Efficient Automoble Rebate System Bill (Failed)

[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.

[Franzl]

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.

[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.

[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.

[Franzl]

I don't think anyone is disputing the effectiveness of such a program to increase demand in the short term.

[Rowan]

I tend to agree with the original proposal.

[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.

[Bacon King]

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.

Plenty of "foreign" cars are actually made in the US these days, while "American" cars generally have lots of components built abroad.

[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.

[Franzl]

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

[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.

[Rowan]

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?

[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.

[MaxQue]

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?

Even if that was constitutionnal, I don't think it would be accepted by the Senate. See what happened to the ''Buy Atlasian'' of the stimulus. I would not support that clause, anyways.

By the way, I am against Tmth's amendment.

[Rowan]

I probably wouldn't support that anyway, but I was just wondering what made it unconstitutional. Thanks.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I will oppose the amendment. This program is meant to kill two birds with one stone. It makes no sense to turn an economic stimulus program into an Environmental protection program only, when both could be benefited.

[Bacon King]

Senators have 24 hours to object to Hashemite's amendment being taken as friendly.

The amendment has now been added to the bill. I've updated the text in the first post.

[Lief 🗽]

Don't we already have some pretty sizable tax breaks and/or subsidies for buying fuel efficient cars? Or am I misremembering?

[Franzl]

Don't we already have some pretty sizable tax breaks and/or subsidies for buying fuel efficient cars? Or am I misremembering?

Yes, I actually was the sponsor of it back then. I'm not sure it was a great idea, but it's there.

[Franzl]

https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Fuel_Efficient_Cars_Act

[Bacon King]

There has been no debate on Senator Tmthforu94's amendment for over 24 hours. I can start a vote on the amendment as soon as a Senator calls for it.

[Purple State]

Just keeping the Senate informed: From the GM's Desk

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Mr Vice President, I move that we immediately proceed to a vote on the amendment by the honerable Senator tmthforu94.

[Bacon King]

There is a vote on the following amendment. Please vote aye, nay, or abstain. This vote will remain open for five days at most, or until there are enough votes for the amendment to pass or fail. Senators can change their vote at any time while voting is still open.

You must be logged in to read this quote.