« | »

Senate To Vote On ‘Cash For Clunkers’

From a mesmerized Reuters:

Senate to vote today on "cash for clunkers"

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced an agreement with Republicans to vote on Thursday on the popular "cash for clunkers" auto sales incentive bill.

Speaking on the Senate floor late on Wednesday, Reid said the accord provides for votes on a half dozen amendments, all of which aides said are expected to be defeated.

The Senate would then give final approval to the measure, previously passed by the House of Representatives, and send it to President Barack Obama to sign into law.

Speaking of ‘historic’ Senate votes.

This article was posted by Steve on Thursday, August 6th, 2009. Comments are currently closed.

6 Responses to “Senate To Vote On ‘Cash For Clunkers’”

  1. Liberals Demise says:

    But I was told that the Gubbamint wasn’t going to run the car business.
    Dinglebarry said he was not a car salesman.

    Just another reason to loathe the ebony Al Capone.

  2. Yarddog1 says:

    May I suggest we call the Congress “Clunkers with our Cash”?

  3. proreason says:

    Why not a trillion dollars for welfare clothes, cell phones, sneakers and rap music?

    That would be pretty stimulative, wouldn’t it

    • Yarddog1 says:

      Don’t forget the 22″s, or whatever in the heck they are.

    • Colonel1961 says:

      I would love to see the demographics on the buyers of these vehicles…

      Maybe that woman in the video was right. ‘When Obama is elected he’s gonna give us houses and gas and cars…’

      Oy vey!

  4. peterdublin says:

    Dealers are forced to destroy perfectly good cars.

    There are deeper reasons why the scheme is wrong.
    Presumably it’s to save on oil/gasolene and to lower emissions:

    Yet fuel efficient cars effectively means cheaper energy which in turn means they will be used more (instead of, for example, using public transport)

    Fuel efficiency is of course an advantage people can consider when buying a car – and can compare with advantages that inefficient cars can have (better acceleration, or greater safety because of greater weight, etc, as well as a probably lower price – or they would be efficient already).

    As far as government is concerned, any oil shortage – for geopolitical or economic demand reasons – raises the gasolene price and – guess what – increases demand for fuel-efficient cars anyway, no need to legislate for it.

    Another reason is that – as research at Georgia Tech has shown – it is possible to clean emissions of CO2 (and other substances at the same time).
    A fuel-neutral emission tax on cars therefore makes more sense:
    If it is economical to make – or to fit current- gas-guzzling cars with emission processing then, again, there is no reason for government to try to lower the use of such cars.

    Any regulatory measures should therefore focus on emissions, rather than the fuel used, and emission taxation on cars retains consumer choice, while also giving significant government income with the lower sales of high emission cars, income that can go to projects that themselves lower emissions eg. electric car manufacturing subsidies etc.
    (Regardless of whether CO2 reduction makes any sense, lowered emissions of course have their own benefit, for all the noxious sulphur etc substances that the emissions also contain)

    For more see http://www.ceolas.net/#cc25x
    Why all energy efficiency regulation is wrong – from light bulbs to buildings http://www.ceolas.net/#cc2x

« Front Page | To Top
« | »