Efficient Automoble Rebate System Bill (Failed)

[Bacon King]

Efficient Automobile Rebate System Bill

Section 1: Rebates

1. An optional rebate of $4500-$5000 shall be given to consumers who purchase a compact automobile (car) with a rating of at least 33 miles to the gallon or more.

2. An optional rebate of $3500-$4000 shall be given to consumers who purchase a Sport Utility Vehicle or truck with a rating of at least 26 miles to the gallon or more.

3. The total amount of the rebate shall be determined by the amount of gas mileage to the gallon.

4. A total of $8 billion shall be appropriated to this program.

5. This program shall come to an end six months after being signed into law, or the depletion of the funds appropriated, whichever happens first.

Section 2: Eligibility

1. To qualify for the rebate outlined in Section 1, Clause 1, the consumer must have a car that is a model manufactured at least ten years ago, and has been estimated by the EPA to travel 21 miles to the gallon.

2. To qualify for the rebate outlined in Section 1, Clause 2, the consumer must have a Sport Utility Vehicle or truck that is a model manufactured at least ten years ago, and has been estimated by the EPA to travel 18 miles to the gallon.
Spon: Sen. Marokai Blue

[Marokai Backbeat]

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

[Vepres]

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

[tmthforu94]

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.

[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)

[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!

[tmthforu94]

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.

[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.

[tmthforu94]

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.

[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.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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.

[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

[Hash]

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.

[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.

[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.

[Bacon King]

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

[Vepres]

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.

18 and 21 !?! No way, that's too low. Ignore this

Ford Fusion Hybrid is an excellent car which, with rebates, would be $23k-ish, not too bad for a new car. Perhaps there should be two brackets, something like 27-32 MPG gets x, while 33+ gets y.

BTW, we talking highway or city MPG?

[Marokai Backbeat]

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

[Alexander Hamilton]

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

No, he doesn't.

[Vepres]

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

I was... wrong.

[Fritz]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[MaxQue]

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.