Efficient Automoble Rebate System Bill (Failed)

[Alexander Hamilton]

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)

[Alexander Hamilton]

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.

33 MPG isn't too high. That's a hybrid car, a cleaner type of car our government should be strongly encouraging. The purpose of the program is to encourage people to buy more efficient, cleaner cars, which is still what we'll be doing.

Your proposition is admirable, Tmthforu. 33 MPG is a better goal, and still reasonable. I see no reason to settle for 29.

[Alexander Hamilton]

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.

33 MPG isn't too high. That's a hybrid car, a cleaner type of car our government should be strongly encouraging. The purpose of the program is to encourage people to buy more efficient, cleaner cars, which is still what we'll be doing.

Your proposition is admirable, Tmthforu. 33 MPG is a better goal, and still reasonable. I see no reason to settle for 29.

No American Hybrid will meet that. The Prius is the only one and we want to benefit our manufacturers. I don't think the Ford Focus meets that requirement.

Chevrolet Malibu – 34 mpg

BMW 3 Series/M3 – 33 mpg

Chevrolet Aveo/Aveo5 – 34 mpg

Chevrolet Cobalt/SS – 33 mpg

Chevrolet Volt – 50 mpg (Coming in 2010)

Ford Focus – 35 mpg

Honda Civic/SI – 46 mpg

Honda FCX Clarity – 68 mpg

Honda Fit – 35 mpg

Hyundai Accent – 33 mpg

Hyundai Elantra – 33 mpg

Kia Rio/Rio5 – 34 mpg

Mini Clubman/S/JCW – 37 mpg

Mini Cooper/S/JCW – 37 mpg

Nissan Altima – 33 mpg

Nissan Cube – 37 mpg (Coming in 2010)

Nissan Sentra/SE-R – 33 mpg

Nissan Versa – 33 mpg

Pontiac G5 – 37 mpg

Scion xD – 33 mpg

Smart Fortwo – 41 mpg

Toyota Camry – 34 mpg

Toyota Corolla – 35 mpg

Toyota Prius – 45 mpg

Toyota Yaris – 36 mpg

Volkswagen Jetta/GLI – 41 mpg

[Alexander Hamilton]

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.

Thank you.

[Alexander Hamilton]

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

No, he doesn't.

[Alexander Hamilton]

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.

[Alexander Hamilton]

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.

[Alexander Hamilton]

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.

LOL

I've always been one of the most outspoken proponents of American automobiles. However, we need to focus on specific models that are environmentally friendly (at least as much as we can get). We have to remember that we can't just start ignoring environmental concerns to fix some economic ones. Economy runs in a cycle, environmental damage is permanent.

[Alexander Hamilton]

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.

 Aug. 4 (Bloomberg) -- Four of the top five models sold so far under the U.S. “cash for clunkers” program, aimed at boosting the auto industry, are made by foreign automakers, according to Transportation Department data.

Ford Motor Co.’s Focus was the top seller, followed by Toyota Motor Corp.’s Corolla, Honda Motor Co.’s Civic and Toyota’s Prius and Camry, data from the department showed today.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601101&sid=aOvqtH88QaJg


I like your logic though. Even with America's more lax requirements, foreign automakers dominated the program, unless you are willing to support an American only provision (I am ), there is still no reason not to have stricter environmental standards.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Awesome!

[Alexander Hamilton]

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

Why? Do you actually think that having a lower limit would help the program that much? I did happen to post a list of the cars most purchased through the US program, all of which made the 33 mpg mark and only one of which was American.