will need to agree to pay cut to keep it here, we also need to reduce taxes, regulations, government mandates, product liability costs, all to levels where we are competitive. We can also compete on quality, and get a premium price for it, or continue to be innovators which is what we do best. There are lots of jobs supporting R & D. The problem we have in the US is we want it all, and that is very expensive.

How do you cut someone's pay to compete with $1.50 in China?

Let's be honest about something for a minute. Talking about the rich and taxes. The mantra is always about the fact the rich can afford to pay more in taxes so it's fine for them to pay a higher percentage income tax rate, right? But, that isn't the REAL reason there is a desire to have the rich pay more. The REAL reason is envy. People want to deny it, but it is the truth. You can kid yourself all you want thinking that is the reason, but really take a step back and do a gut check. If you are for the rich paying more, why? The answers other than envy never hold water and can be shot down quite quickly.

On a sidenote, if you think the rich don't pay more in taxes than many you are sadly mistaken. They already pay more in taxes just based on their activity...more sales taxes because they spend more, more property taxes because they have more property, etc. In this case, the argument of them paying more because they can afford it holds water. Also, those types of taxes are fair and just. The person can choose whether they want to incur the cost based on their activity. Also, a person with $1M will pay the same percentage of those kinds of taxes as the person with $10M. If either of them buy a $100,000 item, the sales tax would be exactly the same percentage and dollar amount. If they both bought a house that was equal to one year of income, that house's property taxes would be the exact same percentage (assuming it was in the same area with the same perecentage of property tax rates). This is the type of polict that should be sought out regarding income tax.

I would like to see government motors try this. If you are below poverty level, walk in and get a free car, middle income pay the cars actual value, over 250,000 a year pay for yours and the poverty guys car. How many rich would show up and who would be paying their fair share? I was always tought that paying for what you use is your fair share. If my sister and I each had five pieces of candy, and she saved hers while I ate mine right away, then I had none and she had five, should she give me 2 1/2 more pieces at that point to make it fair. Seems to me that would reward my piggish behavior and punish her self control. If she got an alowance for doing her chores, and I did none, should she have given me a fair share, or should my parents have given me the allownace despite my not having done my chores? Again who is being rewarded and who is being punished. Forget fair share, how about just what is fair.

Phil, Ive been meaning to ask you about the Pope thing, how many gold teeth or Picasso's do you think was traded for the freedom of Mengele and his buddies
it makes it interesting lol

Obama told the republicans this week that he regrets not reaching out to them more during his first two years. Do you think he has really seen the error of his ways, or just realizing that how screwed he is with them controling the house? The guy is truely a weazel. It was great to see him lose on the bush tax cuts, and then complaining about how the republicans were playing politics.Its going to be fun to watch him squirm for two years.

eric lavine wrote: I have to feel guilty about my tax return again this year? I keep asking our accountant, are you sure???

Just mail it back and say put it towards the deficit. I'll bet you don't even get a thank you.

I did notice that since the November elections Obama's tone has changed quite a bit. He doesn't sound quite as condescending as he did before. It's funny how the republicans are being accused of playing politics. So, when a person or group sticks to their core values on an issue they are playing politics?

The deficit commission came back with some tough recommendations, and I commend them for being honest. We're in a deep hole, and it will take serious cuts to get out of it.

Here's what I'd love to see - have an independant commission, like the deficit commission, take the current deficit, estimate the deficit for the next 10 years, estimate the government budget over those same 10 years, and come up with a total dollar amount to balance the budget and pay down the debt. Then tell the Americam public what that tax burden would be. My guess is it would be a tax rate of 75-85% across the board. Maybe that would wake people up to what we, or our children, are facing.

There simply isn't enough money to go around, so we have to cut spending across the board, cut Social Security and Medicare benefits, reduce military spending, everything.