Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm putting this thread together to throw out ideas that are not necessarily focused from the left or the right. Rather these are messages that involve ideas that are "out of the box."
For now, here's one.
So we are in the midst of techological implementation of high mileage vehilces, in the 100, 200 MPG range. Yet our government takes advantage of us once again. You ask how.
Well the taxpayer is funding a huge hand out to the automobile industry with the cash for clunker deals without the appropriate conditions. This money should be dedicated to putting the high mileage vehicles, like the Volt, into active production. Then we can stick it to OPEC once and for all.
Instead the program incentivizes the purchase of significantly less mileage vehicles and straps the purchaser with having bought an inferior product.
Taxpayer money should be for solutions that benefit the whole and not a selected few.
Unemployment rages and the need for unemployment benefits continue.
Require those on unemployment to pitch in at the state and local level, doing civic jobs.
Now I hear the critic saying that this would take away jobs from those who currently do them. This, IMHO, is misplaced since these jobs are being performed at the expense of the taxpayer. Since these jobs would be "picked up" by temporarily displaced workers the need for the taxpayer to continue funding such jobs would benefit taxpayers. Thus we, as taxpayers, would derive benefit from the work being performed by the temporarily displaced worker. Not to mention that the temporarily displaced worker remains active, contributing and, in some instances, may acquire additional skills which thereby enhance their future employability.
Well, people tend to care mostly about "energy independence" when fuel prices are high. Once they go down, nobody bothers with it.
We had a chance to make efficiency a long-term objective after the embargo in the 1970s, but between the Carter and Reagan administrations it got botched. Once the cheap oil started flowing in from the Middle East it was back to gas guzzlers, and then after the arms race to see who can put the biggest, clunkiest chunk of steel on the roads prices got high again and people resorted to using golf carts to get around their sprawling subdivisions built on the premise of cheap, expendable energy.
How about health care reform? The current system is an embarrassment to the developed world, but it'd be nice to see health care reform tied to tort reform. The trial lawyers profiteering off frivolous lawsuits are one big factor in making health care ridiculously expensive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by checking out
Require those on unemployment to pitch in at the state and local level, doing civic jobs.
I could go for that, as long as it doesn't interfere with a good faith effort in finding proper work.
Well, people tend to care mostly about "energy independence" when fuel prices are high. Once they go down, nobody bothers with it.
We had a chance to make efficiency a long-term objective after the embargo in the 1970s, but between the Carter and Reagan administrations it got botched. Once the cheap oil started flowing in from the Middle East it was back to gas guzzlers, and then after the arms race to see who can put the biggest, clunkiest chunk of steel on the roads prices got high again and people resorted to using golf carts to get around their sprawling subdivisions built on the premise of cheap, expendable energy.
How about health care reform? The current system is an embarrassment to the developed world, but it'd be nice to see health care reform tied to tort reform. The trial lawyers profiteering off frivolous lawsuits are one big factor in making health care ridiculously expensive.
I could go for that, as long as it doesn't interfere with a good faith effort in finding proper work.
IMHO, a moderate view says we don't accept past failures as an excuse for not doing something. Nor does a moderate accept that just because something works we should not improve it. Lastly, a moderate dispenses of the idea of "that's the way we always did it."
Health care is one thing, health insurance is entirely another. One thing for sure, private physicians, private hospitals and private drug companies should not be making profits at the expense of the taxpayer. Especially when it comes to health care which is necessary to keep a person alive. Take the profit motive out of the equation and DO NOT add another layer of insurance that only stands to take more profit out of each health-tax dollar.
IMHO, a moderate view says we don't accept past failures as an excuse for not doing something.
I agree generally, but we're past the point of no return with this issue IMO. People take hyperconsumption for granted now. They think it's their birthright as Americans. When something gets accepted as such over a generation or two it's quite difficult to reverse. Basically, what we need is >$5/gallon gas, but since we're married to the automobile to the point it's impossible to live in most places without one, the results would be devastating.
I'm not sure that the business of keeping people alive and healthy should be something to profit from. I don't see how the country is served by ordinary working people going bankrupt because they got sick.
I'm not sure that the business of keeping people alive and healthy should be something to profit from. I don't see how the country is served by ordinary working people going bankrupt because they got sick.[/quote]
Do you work for free? Of course you don't. Neither does GE, Seimens or any other of the medical fields manufacturers. You want the best minds tackling a problem? Of course you do, these people do not want to be paid in vouchers. Unfortunatly it's human nature. To think that many of the innovations that we will soon depend on will come from altruism is unrealistic. Profits must be made.
I'm not sure that the business of keeping people alive and healthy should be something to profit from. I don't see how the country is served by ordinary working people going bankrupt because they got sick.
Do you work for free? Of course you don't. Neither does GE, Seimens or any other of the medical fields manufacturers. You want the best minds tackling a problem? Of course you do, these people do not want to be paid in vouchers. Unfortunatly it's human nature. To think that many of the innovations that we will soon depend on will come from altruism is unrealistic. Profits must be made.[/quote]
That may be true, but my point remains - how does this country benefit from ordinary working people going bankrupt because they got sick?
Hence the "I'm not sure" rather than "they should not." Since a perfect solution doesn't exist, I'll go with the best solution. I suppose we're still trying to figure out what that is.
BTW: Wasn't there a big issue of people taking them and melting them down for other, more productive uses?
More moderate ideas on the way!!
No. Since 1982, pennies have been copper-plated, 97% zinc, and the metal in a penny is worth a little less than a half a cent. If they were copper, they would cost about 1.5 cents to make.
Whenever you see a country frequently changing the design of their coinage, you know that the country is under the absolute rule of a bunch of glitz-crazed con-men. Always be leery of a government whose national currency is being sold on the home-shopping cable networks.
The purpose of government should be to educate the nation's fools, not to rip them off.
The Volt is a first off. The technology isn't there yet to put a car like that into wide production. It will come, if it can stay in production for the next 5 to 6 years. All of the other manufacturers will start producing "volt like" cars.
We also need to start funding Nuclear power plants to provide the increase of electrical use NOW, not wait for the demand to be there. Be proactive, and not reactive for a change.
If we can lower our dependence on foreign oil by 50%, thats 350 billion dollars a year going back into OUR economy. We wouldn't have to import from the middle east anymore, and we can stop fighting wars that are based around our oil needs.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
