RSS Feed MenuIf so – you must be getting pretty lonely by now ….
Congress is about to pass a bill to offer up to $4,500 to people who trade in old cars, reports the NYTimes.
Under the plan, consumers can turn in cars or light-duty trucks that get less than 18 miles a gallon. If they buy cars that have “window sticker” mileage ratings of at least four miles a gallon more than their old cars, they will receive a voucher worth $3,500. If they buy cars that get at least 10 miles a gallon more than their old car, they receive $4,500.
krove // May 7, 2009 at 4:20 am
Sounds like a good idea to stimulate the car industry to me.
barker13 // May 7, 2009 at 5:36 am
Re: Krove; 4:20 AM –Karen. I assume the plan applies not just to cars manufactured in the USA by American companies.(Someone correct me if I’m wrong…)So… once again… since the U.S. government is in deficit spending mode and this plan amounts to more government spending… spending of borrowed money which taxpayers will being paying interest on as well as principle repayment…Exactly whose auto industries do you think will be mainly… er… stimulated?American car companies don’t make many good small cars… THAT’S one of the problems faced by the American car industry in the face of potentially high gas prices and government overregulation.BILL
midcon // May 7, 2009 at 5:36 am
Well I continue to pay my own bills, but then I am not corporation looking for a bail out out or a farmer being subsidized, or an venture executive who earns no their millions.This sounds like a benefit (however small) for individuals, while at the same time stimulating a moribund industry that ultimately may save the government money through the loss of jobs.It’s a much better stimulation than that tired old saw – hey let’s cut taxes! I thought we were supposed to be about new ideas for a new majority? More and more this is starting to sound like SSDD. Are incentives only appropriate for corporations? We support education vouchers which allows people to trade in their old school for a new and better school with a better education model. How is this different?
barker13 // May 7, 2009 at 5:47 am
FYI: From an email I received from Sen. Schumer the other day –”… I’m pushing legislation that would create a national voucher program, called “Cash for Clunkers,” which would give consumers up to $5,500 toward the purchase of a new, more fuel-efficient vehicle when they turn in an older, less fuel-efficient vehicle. The amount of the voucher would vary depending on the fuel-efficiency of the new car, with the maximum benefit going towards the purchase of vehicles that are at least 50 percent better than the average car in their class. This legislation, formally called the Accelerated Retirement of Inefficient Vehicles Act (ARIVA), S.247, has bipartisan support – Diane Feinstein (D-CA) and Susan Collins (R-ME) are the other principal sponsors of the bill. There are a number of proposals similar to ARIVA pending in the House and Senate, and we are currently involved in negotiations to find common ground and put together a plan that can become law within the next few months. The White House is supportive of the Cash for Clunkers concept and is participating in the negotiations. I am confident that an agreement will be reached, and that the resulting plan will provide a much-needed boost to demand for domestic cars and trucks.”Ahh… Charles Schumer… Diane Feinstein… Barak Obama… and…(*DRUM ROLL*)…Susan Collins.BILL
barker13 // May 7, 2009 at 5:51 am
Re: Midcon; wrote 11 minutes ago –”Well I continue to pay my own bills, but then I am not corporation looking for a bail out out or a farmer being subsidized, or an venture executive who earns no their millions. This sounds like a benefit (however small) for individuals…”TRANSLATION: If ya can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.Borrow… borrow… borrow… spend… spend… spend… make government’s role in our lives larger and larger and larger and larger…(*SIGH*)BILL
Bulldoglover100 // May 7, 2009 at 6:53 am
Let’s see….they can just GIVE the stilulus money to the car companies….or they can give it to the consumer….while I do not agree with either I would MUCH rather see the money going directly to the benefit of the consumer than to some dill weed’s bonus.Bigger fights out there David that don’t make any sense at all to fight one that ar least helps us while helping the 10 million people involved in the car industry.
barker13 // May 7, 2009 at 7:06 am
http://news.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/2009_05_07_Free_cars_for_poor_fuel_road_rage/srvc=home&position=alsoPerhaps instead of the $5,500 or $4,500 or $3,500 rebate we can all just quit our jobs, move to Massachusetts and go on welfare.(*SNORT*)Re: Bulldoglover100; wrote 8 minutes ago –”Let’s see… they can just GIVE the stimulus money to the car companies…”Or NOT! I was on record as “not.” Still am!”…while I do not agree with either…”Here it comes… wait for it… (*CHUCKLE*)”I would MUCH rather see the money going directly to the benefit of the consumer…”Translation: Bull’s in favor of the borrowing and spending.(*SHRUG*)BILL
sinz54 // May 7, 2009 at 7:22 am
midcon: This is not much different than proposing a generous tax credit for those who purchase fuel-efficient cars.But I don’t see the point. Last year, when gasoline prices shot up to $4.00 a gallon, Americans scurried to purchase fuel-efficient vehicles. They didn’t need this type of program to influence them; all they needed was to see the price posted at the gas station.What is needed is not bribes to consumers to purchase fuel-efficient vehicles at a time like now when gasoline is only $2.00 a gallon.What is needed is to place a floor under the price of gasoline, so that it remains high enough to encourage conservation measures like gas-miser cars and car pooling and use of mass transit. That would save more energy than just bribing Americans to purchase fuel-efficient cars, because it lets market signals choose all kinds of modalities like car pooling.So I propose creating a variable gasoline tax that would never let the pump price of gasoline fall below $3.50 a gallon. (And that $3.50 figure would gradually ratchet up each 5 year period, to help fight global warming.)When oil prices are low, raise that tax. When oil prices are high, lower that tax. And it should be revenue-neutral: the taxes should be rebated to working Americans in the form of reduced SS payroll taxes.
barker13 // May 7, 2009 at 8:22 am
Re: Sinz54; wrote 55 minutes ago –And the headline reads…”Sinz For President Campaign Calls For Higher Fuel Prices”"So I propose creating a variable gasoline tax that would never let the pump price of gasoline fall below $3.50 a gallon. (And that $3.50 figure would gradually ratchet up each 5 year period, to help fight global warming.)”Oh, yeah… now THERE’S a platform that’s gonna win Republicans back both Houses of Congress, the White House, all 50 Statehouses and all 50 state legislatures.Sorry, Sinz… but I’m back to doubting your supposed “conservatism.”BILL
ottovbvs // May 7, 2009 at 8:33 am
It’s very similar to a program they’ve run in Germany which has actually been very successful in helping their car market. Makes quite a lot of sense to me. Using incentives to encourage useful social behavior. It’s not as if we don’t do it all the time in other areas from agricultural production to preventive medicine but apparently David thinks this is an object of mirth or something to sneer at.
barker13 // May 7, 2009 at 12:46 pm
Re: Ottovbv; 8:33 AM –”It’s very similar to a program they’ve run in Germany which has actually been very successful in helping their car market.”The key word there being… uh… “there.”(*SNORT*)Again, Ott… WHOSE auto companies do you think would gain the most “stimulus” from this plan to further indebt the American taxpayer and future generations?(*SIGH*)BILL
liv&win // May 8, 2009 at 10:43 am
Jeeze Louise what is going on? Raise gas taxes to stimulate socially responsible behavior…let’s see…let’s say the goal is neutral cost…the cost to drive a car that gets 15 mpg is the same as the cost to drive a car that gets 30 mpg, the only thing changing is the tax of gas. What is the impact? First, it is higher on those that can’t afford a newer car. So we have to raise more taxes to help them get with the program. So now it would cost more for those that can afford the new car because of the new subsidy. Then you have supply and demand. the supply of new small cars is limited and the demand is goosed…what happens to price? It goes up. So those buying new cars pay more for their new car and the subsidy for the poor has to go up also. Suddenly, a new car costs 50% more than it should if the free market were to be allowed to work. What is the opportunity cost? If we are now spending more on cars because we are supposed to buy new ones and the cost is up, what part of the economu loses. If we spend all that money over here, we can’t spend the same money over there…COME ON PEOPLE…quit trying to run the world and let freedom ring.