What People Think
 |
 |
28% For, 72% Against
Take Action
| Vote on this Bill | |
  |
For |
  |
Against |
| Speak Out | |
  |
Comment on this Bill |
  |
Alert Your Friends and Colleagues |
  |
Write Your Representative in Congress |
| Save & Share | |
 |
del.icio.us |
 |
Digg |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
Yahoo! |
H.R. 520, The Accelerated Retirement of Inefficient Vehicles Act of 2009 (22 comments ↓ | 3 wiki edits)
H.R. 520 would accelerate motor fuel savings nationwide and provide incentives to registered owners of high fuel consumption automobiles to replace such automobiles with fuel efficient automobiles or public transportation.
()
[845 views]
Learn More
Visitor Comments 
JIM
February 2, 2009, 6:08pm (report abuse)This Bill is deficient as written . The voucher must be limited to the purchase of Detroit products only i.e. Chevy Cobalt etc.
Seth
February 4, 2009, 10:21am (report abuse)The program will fail to achieve its goal of improving fuel efficiency and stimulating car sales, but will increase unemployment and the cost of used cars and parts. Here, according to SEMA, is why:
Given the minimal $1,500& $4,500 voucher value, the program will lure rarely-driven second and third vehicles that have minimal impact on overall fuel economy and air pollution. This is not a wise investment of tax dollars.
The program will reduce the number of vehicles available for low-income individuals and drive up the cost of the remaining vehicles and repair parts. This is a basic supply-and-demand reality.
The program will hurt thousands of independent repair shops, auto restorers, customizers and their customers across the country that depend on the used car market. This industry provides thousands of American jobs and generates millions of dollars in local, state and federal tax revenues.
Jamie
February 8, 2009, 4:01pm (report abuse)This is an excellent initiative that will go a long way to promote a change in Detroit.
Too long has our domestic car industry been complacent about the realities of market shifts - how much more life support should we, tax payers, give an industry that has stubbornly ignored what consumers have craved?
Running a fuel efficient car can only help tax payers, and many were looking to get rid of their guzzlers anyway. This is a little help to many such consumers and contrarily to what Seth wrote, it will obviously help the car industry since cars will be bought!
Consumers are sitting on the sidelines right now - this is a step in the right direction.
Rob
February 9, 2009, 1:30pm (report abuse)You'll have to pry my hot rod Mustang from my cold dead hands! How about we reduce consumption and emissions by switching ALL mass transit to clean bio-fuels and electric. We could also reduce our oil demands by using hemp oil and cellulose for creating 50,000+ textile products that are currency produced with petrochemicals.
P.S. Hemp also DEVOURS CO2, rotates very well with other food crops and is the longest, strongest natural fiber known to man!
Research Hemp! Legalize the Billion Dollar Crop! Oh yea and pot never killed anyone :o)
Ken
February 17, 2009, 4:05pm (report abuse)This is increased government coercion of what people purchase. Private ownership with government control is called fascism. Government, please tell me what I should do next: Tell me what to drive, what to buy, what temperature to have my home, what kind of electricity to buy, etc. Step by step we get more H.R. 520 type bills and less liberty. How close will we get to full socialism before we suffer a collapse, like all those who have tried it?
Few innovations have come about by government dictates in all of human history. How will this be the exception?
Boots
February 18, 2009, 12:02am (report abuse)The bill says I can't get more than one coupon in 3 yrs, and I can't use two coupons to purchase one newer vehicle - assuming I were to want to participate in this fascist/socialist program, I would want to turn in two vehicles, a van and a motor home, and replace them with ONE vehicle, not two - this bill sucks and should never be passed.
Job
April 13, 2009, 12:16am (report abuse)I don't see this doing anything but making it more expensive in the long run. Like mentioned above, you'll have to pry my "clunkers" from my cold dead lifeless hands. Oh and by the way, I drive all american vehicles, no imported stuff here. I am an american and I feel it an honor to have "made in the usa" stamped on the stuff I purchase, and I also feel it my duty to purchase products and vehicles that are originated here in the US, rather than sending my hard earned dollars overseas.
This bill will do a great job of helping eliminate those small used car lots, small companies that sell/make auto parts to repair our used cars and that sort of thing. I don't see the bill passing.
I suppose Pelosi came up with this bill as well. Seems like she comes up with some really off the wall, radical ideas that benefit only a few people...the extremely poor and the extremely rich. Just like the former USSR-- no middle class. Just a SOCIALIST republic! And we aren't far from that!!
jamiejamie
April 22, 2009, 1:18pm (report abuse)1500 dollars trade in is a joke. Its a good idead but flawed. What about the brand new fuel guzzlers? There are better ways to acheive the same result. I would rather see an SUV tax and use that money to bring down the cost of cheap fuel efficent vehicles.
Martin K
April 26, 2009, 5:00pm (report abuse)I can see it now. As soon as everyone switches to hybrids and compact cars a huge blizzard sweeps across America and everybody dies because we can't go anywhere.
SammyJo
May 4, 2009, 2:12pm (report abuse)Bill must not be limited to Only North American Producers
Bih
May 5, 2009, 1:15pm (report abuse)I would trade in my '95 pickup for a Subaru the same day this went into effect. An incentive like this is all I need. Right now, its financially wiser to keep the truck... this bill would change that.
Doug W
May 6, 2009, 5:10pm (report abuse)Why does this not include motorcycles and scooters? U.S. made, if need be, but many are far more fuel efficient than automobiles.
Deborah
(logged in user) May 11, 2009, 12:59am (report abuse)Did it ever occur to those fat cats in Washington that the majority of people are driving clunkers because they can't afford a NEW car?! Get serious....walk in our shoes for a while. Besides, I would only buy from Ford- since they are the ones who didn't screw us out of our money with the help of this administration and congress!
Evan
May 19, 2009, 7:30pm (report abuse)We would buy trade in a old Explorer for a new truck the same day. I would probably go for a Dodge/Chrysler dealer who is clearing out inventory
Ayyoub
May 22, 2009, 1:13pm (report abuse)@Job: Simple facts are easy to check. Nancy Pelosi is not a sponsor of this bill. See http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-520
Karl
May 27, 2009, 10:59am (report abuse)I think they should increase the requirement of MPG from 18 & less to atleast 24-25. Most cars, even clunkers give more than 18 MPG. Also, like Deb pointed out, they should let us buy used cars instead of new.
Kate
June 17, 2009, 10:22am (report abuse)This is an excellent opportunity for car owners to upgrade. Nobody says you HAVE to participate. The government isn't going to come to your house with a tow truck and take away your "baby". If you want a newer, slightly more fuel efficient car, then go for it! If not, then let the people who want to take advantage of the opportunity do so. I do think that it should apply toward the purchase of a used car, as well - as long as it gets better gas mileage than your old one.
car sales bob
June 19, 2009, 12:25pm (report abuse)One issue that will make this challenging. They changed the way the fuel mileage is calculated for 2009 so they show 2-5 MPG lower than the year before. We already have seen where customers old cars have a better published MPG than the smaller car they want to buy. And yes this will drive up the price of used cars, it will drive down the price of metal (making recycling less appealing) and like most govt. programs be a waste of tax dollars that doesn't produce the intended effect. But the unintended consequences will be massive.
cityrooster
June 20, 2009, 7:00am (report abuse)This is the best thing that ever happened to the car industry. Ofcourse, I'm a car salesman.
DLRL
(logged in user) June 22, 2009, 12:25pm (report abuse)I live in rural America where public transportation is not easily available. I also live on an income that is near the FPL. If this bill is passed, and the market for used cars disappears and parts for used cars increases, what will people like myself do. We'll be without transportation. Try grocery shopping, getting to doctors, etc. when you are a senior citizen, or a single parent with children, without the aid of a vehicle in a rural area. You can say all you want about energy efficiency, I am for it, but I also think we need to consider the people in this country who do not have the income to purchase those vehicles. When I went to school they taught me that the Constituion that laid out how our government is structured, was for the people, of the people and by the people. I was never taught that it referred only to the economically advantaged in our country. When did that come into play?
KingRat
July 3, 2009, 9:20am (report abuse)When I fist heard about this bill I was excited. I have two gas-guzzlers at the moment and I thought, I could get $4500 for each and have $9000 total to buy a new vehicle. Since having read the whole bill my ideas have been shot to death and I cannot afford to purchase a new vehicle, let alone a used one. This is coming from a banker with 2 kids a beautiful bride and a single income. Whatever happened to the days of "Leave It To Beaver"???
fooman2008
July 22, 2009, 12:29pm (report abuse)I have a nice little Kia (5 years old) but it get 35MPG, a 89 Ford LTD (too old), three old pickups (all too old) so if the four old cars are clunkers why can't I trade them in? Oh yeah because we can't actually write a bill that makes common sense.
Foo
RSS Feeds for This Bill
Keep yourself updated on user contributions and debates about this bill! (Learn more about RSS.)
From the Blog
Congress Passes War Spending Bill
Both the House and Senate have passed identical versions of H.R. 2346, the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009. It now goes to the president for his signature. The bill spends about $920 per U.S. family. This bill is mostly to fund war spending, but,...