Hillary Clinton Proposes 55 MPG by 2030 Through Flex-Fuel Plug-in Hybrids

I don't hear any of the candidates proposing to limit the speed limit nation-wide to 55 mph. That would save lives and fuel.

(Don't give me enforcement or miles of wasteland. yadda yadda.)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Fibb222 @ Nov 7 2007, 02:12 PM) [snapback]536364[/snapback]</div>

"And why do so many Americans go to Mexico for treatment?" Because we do not have a government funded health care system, U.S Americans are free to go where ever they please for health care.

Trick question - "Why do Cuban's get better health care than many of the fallen heroes of 911?" Let see if I can answer this,,, The "fallen heros of 911" are dead. They no longer need health care. So you are saying that Cubans get better health care than dead people. Really morbid, but probably true.

Frankly, I'd rather have lower taxes and have the freedom to choose my own health care provider.

Regards,

Keith

 

Hi Fibb222,

Thanks for the clarification. Sometimes when I write things, other people interpret it differently than what I meant too.

I do agree that the U.S. health care system is indeed broken. The U.S health care system is a free enterprise “for profit†industry just like most other industries here in the U.S. Unfortunately it preys upon the sick, weak, aged, and injured. Personally for this one specific industry I’d favor a system that is regulated with the understanding that profits would be at a reasonable level rather than the blood sucking greedy level that they are today.

The last thing I’d want to see is a government sponsored health care system. The reason being is that governments always function less efficiently than a private industry. As one of our founding fathers once said “That government which governs best, governs leastâ€.

In reference to the tax issue, you are very lucky to pay only 10% – 15%. Here in the Silicon Valley, the effective tax percentage that many people pay is around 50% (30% federal, 9% state, about 8 % sales tax, plus property taxes, plus a large number of smaller taxes applied directly and indirectly).

Several years ago the GAO (U.S. Government Accountability Office) reported that the top 1% of income earners pay more than 1/3 of the total income tax revenue. The top 5% pay more than 1/2 of the total income tax burden! Realizing the implications of this is quite sickening - Never in the history of this country have so many people been so dependent upon so few for so much.

Regards,

Keith

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dipper @ Nov 7 2007, 11:03 AM) [snapback]536251[/snapback]</div>

2012???

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(steve-o @ Nov 7 2007, 11:54 AM) [snapback]536284[/snapback]</div>

Revolution??? Oh, yes, as in Send money to another guy in Washington because this guy promises to lower taxes, seal the borders, end corruption, and "fix" the health care system by letting the "free market" operate without government regulation.

His supporters must all be teen-agers, because they apparently can't remember the string of candidates who make the same promises every year and never keep them.

 

I like the rationing idea - 20 gallons per week per household - watch them use one vehicle and carpool then ! The carbon saving solutions will be found by the folks who don't have the gas to use - then the old bicycles come out of the garage, the walking shoes out of the closet - and people will check those bus schedules again...... !

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Fibb222 @ Nov 7 2007, 05:31 PM) [snapback]536461[/snapback]</div>

10-15% taxes INCLUDES full medical coverage? I pay 15% into the social security fund, 15% federal tax, 6% State tax and about 8% sales tax THEN get to pay about 50% of what's left of my after tax income for health care.

Now, all you naysayers to single payer health care, who gets the better deal for their hard earned income?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Nov 8 2007, 12:52 AM) [snapback]536598[/snapback]</div>

Don't be so quick to respond without doing your own research. Lots of good information if you want to hear it.

According to your logic, seems as though this may have been a teen aged poll, huh? http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11...ll-in-new-york/

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Nov 7 2007, 06:40 PM) [snapback]536406[/snapback]</div>

I want the freedom to drive fast !!! I don't need to be monitored by big brother for breaking a senselessly slow speed limit law.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Nov 8 2007, 08:03 AM) [snapback]536714[/snapback]</div>

Yeah, but... but... but... Errrmmm, well, there must be something wrong with it. I know, we can call it socialism. Everybody hates socialism, right? If we call it socialism everybody will think it must be bad. And we can always trot out that multi-millionaire who came to the U.S. for a nose job because he had to stand in line after the people who actually needed medical care.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(steve-o @ Nov 8 2007, 08:07 AM) [snapback]536718[/snapback]</div>

That's different. It was to select the Republican candidate. If I had to pick from the Republicans presently running, I might choose him too. At least he opposes the war.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Nov 8 2007, 11:38 AM) [snapback]536738[/snapback]</div>

Ron Paul is not defined by labels as much as he is is defined by his word. If people could simply get past the whole partisan way of thinking and actually research the man, they would be quite surprised. I always considered myself a bit left of center, but not anymore. Not now that I know what a 'real' Republican is. But again, it doesn't even matter. I agree with just about everything Ron Paul is about and it has nothing to do with the letter in parenthesese in front of his name.

I believe that everyone should be properly informed before voting and that means quit listening to to Fox News, or even me for that matter and do your own research on ALL the candidates, regardless of party affiliation. Until you have, your opinion only matters in the voter booth unfortunately.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Fibb222 @ Nov 7 2007, 01:12 PM) [snapback]536227[/snapback]</div>

Nice ideas; in an utopian world. A few things to consider.

We will never get off the reliance of foreign oil. The Mid East can extract oil from their land at a fraction of our price, so oil will ALWAYS be available cheaper (and always imported) from the Mid East. They will always charge what the market can bear.

Americans have made it loud and clear that they will simply not tolerate small cars and trucks. But if forced to purchase through government conditions or rules and regulations then only the relatively wealthy will be able to afford larger automobiles furthering the divide between the well off and the middle class and the poor.

And if America's fuel consumption somehow did decrease substantially in the future then you can expect a glut of fuel on the market. Prices would be reduced considerably and would further reduce the appeal of smaller cars and trucks.

As with ALL politicians, typical, shallow pandering for votes which usually convinces those with simple minds that our problems can be solved with governmental intervention (esp. with the NEXT incoming political party).

Rick
#4 2006

 

This is sooooo Clinton like of her to make these statements, and make those who dont think past next month say WOW what a great plan.... :lol:

I agree with others here, in the fact of making vehicles get better MPGs. But to just limit the USA to just plug-in EV & hybrids (as another poster said) is unamerican.. It's another infringment on citizens rights to freedom of choice of what they purchase or drive. (thought I would throw that one in there)

Why not just follow in Brazil's foot steps & get rid of the need for oil altogether? :huh: This would make to much sence..

As for the real CAFE Standards check out the links below;

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/cafe/overview.htm

Im sure with the added cost of those fines, we the consumer are having to pay them in one fashion or another.... <_<

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Nov 7 2007, 06:40 PM) [snapback]536406[/snapback]</div>

Yes, it would. But 45 would save more and 35 even more. Why stop at the subjective 55 limit?

Imposing a speed limit of 55 would drastically increase trucking costs (esp. LTL shipments). Freight lines would have to buy more trucks and hire more drivers to move the same amount of freight. Prices would increase across the board for all consumer items.

It would mean substantially less family time for the wage earner as he or she would now spend more time commuting back and forth to work. When I come home from work I value EVERY minute with my children. I remember the days of 55 and still get angry at how much time I wasted "crawling" on the highways. Politicians are "exempt" from the arbitrary speed limits they impose on us just as Al Gore is "exempt" from tremendous outputs of carbon. Just ask the Governor of NJ.

It would mean more budgeting for roads as more cars and trucks would spend more time on the highways would mean simply more asphalt would be needed.

And most importantly, any politician who dare make such a proposal would be best to look for another line of work before November.

Rick
#4 2006

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Nov 7 2007, 09:52 PM) [snapback]536598[/snapback]</div>

Of course. Got to wait until gas prices go out of hand in 2010 before you step in.

Then you can ask the other candidates, what were you driving 3 years ago when price was at $3/gal, Suburban? :lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Nov 7 2007, 03:17 PM) [snapback]536294[/snapback]</div>

Interesting that we have such a great health care system, and yet are so far down the list on pretty much every health index....

Infant Mortality: US is 42nd, just behind Cuba and South Korea (but we edged out Croatia and Belarus!). In contrast babies in Sweden are almost 3 times less likely to die in their first year.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/th...r/2091rank.html

Life Expectancy at Birth: US is 45th, somewhere below Guam, Jordan and Bosnia.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/th...r/2102rank.html

We do have an amazing health care capability. Unfortunately our health care "system" makes it inaccessible to a large percentage of our own population. Its interesting that a $100B per year universal healthcare system will destroy the economy, and yet Bush's $100B a year war in Iraq has not (I guess thats debatable).

Rob

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ Nov 8 2007, 12:05 PM) [snapback]536758[/snapback]</div>

So, conversely we can do nothing, wait for the oil to dry up and let our economy completely collapse. Then we can ship all of the unemployed overseas to fight with Russia and China over the last few scraps of middle east oil ushering in WWIII and the end of the world in all out nuclear war. Great plan! Now I can drive my SUV with a clear conscience.

I love how the right will tell you the US is the greatest country in the world, and then tell us all the things we are not capable of. The greatest country in the world cannot achieve universal health care (though lesser countries somehow manage), cannot reduce our fuel consumption (even though we're worst in the world), etc, etc. Yet when we are united behind an ideal, like WWII, or the moon race we have done far greater things.

Rob

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hycamguy07 @ Nov 8 2007, 09:09 AM) [snapback]536761[/snapback]</div>

Do people have a moral right to waste resources which are critical to the economic health of the nation? Clearly, under our legal system, they have the legal right. We have no law against driving a 50-foot motor home to the grocery store for a carton of milk. For that matter, we have no law against buying a thousand gallons of gas and just burning it, providing you don't break anti-pollution laws.

But should it be so? Should people really have the right to squander non-renewable natural resources? I think they should not. There are limits to personal freedom, and I think this should be among them. Of course, this principle should apply across the board, not just to vehicles, but to all consumption of non-renewable resources.

Unfortunately, we have an economic system that demands wasteful consumption, and a national dogma that says that any other form of economic organization is an affront to god.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hycamguy07 @ Nov 8 2007, 09:09 AM) [snapback]536761[/snapback]</div>

Brazil grows cane, which can produce ethanol more efficiently than any of the crops we grow in the U.S. Also, cane is very labor-intensive, and brazil has cheaper labor than we have.