• May 13th 2009 at 9:58AM
  • 52
According to The Detroit News, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) have said they would like to fast track the Cash-for-Clunkers bill through the legislative process. There's a legitimate fear that new car sales will further stagnate while buyers wait for the bill to pass, which could take a very long time if it's attached to the much broader climate change legislation. Says Reid:
"Cash for clunkers is really important. Every country in the world is selling less cars than they did before except one country: Germany. And in Germany they have a program for cash-for-clunkers. We need to do the same."
Germany, the first country to implement a car scrapping scheme, has seen new car sales improve by over 20% in each month since the plan's launch in February. Under the proposed legislation in the U.S., new car buyers would be eligible for a voucher worth up to $4,500 for trading in an older vehicle if the replacement manages at least 10 mpg better than their so-called clunker.

[Source: Detroit News | Photo: Tommy Draper]

I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.

    • 1 Second Ago
      • 6 Years Ago
      My father passed away 2 years ago and left me his 1988 Dodge B-150 Van. It's in great condition but has no resell value, nor has it been registered for nearly 2 years. I'd love to sell my Dodge Durango, and get the $$$ from the van, and buy a new vehicle. I'd do it instantly, but the whole "must be registered for 1 year" deal is crap.
        • 6 Years Ago

        "but the whole "must be registered for 1 year" deal is crap."

        Look, be logical here, you really don't see why that makes sense? really? try a little harder...ok you get it now?

        By reading the comments here, one can really get depressed...what the f* happened to education in this country? Why are 80% of folks unable to understand the most primitive evidence?
      • 6 Years Ago
      Well there goes donations of vehicles.

      As for the 66 baracuda, it runs because the grass is not long around the vehicle.
      Other than the corrosion, It's looking good.
      • 6 Years Ago
      Upsetting that I bought a car a couple weeks ago because it was a true clunker, and apparently I won't see the benefit of this program. As i've stated before, I hope this bill is retroactive, given that many of us were forced to buy new cars in advance of this bill's passing (knowing full well that it would pass, but unable to continue to play Russian Roulette with our old cars).

      If this isn't something that those of us in this boat can benfit from and deduct from teh balance of our new vehicles, shame on you Washington.
      • 6 Years Ago
      All the clunkers are in DC in congress and the whitehouse. I wanna trade them all in and get my money back.
      • 6 Years Ago
      In the new bill as proposed there are very few cars that will qualify for the program. Nearly every car made over the past 20 years gets better than 18mpg.

      Lobbyists for the auto industry and the UAW got control of this bill. GM, Ford, and Chrysler have huge inventories of trucks and SUVs they need to clear out. Some dealers still have a few 2007s sitting on lots. Barely any 2009s have moved.

      In the new bill nearly all trucks qualify for the rebate and your new truck only has to get 1 mpg better than your old truck. Trucks and SUVs have also seen the greatest depreciation of any vehicle over the past few years.

      This bill is written to get all the farmers and construction workers to trade in thier old F150s and Silverados for brand new F150s anf Silverados. Name one farmer that doesn't have an old rusted out truck somewhere.

      This bill is BS. The government is taking over the auto industry and they want to get rid of all the unsold truck inventory before they focus on making replicas of the Tata Nano.
      • 6 Years Ago
      This bill will give incentive for more classic cars to be destroyed!
      • 6 Years Ago
      On the one hand, I would like $4,500 extra dollars to buy a car a little sooner than I otherwise would. On the other hand, the Fiesta, Cruze, and other potentially interesting candidates aren't available here yet. I wonder how long the offer will be good for...
        • 6 Years Ago
        The offer is supposed to be good for 1 year. But it's also limited to 1 million cars, and by some estimates they think as many as 3 million people might want to trade in a clunker. If that's the case, it sounds like you'll have to move fast if you want to get in.
      • 6 Years Ago
      This is one more stupid government policy that rewards the irresponsible and delays the inevitable. If I had bought a gas guzzling SUV when I bought our family car seven years ago, I would qualify. Since I bought a reasonably economical minivan (17/23 mpg), I don't since anything I could buy that would meet our family's needs gets around the same mileage.
        • 6 Years Ago

        The scrapping plan applies to every vehicle, not only big SUVs like you just pulled out of thin air. In other words, if you have a 1998 Corolla, you could still get $4500 when you buy a new vehicle.

        The plan is a proven success, consumers love it, automakers love it, the economy loves it except that redneck America jumps on the occasion to slimeball-talk it since it's been proposed by Democrats. What's your plan, trying to oppose everything that's positive for the nation?
        • 6 Years Ago
        The 1998 Corolla would not qualify under the present bill. “Trade in a car that has been registered and in use for at least a year and has a federal combined city/highway fuel economy of 18 or fewer miles per gallon”.
        • 6 Years Ago
        @Nick - see below from the articles. Since my car does better than 18 mpg combined, I would not qualify.

        Get your facts straight and stop drinking the Obama koolaid!

        "Key lawmakers and the White House reached an agreement last week on a plan to offer consumers up to $4,500 if they trade in an older vehicle rated at 18 mpg or less for a new, more fuel-efficient model."

        From USA Today article:


        How it would work

        Under the "cash for clunkers" plan, the government would send vouchers of $3,500 to $4,500 to dealers on your behalf if you:

        Trade in a car that has been registered and in use for at least a year and has a federal combined city/highway fuel economy of 18 or fewer miles per gallon.

        Buy a new car, $45,000 or less, that gets at least 22 mpg. A car that gets at least 4 mpg better than the trade-in qualifies for $3,500; at least 10 mpg better qualifies for $4,500.
      • 6 Years Ago
      This bill is so wrong in so many ways.
      • 6 Years Ago
      For those interested in an independent analysis of the Cash for Clunkers bill, the following op-ed is a good read http://www.forbes.com/2009/05/21/clunkers-bill-congress-opinions-contributors-guzzle.html. The author, Rafi Musher of Stax Inc. (www.stax.com), offers an alternate approach that would help us reach our goal of energy independence more effectively, at 1/3 the cost.
      • 6 Years Ago
      This bill is perfect for me and my wife. She drives a hand-me-down '97 Expedition that her parents gave to us when they would have only gotten $4500 in trade-in back in 2004. I've been wanting to replace it for several years (I like small cars and wagons myself), but just couldn't bring myself to do it considering we have no payments, and it has been dead-nuts reliable despite having over 160k on the clock. Sure, the mileage sucks on the Expedition (she averages about 13mpg with her almost exclusively city driving), but the increased cost of gas has always been cheaper than a car payment and the higher insurance costs of a new car. This bill might finally be the impetus we need to replace it with something smaller and much more fuel-efficient (she's been eyeing the Fusion Hybrid).

      And just because someone drives an older car, doesn't automatically mean they are broke or up to their eyes in debt. I'm an engineer, my wife is a researcher, we're in the top 20% bracket in household income, and the only debt we have are my student loans. We just haven't had a need to replace the vehicles we drive (my car is 11 years old as well).
        • 6 Years Ago
        axio.matik, you are the minority exception to the rule. Most people that are driving the domestics that make under 18 mpg are probably 2nd car owners or even 3rd car owners who didn't pay much for those beaters anyway. I seriously doubt they will be willing to shell out 20 grand on a new vehicle. While we have an old 95 Accord it still wouldn't fit under this bill either. This bill has many negatives that are outweighing the positives.

        1) Scrapping the cars pollutes the environment.
        2) While initially those $1k to 2k clunkers will be worth more and will be sold at a premium, the value of those cars will go up and those mom and pop shops that sell cheap cars could go under. Not to mention the people that can't afford more expensive vehicles.
        3) As another poster mentioned we are rewarding people who bought gas guzzling SUVs who drove the price of gas up a easy ticket to get another car.

        They want to pass something like this bill so be it, but at least make the playing field level. Change the requirement to any car older than 10 years not MPG dependent.

      • 6 Years Ago
      I really would like to buy a new truck. Currently I have a 19 year old car that unfortunately gets 17/23 on the new ratings, 19 combined. It does not get that in real world driving. It gets MORE. I average 21 city, 28 highway because I take care of it (and not a lot either, just normal maintenance). This bill sucks and the best thing to do to keep us from wasting energy is raise energy taxes.

    • Load More Comments
    Share This Photo X