Looking at getting a F250, advice

[benebob]

diesel is out as I don't wanna learn to work on a diesel since they will be gone from our market in the next 10 years anyways. Besides, I don't have a need for it. If I can do just about everything I need with a BRAT why on earth would I need that? The straight 6 lacks in towing capacity (which is the main reason I'm looking). Won't tow over 5000lbs but the straight 6 only is rated to 4000 or less. I'd be perfectly happy with a Ranger/Colorado/Dakota size but I can't get the tax incentives for it thanks to our Republican friends in Washington... and you wonder why gas prices are so high?

[Royal Tiger]

This is what I don't understand with the liberal mind. Why the need for tax incentives? If you need a full size to tow and use for work buy one. If you can't afford a new one, get a used one. It's what everyone else does. I would have loved to get a new Pathfinder with the 290hp 4.0 V-6 or the 2001-2004 with the 270hp 3.5 instead of the 170hp 3.3 I ended up with in my 1999 1/2. But I couldn't afford a new one.
So gas prices are high because you can't get a new truck? I think supply and demand plays into any cost analysis. Until we get alternative fuel vehicles, gaining access to oil is the number one important goal of our administration. Oh that's right, the Dems like bashing securing oil, like in Iraq, Ukraine, Alaska, and other mid east/south american places, until it's time to fill up their own car/truck. I don't catch your logic benebob.

[benebob]

Originally posted by PA_SVX
This is what I don't understand with the liberal mind. Why the need for tax incentives? If you need a full size to tow and use for work buy one. If you can't afford a new one, get a used one. It's what everyone else does. I would have loved to get a new Pathfinder with the 290hp 4.0 V-6 or the 2001-2004 with the 270hp 3.5 instead of the 170hp 3.3 I ended up with in my 1999 1/2. But I couldn't afford a new one.
So gas prices are high because you can't get a new truck? I think supply and demand plays into any cost analysis. Until we get alternative fuel vehicles, gaining access to oil is the number one important goal of our administration. Oh that's right, the Dems like bashing securing oil, like in Iraq, Ukraine, Alaska, and other mid east/south american places, until it's time to fill up their own car/truck. I don't catch your logic benebob.

Get your facts straight before resorting to name calling. This isn't elementary school. What not enough Rush on the airwaves for ya today? I'm probably much more conservative that most on Americans. I'm just not a bible banging bigot that puts my god before everything else simply because I understand that my god created everything else as well by entrusting the world to man. Fiscally I don't run up credit card debt, pay cash for most things and of course look for any and every tax incentive and loophole available simply because they are there not that I feel it is right to have 'em there.

As for new vs used: I've looked at both and am at the moment leaning toward new simply because of the depreciation that I can do tax wise (small business owner) and the avail tax credit for this year. My statement about the gas prices is simple. In order for me or any other small business owner to take advantage of these tax incentives I need to buy a vehicle with a GVW of 6500lbs or more. Not that most people in my line of work need that. As I stated I can 95% of the time get away with using my BRAT for my carpentry business. Would a full size truck make life easier? Sure. So would a 5 ton dump truck.

Currently there are over 10 million full size work vehicles owned by small business owners on the road of which over 1/2 don't need to be there but are there simply because of the tax incentive. For example over 75% of Hummer (both H1 and H2s) are sold to small business owners. Do the math. Take 5 million vehicles off the road and replace them with smaller more fuel efficent minivans or compact trucks and right there is a huge savings. Estimates are about 50% or the oil we get from the middle east (which for your information only accounts for 20% of our oil consumed annually).

Now if you really wanna get nit picky about the oil we consume. Had Regan kept 3 portions of Carter's Energy Plan that was in effect when he took office.
1. A gradually increasing CAFE standard. I.E. Increases 1 percent a year but only changes when it reaches the next full mpg. Currently this would put us an average highway average of 25mpg for trucks and 32mpg for cars. Totally doable since the average hp has nearly tripled since then.
2. Keep the tax incentives for homeowners who use solar power for energy in their house. Could be as simple as 1 panel heating your hot water or a system which circulates water underground to keep a constant temp. all year round.
3. $500 tax credit for all car buyers who buy vehicles that exceed CAFE standards.
We would be consuming about 25% less oil today which is 5% more than what we get from the middle east. Now just so you know the cost of keeping these three things would have cost less in the past 25 years than the actual invasion of Iraq the second time did. Sorry for the long post but just want ya to be sure you understand and FYI, the only Democrat I've ever voted for in my life was Mike Sturla for the state house of Rep simply because he is a personal friend. Next time please get your facts straight before resorting to childish name calling.

[Royal Tiger]

And what name was that exactly? You seem to be the one acting 12. I simple asked you to explain your logic of why you you blamed the republicans for not giving you a tax break on a smaller then full size truck. The Hummer issue is well documented and they are trying to remove it. When the excemption was put in it was to help self employeed individuals be able to write off some capital investment for a larger vehicle required for work that wasn't going to be for personal use. They didn't anticipate mega vehicle that never get used for work like the Hummer when they wrote it. If you don't need a F250, buy a Ranger and move on. You pointed out you wouldn't be getting the tax break, not me. As for you being non-liberal, then good for you. I don't listen to rush anyway. As for the oil issue vs gas prices, you assume gas cost more because more is getting used. So if we drop our oil importation, OPEC is giving us a discount next month? Don't think so. You seemed to be of the ilk that it's the republicans fault but then blamed gas prices on them, when it was Bush that want's to do more drilling domesticly to reduce our dependance on foriegn importation of crude and refinded oils. If that's not you, then why the anology? That was my point.

[benebob]

And what name was that exactly?

A liberal simply because I think not rely on others to do so for me.

The Hummer issue is well documented and they are trying to remove it. When the excemption was put in it was to help self employeed individuals be able to write off some capital investment for a larger vehicle required for work that wasn't going to be for personal use. They didn't anticipate mega vehicle that never get used for work like the Hummer when they wrote it.

Not just Hummers. The average vehicle sold under this incentive is used for personal use a 1/3 of the time. Not much dif than the 1/4 that it is suposed to be which means that the concept is working but it also is causing a higher consuption of oil than there needs to be because the Republican government is funding the higher consumption.

If you don't need a F250, buy a Ranger and move on. You pointed out you wouldn't be getting the tax break, not me.

It doesn't make finacial sense to do so, thus my arguement that it will contribute to more fuel being used and needed to be imported.

As for you being non-liberal, then good for you.

Why is that good? Is it wrong to think differently than you?

As for the oil issue vs gas prices, you assume gas cost more because more is getting used. So if we drop our oil importation, OPEC is giving us a discount next month?

Supply and Demand. Ever here of that? Sure it isn't the only thing involved but it is there and is currently increasing costs about 20% before taxes of course which translates into about 10 cents a gallon depending on state taxation

You seemed to be of the ilk that it's the republicans fault but then blamed gas prices on them, when it was Bush that want's to do more drilling domesticly to reduce our dependance on foriegn importation of crude and refinded oils.

One thing that can be done but most experts agree that'll work for about 5-10 years and is 10 years off. Not a real practical solution unless you're lining pockets of yourself, friends or supporters. What has the governement done to encourage less consumption since the Republicans took over in the Leg. and Exec. branches which also bring us back to the 6500gvw limit.

If that's not you, then why the anology?

1+1=2 not 3.

[Royal Tiger]

As much as we can point to supply and demand as a cover statement as it pertains to market driven commerce, it has been show to act rather slowly and in some cases not at all when it comes to the prices of imported crude oil. I also pointed out the need for alternative fueled vehicles. I pointed out the liberal mind, never calling you one, yet you fired back with a slew of right wing stereotypes. As for the money hungry republicans, you stated you vote republican. What's the moral there? I'm a republican as well. I agreed with you on removing the Hummer exclusion, but spreading out to where it encompasses people who drive Silverado 3500's and Dodge Ram 3500HD's will also sweep up people who actually use it for work. The 8 years of clinton hell never really got us a solid national energy strategy. No increase in wind or solar power as a national policy, no new construction of nuclear energy plants, etc... So if buying a new pick-up in cost prohibitive to you, but you need to replace the BRAT, and it has to be able to tow, why not a 95-99 Silverado or Ram? Yes it burns more gas then a Dakota or Frontier, but you said you need the towing capacity. So you can't then fault the fuel costs. Again, that was my point.

[benebob]

Originally posted by PA_SVX
As for the money hungry republicans, you stated you vote republican. What's the moral there? I

When and where did I ever say I voted Republican. Well I did, if you consider Specter a Republican but that was more out of necess. as a vote elsewhere would hurt PA greatly in Congress due to seniority.

You are definately missing my point. The Republican party tries to pride itself on small business owners being free to decide what is best for them only to force many to opt for a vehcile that is definately not what they need because of restraints they have put onto the small business owners. I'd be totally satisfied if no one got a tax credit for anything but that isn't the case. How many 3500 trucks have you seen driving snow mobiles to hunting camps on the weekends? They are the obvious ones but an F150 properly equipped qualifies. As for towing. A Ranger can be bought to have a towing capacity nearly equal to the F150 and has a bed capacity nearly the same as a Chevy 1500.

Bottom line, here's a quote from W. about small businesses. "The small business owner is smarter that the government and should not be hampered from making decisions to better his company by any gov't regulation." Quote came straight from a campaign stop here in Lancaster county.

As for cost, a new F150 is actually cheaper than a new Ranger when dealer rebates are taken into account. I just don't see the need to be another part of the problem of American piggishness.

[Royal Tiger]

See, when you explain the answer I was looking for originally without all the tirade, it makes some sense. I also agree that most people who buy large vehicle do not do so to use them as intended. I for one am sick of little 5'2" soccer moms taking 8 tries to park her Expedition at the mall. I took my 4x4 off road and bought it because i actually use it as intended. The problem comes in trying to give the tax breaks to those that need it, and not those who abuse it. As for the republican comment, you said you only ever voted for one Democrat ever. So that means you either don't vote or vote libraterian or communist. Sorry, a little humor. I think we've reached our happy median.

[benebob]

Originally posted by PA_SVX
So that means you either don't vote or vote libraterian or communist. Sorry, a little humor.

Libraterian, Green, Constitution and occasionally Socialist and the Rebublicans think they are conservative .

[Shadow248]

Geez you two sure argue alot seeing as you are on the same side.

BTW, we will be drilling ALOT more on US soil ALOT sooner than in 10 years. Seems some officials like to think that we can just hoard what we have indefinitely, but i don't see the middle east getting any better, so soon we'll have to turn to our own sources. If that's bad or good, i don't know...it opens up a whole new can of worms.

A liberal simply because I think not rely on others to do so for me.

That's backwards. It is the conservatives that believe in thinking for themselves. Building their own lives with their own work, "what I get is mine" etc. Liberals are the ones who want everything done for them, and believe that the rich should support the poor, etc.

I would have to agree with PA_SVX's point on at least one aspect. You are crazy for buying a particular truck just because of tax breaks. Get what you really need, not what the government wants you to get.

Good luck.

[Royal Tiger]

Thanks Shadow. I think bob and I are ok. A little striffe never hurts as long as it doesn't get ugly. We reached our middle ground.

[benebob]

Originally posted by Shadow248

I would have to agree with PA_SVX's point on at least one aspect. You are crazy for buying a particular truck just because of tax breaks. Get what you really need, not what the government wants you to get.

Good luck.

I'd be crazy not to. I wouldn't pay more than a few hundred in taxes for 2 years.