car enthusiasts 1 pelosi 0

PittSpeed Automotive PittSpeed Off Topic
1

U.S. Motorist Update
3 New Federal Vehicle Scrappage Programs Dropped From Stimulus Plan

Two Of The Programs Would Have Spent $8 Billion Tax-Dollars Each And
One Was For $16 Billion Tax-Dollars To Crush 6 Million Vehicles Of All Ages, Just To Spur New Car Sales

Law To Scrap Vehicles That Get 18mpg or Less

In January 2009, vehicle enthusiasts contacted House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca) to oppose a nationwide “Cash for Gas Guzzlers” program in the upcoming Obama economic stimulus package and it was removed from the U.S. House version.

Then, in February 2009, several Senator’s tried to include 2 even bigger vehicle scrappage programs in the U.S. Senate version of this same economic stimulus bill.

S-247, the proposed “Accelerated Retirement of Inefficient Vehicles Act” would have spent $8 billion tax-dollars to crush or shred 2008 and older vehicles that get less than 18mpg. Another Senate version would have spent $16 billion in tax-dollars scrapping used cars.

It was estimated that over 6 million used pickups, SUV’s, high performance cars, large displacement motorcycles and collectable vehicles of all years and models would have been crushed over the next four years in these twisted attempts to spur newer car sales.

These 3 schemes were the worst versions of all vehicle scrappage programs ever suggested and definitely needed to be stopped from becoming law.

These negative laws only failed because vehicle hobbyists from all over the U.S. spoke up against these irrational and illogical plans.

On Tuesday, 2-17-09, President Obama signed an economic stimulus package into law that did not include any of these misguided vehicle scrappage programs.

While America’s vehicle hobbyists may not agree on all the various programs included in the $787 billion dollar economic stimulus package. Enough of them agreed that government sponsored and taxpayer funded vehicle scrappage programs were a bad idea and called Senator Feinstein (D-Ca) and Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-Mi) to oppose vehicle scrappage and both of their bills were dropped from the final economic stimulus package.

2

Awesome. So under 18 MPG is considered inefficient? I thought 12 MPG and under was…

Glad to hear this didn’t pass. I’m looking at another car from the Mid-80’s, so this is good news. Would they reimburse you for the car they scrapped? I can’t afford a new car, or I would be buying one.

3

so wait, they were going to go around and take ppl’s cars that they thought were inefficent and make them buy new ones?

4

Im glad this got shut down

5

I’m guessing it would have been some type of tax incentive. I don’t think (hope) they could actually force you to scrap your car and buy a new one.

Wouldn’t it be greener to just limit people to having 1 kid? Over a lifetime, 1 “carbon footprint” vs. 3 would more than make up for a fuel inefficient vehicle. I don’t think the Vatican would back it though. :smiley:

6

Not surprisingly, the article you posted is taken out of context and marginally retarded.

It’s a voucher program.

         (1) VOUCHER REDEMPTION VALUE IF USED TOWARD PURCHASE OF NEW FUEL EFFICIENT AUTOMOBILE- A voucher issued under the Program during the 4-year period beginning on January 1, 2009, may be applied to offset the purchase price of a new fuel efficient automobile by--

              (A) $4,500 if the eligible high fuel consumption automobile was manufactured for a model year that is 7 or fewer years less than the calendar year in which the voucher was issued;

              (B) $3,000 if the eligible high fuel consumption automobile was manufactured for a model year that is 8 to 10 years less than the calendar year in which the voucher was issued; and

              (C) $2,500 if the eligible high fuel consumption automobile was manufactured for a model year that is 11 or more years less than the calendar year in which the voucher was issued.

        (2) VOUCHER REDEMPTION VALUE IF USED TOWARD PURCHASE OF USED FUEL EFFICIENT AUTOMOBILE- A voucher issued under the Program during the 4-year period beginning on January 1, 2009, may be applied to offset the purchase price of a used fuel efficient automobile by--

              (A) $3,000 if the eligible high fuel consumption automobile was manufactured for a model year that is 7 or fewer years less than the calendar year in which the voucher was issued;

              (B) $2,000 if the eligible high fuel consumption automobile was manufactured for a model year that is 8 to 10 years less than the calendar year in which the voucher was issued; and

              (C) $1,500 if the eligible high fuel consumption automobile was manufactured for a model year that is 11 or more years less than the calendar year in which the voucher was issued.

        (3) VOUCHER REDEMPTION VALUE IF USED TOWARD PURCHASE OF A HIGHLY FUEL EFFICIENT AUTOMOBILE- The values determined under paragraphs (1) or (2) shall be increased by $1,000 if the voucher issued under the Program is applied to offset the purchase price of a fuel efficient automobile that achieves a measured fuel economy level that exceeds by 50 percent the fuel economy standard prescribed by the Secretary of Transportation under section 32902 of title 49, United States Code, for the model year and compliance category of such automobile.

        (4) VOUCHER REDEMPTION VALUE IF USED FOR TRANSIT FARE CREDITS- A voucher issued under the program during the 4-year period beginning on January 1, 2009, may be applied to acquire single-passenger transit fare credits from participating transit operators in an amount equal to the amounts provided under paragraph (2).

What this means is, if you trade in one of your busted ass G-body’s for something that gets decent mileage uncle sam will give you $2,500.

7

:bowrofl::bowrofl:

8

that also means all the other people with busted ass cars wouldnt do the program because the have a busted ass cars in teh first place because thats all they can afford. $2500 isnt gonna be enough money to buy a car. teh only way it would make sense for most people with busted cars is if it was an even trade for a new fuel efficient vehical otherwise the project would have turned out to be a giant waste of money and wouldnt have helped stimulate car purchases.

9

18mpg… wow. goodbye anything over a 5cyl

10

Yeah but it would have been nice to take my Suburban, which is worth less than $2500, use it as an additional trade with my Impala, and pickup the 128i or CTS that I’ve been looking at.

I can’t swing it right now, but that $2500 incentive would have made me seriously investigate the idea of doing it.

11

for the average person thou if that $2500 is the difference between gettin the car and not…how the hell are they gonna be able to afford insurance and repairs.

12

It’s a $4,500 check if the vehicle you’re trading in is less than 7 years old. That is definitely a solid down payment on something new.

You’re someone that LOATHES welfare. This isn’t welfare. It’s an incentive. The idea isn’t to get everyone who has an old beater to trade it straight up for a brand new civic. It’s to get someone who has been running their vehicle and is already thinking of getting something new to get something that is more fuel efficient. Maybe get a 5cyl Colorado instead of a 1500 with a V8… that sort of shit. Plus it gives people a big incentive to BUY, which is what the economy needs right now.

My Vette, even with the slushbox, gets high 20’s MPG wise.

But you wouldn’t know anything about that since you’re pimping a mid 80’s mullet carnival on wheels.

13

thats not my point. i’m joe schmoe… i make 25 k a year and drive a 93 grand am worth 1,500… the gov wants to give me $2500 towards a purchase of a car… the $2,500 still doesnt make a difference because i can’t take on a $300 plus car payment and raised insurance.

i see the point ur making but look at it this way… lets tempt people currently without a car payment into buying a new car and goin into debt again… maybe it will tempt people into buying something they really cant afford… isnt that what happend with the housing market? tempted people into buying houses they really couldn;t afford.

14

Ok. Now let’s fix your numbers a little. Let’s assume that you’re Joe and Jane Schmoe… you make 60K a year combined and you have a 2002 Chevy 1500 with a V8. You can get 8K on a trade in, plus now you’re getting $4,500. Now you’ve got $12K you can put down on a new Colorado. $5,000 of free money to buy a $15,000 vehicle is like getting 33% of sticker. It’s not going to make EVERYONE run out and trade in their car, but it will be a huge benefit to anyone that is already thinking about getting a new car.

i see the point ur making but look at it this way… lets tempt people currently without a car payment into buying a new car and goin into debt again… maybe it will tempt people into buying something they really cant afford… isnt that what happend with the housing market? tempted people into buying houses they really couldn;t afford.

You didn’t really pay attention to anything I wrote, did you?

15

soft communism?

16

so basically you agree with this proposal

17

of course not. :rofl:

18

darkstar is just pointing out how the bill actually is, not the fucked up version that cunty posted.

the less the gov has in anything, the better off we will be.

19

My SS only gets about 14-15. city. although i suppose im not the most efficient driver.

20

the 4,500 is a tax incentive correct? so its just a tax write off? sorry i sound retarded but i have been living at the post office and havent had time to pick up a newspaper or watch the news.