After weeks of heel dragging, the proposed ‘cash-for-clunkers’ bill will finally be voted on by the full House at 3pm today. The program, which would offer new car buyers up to $4,500, has been floating around Washington for some time now but with little progress.
The program likely has enough support to pass through the House, but could face opposition in the Senate. Just yesterday four Senators, including Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., introduced a new cash-for-clunkers bill that would increase oil saving 32 percent over the Sutton bill currently in front of the House, according to Automotive News.
Under the Feinstein bill, eligible trade-in cars would need to average 17 mpg or less – 1 mpg less than the 18 mpg standard required by the Sutton bill. The Feinstein bill would also require the new vehicle achieve 2 mpg better than that currently required by the Sutton bill.
Both Senate bills seem to have a fair amount of support, making the timeframe for a cash-for-clunkers law cloudy, at best.
06/09, 1:39 PM
posted by:
elviososa
Both of the bill is retarded….you should use the age of the car as well as the mpg to calculate the incentive.
06/09, 1:58 PM
posted by:
johnnycanuck
If this program is successful will they expand it to include wives?
06/09, 2:10 PM
posted by:
yarddog82abn
DAMN!!!!
IT WILL BE A GOOD TIME TO BE IN THE JUNK YARD BUSINESS…
ALL OVER EUROPE THE JUNK YARDS ARE MAKING A KILLING!
YOU SEE ALL THE “CLUNKERS” TRADED IN WILL GO TO JUNK YARDS, TO BE “JUNKED” THEY ALSO GET PAID BY THE FED. TO “JUNK” THE CARS…
SO THEY GET A FREE CAR TO MAKE MONEY ON AS THEY NORMALLY DO, AND THEY GET PAID BY THE FED. TO DO SO…
06/09, 2:22 PM
posted by:
JakeK66
So by the time this passes – you’re gonna have to trade in a 1995 Suburban 2500 for a 2009 Chevy Cobalt XFE to get the $4500. I’m sure there are going to be a line out he dealership for that deal!
06/09, 2:35 PM
posted by:
RaineMan
They should definately consider the age of a vehicle as part of the trade-in incentive. But I guess they’re not worried about the emissions. My 90 Beretta gets about 20MPG… but you don’t really want to stand behind it.
06/09, 3:19 PM
posted by:
Payton Byrd
@RaineMan
Agreed. My 2004 Titan (16mpg downhill in a hurricane) would qualify, but my 1994 Accord (25mpg) would not. That’s just stupid.
I guess the word “Clunker” is getting redefined for political correctness now. If I park the Titan and Accord side by side, I think even the most ardent Prius driver could spot the real clunker.
06/09, 3:29 PM
posted by:
S2L2SC
Should be called the gas guzzler bill, not the Clunker bill.
06/09, 3:38 PM
posted by:
WIBoomer1
This is crap. You’d need some big bulky HOJ in order to qualify. This bill is shaping up to be a “Feel-Good” compromise to me. It’s not going to do me any good, since my 2000 Malibu gets 21, supposedly. They need to look at the age of the car as well.
06/09, 3:54 PM
posted by:
A4
I’m amazed Russia and China havent teamed up and taken us over. Our government has the brain capacity of a ferret. FACTOR IN AGE YOU JACKASSES
06/09, 3:59 PM
posted by:
MercMark
How do they calculate the mileage for a 13 yr old car? I’m sure its not getting it’s rated mpg anymore!
Plus they have changed how mpg is calculated, so newer cars are lower than they would be using the system from 13 years ago. I guess I gotta trade in my pos for a low mpg pos to get the credit!
06/09, 5:05 PM
posted by:
beatusmongous
Not getting enough MPGs out of your wife, Johnny?
“Our government has the brain capacity of a ferret.” – That made me spit my drink due to laughter. Thanks. Let me make it worse, though: Our government has the COLLECTIVE brain capacity of a ferret.
06/09, 5:45 PM
posted by:
foamypirate
Actually, me 18 year old Honda Accord gets better mileage than the EPA rating…
Of course, I maintain my 19 year old car religiously, unlike most people with cars of that age.
06/09, 5:46 PM
posted by:
foamypirate
Bah, I hate typos, damnit. The car is 18 years old, not 19.
06/09, 5:56 PM
posted by:
leftwingagenda
where does it state that the age of the vehicle is irrelevant to the calculation? it doesn’t say that in this article…