SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: patron_anejo_por_favor who wrote (200709)5/6/2009 8:47:43 PM
From: John KoligmanRespond to of 306849
 
For all you low MPG clunker owners, looks like Congress finally is going to pass the trade-in bill. Not bad, you can get up to a $4500 voucher if the car you are trading in gets at least 10 mpg less than the one you are buying. I tried to include the graphic outlining the mileage/dollar amount levels but could not get it to work...

John

House Democrats Reach an Accord to Subsidize Vehicle Trade-Ins
By JOHN M. BRODER

Published: May 5, 2009

WASHINGTON — House Democrats working on energy and global warming legislation remained deadlocked Tuesday on several contentious issues even after a gentle nudge from President Obama at a White House meeting. But they did announce a tentative deal to give consumers billions of dollars to trade in their old cars and trucks for models with somewhat higher gas mileage.

That “cash for clunkers” subsidy is intended to increase vehicle sales, prop up the faltering American auto industry and make the nation’s car and truck fleet marginally more efficient. Mr. Obama has lent support to the idea, and there is money in the stimulus package to finance it.

Democrats plan to include the deal in the broader energy bill unless that measure becomes hopelessly entangled in policy disputes.

Under the provision, a buyer would receive a voucher toward the purchase of a new car or truck if that vehicle got a specific combined minimum miles per gallon in city and highway driving. Its fuel efficiency would also have to exceed that of the vehicle being traded by a specific minimum.

The measure would apply to domestic and imported vehicles alike, last for one year and be capped at one million vouchers. If consumers claimed all the vouchers, it would cost $3.5 billion to $4.5 billion.

The provision was just one piece of the vigorous horse trading under way to try to win the support of enough Democrats to move the broader climate legislation through the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

None of the 23 Republicans on the panel have so far expressed support for the broader bill, and Democratic members said Tuesday that they remained far apart on the critical elements, including goals for emissions reductions, mandates for renewable electricity like wind and solar power, and the issue of whether the government would give away any pollution permits rather than auctioning all of them.

The timetable for legislative action remains unclear, although the committee chairman, Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California, renewed his pledge to have the panel clear a bill by the end of May.

Mr. Obama told the nearly three dozen Democratic lawmakers at the White House meeting that they were at a historic moment in the debate over global warming and energy independence, and he urged them to move as quickly as possible toward passage of the complex legislation, participants said.

The bill before the committee would set limits on carbon dioxide emissions, modernize the electrical transmission grid, finance work on cleaning up coal-fired power plants and force large gains in the energy efficiency of buildings, appliances and vehicles.



To: patron_anejo_por_favor who wrote (200709)5/6/2009 10:30:00 PM
From: Skeeter BugRead Replies (2) | Respond to of 306849
 
someone please tell me why banks aren't grossly undervalued right now since the government is about to give them 94 cents on the dollar for all their bad assets?

they win, they win, they lose, tax payers pay for losses.

that's a helluva business model, no?

it has to be worth 2x what another company w/o such a government back stop is worth.

PPIP will rid them of all toxic assets, no?