Efficient Automoble Rebate System Bill (Failed)

[Marokai Backbeat]

My reasons for this program should be quite self-explanatory, as should my belief that it will be very effective.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I personally think 29 m/g is too low. Perhaps 35, which is almost exclusively hybrid and diesel cars.

I'd like it if people purchased higher MPG cars, but 29 (as well as the truck MPG requirement) is much higher than the original program. Remember, people will not just buy at 29 MPG, even in the initial program people bought beyond what was required.

I agree with Vepres on that. Too many cars get 29 MPG nowadays. I think it should be up towards 33.

I propose the following amendment...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I oppose this amendment and will certainly not be accepting it as friendly. Why don't we just increase it to 500 MPG and gut the program entirely!

[Marokai Backbeat]

I agree with Vepres on that. Too many cars get 29 MPG nowadays. I think it should be up towards 33.

I propose the following amendment...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I oppose this amendment and will certainly not be accepting it as friendly. Why don't we just increase it to 500 MPG and gut the program entirely!

Now that you mention it...
We're giving people a good sum of money for buying a fuel-efficent car.  They should be doing something really good to be getting that money. You could pick out a random car on a lot, and there's a decent chance it gets 29 MPG.

Average gas mileage for all cars is something like 21 MPG in the US. If we make the requirements too high we defeat the purpose of the program.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I'm more than happy with withdrawing my sponsorship of this bill if you people are intent on ruining it. This is not a bill meant to stimulate hybrid car sales, it's meant to stimulate car sales period, and instituting strict rules on what cars people can buy because of MPG requirements interferes with that.

I believe the rules you propose would make the requirements over 10MPG higher than the initial program. We need to trust that people will make the right decision and buy higher quality vehicles, but we shouldn't make the requirements too strict or we will make this program far, far less effective.

The bill's language is severely flawed. "gets x mpg" should be changed to "has been estimated by the EPA to travel x mpg". (Section 2)

In that case, semantics-only amendment to Section 2.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I accept your amendment as friendly.

[Marokai Backbeat]

You do realize that that's talking about trading cars in for the rebate, not purchasing them, right?

[Marokai Backbeat]

I favor Tmth's amendment.  Marokai, I am not getting why you so strongly oppose it.  I guess I don't understand what you are trying to accomplish.

It guts the purpose of the program, which is to get people buying cars again. The average MPG in 2008 model cars was only 21! If we're going to continue to push the required number for buying a car higher and higher it makes it less likely people will buy new vehicles.

We're turning this into a solely environmental measure as opposed to an economic stimulus program, and we're mucking up a program that already had much higher requirements for MPG than the real one.

I don't want my name on such a thing.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I favor Tmth's amendment.  Marokai, I am not getting why you so strongly oppose it.  I guess I don't understand what you are trying to accomplish.

It guts the purpose of the amendment, which is to get people buying cars again. The average MPG in 2008 model cars was only 21! If we're going to continue to push the required number for buying a car higher and higher it makes it less likely people will buy new vehicles.

We're turning this into a solely environmental measure as opposed to an economic stimulus program, and we're mucking up a program that already had much higher requirements for MPG than the real one.

I don't want my name on such a thing.

I posted a good list of vehicles that met the requirements for cars. You can't justify your position as anything except roadblocking.

Oh yes because I love to just block my own legislation for the hell of it.

As I said before THE AVERAGE MILES PER GALLON FOR A 2008 MODEL VEHICLE WAS ONLY 21. ONLY 21. ON.LY.2.1. Now you're all trying to increase it twelve MPG higher than the average? The point of this program is to get as many people as possible buying new cars, not to play the "how green can you go" game.

Yes, you gave me a very small list of cars that just barely hit the requirements. Okay. Who cares? Most of those only just barely hit the requirement, others are expensive, and as I said, you're turning this program into something very very very narrow, where only a handful of cars could be purchased.

It. Guts. The program. We have to be realistic here and focus on getting people buying, not just buying a handful of compact cars.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I favor Tmth's amendment.  Marokai, I am not getting why you so strongly oppose it.  I guess I don't understand what you are trying to accomplish.

It guts the purpose of the amendment, which is to get people buying cars again. The average MPG in 2008 model cars was only 21! If we're going to continue to push the required number for buying a car higher and higher it makes it less likely people will buy new vehicles.

We're turning this into a solely environmental measure as opposed to an economic stimulus program, and we're mucking up a program that already had much higher requirements for MPG than the real one.

I don't want my name on such a thing.

I posted a good list of vehicles that met the requirements for cars. You can't justify your position as anything except roadblocking.

Almost all of them are foreign.

That too.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I'm not trying to make a big deal of this, but the original program worked in the US so well because it was broad and got alot of people buying cars. This amendment makes the requirements for buying a new car very high, to the point to where no Atlasian cars will be bought, and only a handful of models will be bought at all. It pointlessly limits a good program.

If people want more efficient cars, they can get them on their own, we shouldn't narrow this program down to the point of barely being worth implementing.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I tend to oppose this idea. I have concerns about what it would to to the automobile market in the near future.....I don't dispute that it would increase automobile sales (whether or not that's a good thing is another matter), but even after the economic crisis is over, I have my doubts as to whether people that purchased a car under this program would go out and buy another one just because they have a job again. I think we're only delaying the slump rather than preventing it.

Furthermore, even if you argue that putting newer and more efficient cars (and BTW, I would only support 33 mpg, if at all), would have a net positive effect on the environment, I would use caution. Manufacturing a new car requires lots and lots of energy, probably more than you would save by operating a more efficient vehicle as opposed to your "clunker".

I generally see this whole idea as a waste of money.

Also, the destruction of the old cars is even more harmful to the environment. But even regarding the intent of the bill, Marokai has flawed the true goal- we are replacing these old cars for a reason, and it's not to get more polluters out on the roads.

My goal is to improve the economy with a proven effective program. Your goal is to narrow it to the point of uselessness and ultimately, to the detriment of our very own automakers.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Well I don't support this program at all....but an "American only" clause is particularly disgusting.

And unconstitutional, which is why I didn't propose it.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Well I don't support this program at all....but an "American only" clause is particularly disgusting.

And unconstitutional, which is why I didn't propose it.

How would it be unconstitutional?

There's a section of the constitutional that refers to maintaining a "free and undistorted market" or something other. That's usually interpreted very narrowly (thankfully) but restricting this only to Atlasian automobiles would be a clear violation.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Nay.

[Marokai Backbeat]

After voting against the amendment, I will have to regrettably vote against the final bill.

I doubt I'll be voting in favor of this now as well.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Aye, but I have little intention of voting for final passage.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Nay.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Jolly good, everyone.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Abstain
I'm honestly torn. I like that this will encourage people to buy fuel-efficient cars, but I fail to see how this will help our economy in the long run.

Well this one wouldn't, no.