• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Hillary Fibs

jodywy

Well-known member
Hillary Fibs in Iowa About Ethanol, Voted Against It
During her first visit as a presidential candidate to early-caucus state Iowa, Sen. Hillary Clinton spoke out strongly in favor of boosting the production of ethanol in the United States.


But that’s a complete turnaround from her earlier actions regarding the alternative fuel, which is made from corn – and could provide a big boost to the economy of agricultural Iowa.

At a town hall meeting in Des Moines, the state capital, on January 27, Clinton said: "I believe we’ve got to take a strong stand on limiting our dependence on foreign oil. And we have a perfect example here in Iowa about how it can work with all of the ethanol that’s being produced here.”


According to an article in the Chicago Tribune cited in a release from the Republican National Committee, Clinton "took questions and spoke of boosting production of ethanol.”

And the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that Clinton "genuflected before ethanol, which is big business in Iowa.”

But as a Senator from New York, Clinton has voted at least 17 times against measures promoting ethanol production, the RNC noted.

During a question-and-answer session in 2004, Clinton was asked about "her outspoken opposition to legislation that would double the use of ethanol as a gasoline additive,” the Des Moines Register reported at the time.

"She was momentarily stumped by a question as to why she opposed the ethanol mandate, but then said she was concerned that it would raise gasoline prices for her constituents.”


Clinton reportedly said: "I have to look to first protecting and supporting the needs of the people I represent right now.”

In 2002, Clinton even signed a letter that read in part: "There is no sound public policy reason for mandating the use of ethanol.”
It’s not surprising that Clinton would have a change of heart regarding ethanol when addressing Iowa voters, considering that the ethanol industry generates $2.49 billion in total sales back to local communities, according to the Iowa Corn Growers Association.

Also, "more than 14,750 Iowa jobs are affected by ethanol,” the Association notes, "including 2,550 directly related to ethanol production.”
 

IL Rancher

Well-known member
She was all over the news here yesterday.. I always ee the polls with her doing very well in a national election but some how I just can't see it... I just don't see her playing well for a great area of the country... Say what you will about Bill but he was a smooth speaker, charamastic and most everything seemed effortless to him when he spoke. I didn't like him as a president but he did find a way to connect with lots of people.. I don't see her having that ability.. She does't seem genuine, she doesn't seem warm... Of course, in a lot of ways it will depend on who the GOP puts up against her but than that again becomes a situation of voiting against someone instead of for someone else.
 

passin thru

Well-known member
Hill in 2003 "I ended up voting for the resolution after carefully reviewing the information"

Hill now "So he took the authority that I and others gave him and he misused it, and I regret that deeply. And if we had known then what we know now, there never would have been a vote and I never would have voted to give this president that authority."

I thought she carefully reviewed the info.............hmmmmm
 

memanpa

Well-known member
nooooooo please say it isn't so, one of the klintons not telling the truth?
that is sooooooooo hard to believe :roll: :roll: :roll:
 

schnurrbart

Well-known member
jodywy said:
Hillary Fibs in Iowa About Ethanol, Voted Against It
During her first visit as a presidential candidate to early-caucus state Iowa, Sen. Hillary Clinton spoke out strongly in favor of boosting the production of ethanol in the United States.


But that’s a complete turnaround from her earlier actions regarding the alternative fuel, which is made from corn – and could provide a big boost to the economy of agricultural Iowa.

At a town hall meeting in Des Moines, the state capital, on January 27, Clinton said: "I believe we’ve got to take a strong stand on limiting our dependence on foreign oil. And we have a perfect example here in Iowa about how it can work with all of the ethanol that’s being produced here.”


According to an article in the Chicago Tribune cited in a release from the Republican National Committee, Clinton "took questions and spoke of boosting production of ethanol.”

And the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that Clinton "genuflected before ethanol, which is big business in Iowa.”

But as a Senator from New York, Clinton has voted at least 17 times against measures promoting ethanol production, the RNC noted.

During a question-and-answer session in 2004, Clinton was asked about "her outspoken opposition to legislation that would double the use of ethanol as a gasoline additive,” the Des Moines Register reported at the time.

"She was momentarily stumped by a question as to why she opposed the ethanol mandate, but then said she was concerned that it would raise gasoline prices for her constituents.”


Clinton reportedly said: "I have to look to first protecting and supporting the needs of the people I represent right now.”

In 2002, Clinton even signed a letter that read in part: "There is no sound public policy reason for mandating the use of ethanol.”
It’s not surprising that Clinton would have a change of heart regarding ethanol when addressing Iowa voters, considering that the ethanol industry generates $2.49 billion in total sales back to local communities, according to the Iowa Corn Growers Association.

Also, "more than 14,750 Iowa jobs are affected by ethanol,” the Association notes, "including 2,550 directly related to ethanol production.”

I'm not going to defend Clinton. Don't care if she voted for it or against it. However, using corn to make ethanol is a very big two edged sword. I think we need an alternative fuel that is sustainable yet something that isn't going to make some folks a lot of money and cost some more folks a lot of money. Raising the price of corn is great for the grain farmer but it creates a nightmare for feedlots which in turn causes the cattleman a lot of grief. So, for that reason, I would have to agree that more research should be done on producing ethanol from grasses, cellulose, corn stalks and whatever to do it so that the country benefits and not just one or two segments.
 

schnurrbart

Well-known member
passin thru said:
Hill in 2003 "I ended up voting for the resolution after carefully reviewing the information"

Hill now "So he took the authority that I and others gave him and he misused it, and I regret that deeply. And if we had known then what we know now, there never would have been a vote and I never would have voted to give this president that authority."

I thought she carefully reviewed the info.............hmmmmm

You come by that naturally or do you work at it? That is the biggest piece of crappy logic I have ever seen and you guys continue to use it. Of course, they bought it. Only one person didn't. The president said it, the vp said, the sec of st said it the cia said it. everyone believed it. THEN everyone but bush cheney rumsfeld rove and rice started saying "wait a minute!" that isn't what this says. Almost everyone then changed their mind--except for --you guessed it--bush cheney rumsfeld rove and rice.
 

Cal

Well-known member
I'm not going to defend Clinton. Don't care if she voted for it or against it. However, using corn to make ethanol is a very big two edged sword. I think we need an alternative fuel that is sustainable yet something that isn't going to make some folks a lot of money and cost some more folks a lot of money. Raising the price of corn is great for the grain farmer but it creates a nightmare for feedlots which in turn causes the cattleman a lot of grief. So, for that reason, I would have to agree that more research should be done on producing ethanol from grasses, cellulose, corn stalks and whatever to do it so that the country benefits and not just one or two segments
.



Yep, ethanol has some big pros and cons, but if the left is going to raise such a stink about new drilling... and rules and regs have made it unfeasible to build to expand refinery capacity it's sort of a catch 22 to try to become less energy reliant.
 

IL Rancher

Well-known member
Lot of articles about celulosic re artinto show uound here. Bsical ayigta he corn grain based Ethanol plants that cost 90 million or o are needed to help create the network for Ethanol/ e-85 sales to justify the cellulosic plants construciton as they will cost in the 300 million area per plant. .. Of course the articles are filled with speculation about what they are going to do for materials from corn stover harvested with special combine attatchements to switchgrass to winter annuals and so on... Don't even know if they are going to use the process to create ethanol or to capture Nitrogen but it was interesting..

The most intersting thing was last year at this time they were saying 7-8 years before it was feasible and they have cut that time in half. Have to wonder if these high corn prices which have led to margins shrinking at the plants is spurring a lot of investment into the other direction...

The bigger problem with the 4 dollar corn caused by ethanol is that if it stays that high it will impact food prices and we know how people don't like to spend any money on food
 

Work Hard and Study Hard

Well-known member
schnurrbart said:
jodywy said:
Hillary Fibs in Iowa About Ethanol, Voted Against It
During her first visit as a presidential candidate to early-caucus state Iowa, Sen. Hillary Clinton spoke out strongly in favor of boosting the production of ethanol in the United States.


But that’s a complete turnaround from her earlier actions regarding the alternative fuel, which is made from corn – and could provide a big boost to the economy of agricultural Iowa.

At a town hall meeting in Des Moines, the state capital, on January 27, Clinton said: "I believe we’ve got to take a strong stand on limiting our dependence on foreign oil. And we have a perfect example here in Iowa about how it can work with all of the ethanol that’s being produced here.”


According to an article in the Chicago Tribune cited in a release from the Republican National Committee, Clinton "took questions and spoke of boosting production of ethanol.”

And the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that Clinton "genuflected before ethanol, which is big business in Iowa.”

But as a Senator from New York, Clinton has voted at least 17 times against measures promoting ethanol production, the RNC noted.

During a question-and-answer session in 2004, Clinton was asked about "her outspoken opposition to legislation that would double the use of ethanol as a gasoline additive,” the Des Moines Register reported at the time.

"She was momentarily stumped by a question as to why she opposed the ethanol mandate, but then said she was concerned that it would raise gasoline prices for her constituents.”


Clinton reportedly said: "I have to look to first protecting and supporting the needs of the people I represent right now.”

In 2002, Clinton even signed a letter that read in part: "There is no sound public policy reason for mandating the use of ethanol.”
It’s not surprising that Clinton would have a change of heart regarding ethanol when addressing Iowa voters, considering that the ethanol industry generates $2.49 billion in total sales back to local communities, according to the Iowa Corn Growers Association.

Also, "more than 14,750 Iowa jobs are affected by ethanol,” the Association notes, "including 2,550 directly related to ethanol production.”

I'm not going to defend Clinton. Don't care if she voted for it or against it. However, using corn to make ethanol is a very big two edged sword. I think we need an alternative fuel that is sustainable yet something that isn't going to make some folks a lot of money and cost some more folks a lot of money. Raising the price of corn is great for the grain farmer but it creates a nightmare for feedlots which in turn causes the cattleman a lot of grief. So, for that reason, I would have to agree that more research should be done on producing ethanol from grasses, cellulose, corn stalks and whatever to do it so that the country benefits and not just one or two segments.

Not to mention the increased demands of irrigation water. 200 bu corn takes a hell of a lot of water. I am hearing that guys that planted winter wheat last fall because prices are near $4.50 a bu are gonna tear up the wheat and plant corn this spring.
 

Soapweed

Well-known member
schnurrbart said:
I'm not going to defend Clinton. Don't care if she voted for it or against it. However, using corn to make ethanol is a very big two edged sword. I think we need an alternative fuel that is sustainable yet something that isn't going to make some folks a lot of money and cost some more folks a lot of money. Raising the price of corn is great for the grain farmer but it creates a nightmare for feedlots which in turn causes the cattleman a lot of grief. So, for that reason, I would have to agree that more research should be done on producing ethanol from grasses, cellulose, corn stalks and whatever to do it so that the country benefits and not just one or two segments.

For once I agree with you, schnarrbart. I think the ethanol deal has gotten a bit carried away, and it has sure wreaked havoc on the cattle business.

We get a lot of horseweeds around our calving lots and corrals. They are a complete nuisance, but sure contain a great deal of cellolose. There would be a lot of pulp for use in making ethanol or even paper products. Even the soapweeds (yucca plants) out in our sandy hills would contain quite a bit of cellulose.
 

passin thru

Well-known member
No bart, I just think that if I own something it is mine. I am tired of people trying to tell me what I can do with my asset. Also I do not agree with wasting water even if it is mine.
I agree that ethanol needs to be pursued slow and cautiosly. Other sources need to be pursued just as Bush said.
 

schnurrbart

Well-known member
Soapweed said:
schnurrbart said:
I'm not going to defend Clinton. Don't care if she voted for it or against it. However, using corn to make ethanol is a very big two edged sword. I think we need an alternative fuel that is sustainable yet something that isn't going to make some folks a lot of money and cost some more folks a lot of money. Raising the price of corn is great for the grain farmer but it creates a nightmare for feedlots which in turn causes the cattleman a lot of grief. So, for that reason, I would have to agree that more research should be done on producing ethanol from grasses, cellulose, corn stalks and whatever to do it so that the country benefits and not just one or two segments.

For once I agree with you, schnarrbart. I think the ethanol deal has gotten a bit carried away, and it has sure wreaked havoc on the cattle business.


We get a lot of horseweeds around our calving lots and corrals. They are a complete nuisance, but sure contain a great deal of cellolose. There would be a lot of pulp for use in making ethanol or even paper products. Even the soapweeds (yucca plants) out in our sandy hills would contain quite a bit of cellulose.

We call them pigweed around here and I believe I could probably open up a plant on my farm to produce a lot of ethanol with them.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Biggest problem I have with ethanol is that 1. the government gives them subsidies to help offset their price per gallon so they are not truly competing in a free market. and 2. is most people do not know how in efficient it is, say a pick up truck that gets 20 miles per gallon with regular unleaded might only get like 12 miles per gallon with E85.

Ethanol has to be lots cheaper per gallon to pay in the end. And when you factor in Subsidies and the rising cost to all meat and other food products then it really has to be a lot cheaper for the average American to benefit from it.

I believe the answer might lye in Battery power, Battery powered cars with all of them having roof solar panels charging as we drive. And then use our existing oil to go towards diesel motors that can pull loads such as Semi's and Trains. But that is just me.
 

schnurrbart

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
Biggest problem I have with ethanol is that 1. the government gives them subsidies to help offset their price per gallon so they are not truly competing in a free market. and 2. is most people do not know how in efficient it is, say a pick up truck that gets 20 miles per gallon with regular unleaded might only get like 12 miles per gallon with E85.

Ethanol has to be lots cheaper per gallon to pay in the end. And when you factor in Subsidies and the rising cost to all meat and other food products then it really has to be a lot cheaper for the average American to benefit from it.

I believe the answer might lye in Battery power, Battery powered cars with all of them having roof solar panels charging as we drive. And then use our existing oil to go towards diesel motors that can pull loads such as Semi's and Trains. But that is just me.

Do you think grain or cotton could compete without subsidies? I have also heard several people say that they have burned alcohol and get as good or better gas mileage. It may very well come to solar powered vehicles but I don't think they will become the norm anytime soon. There isn't enough horsepower yet.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
schnurrbart said:
aplusmnt said:
Biggest problem I have with ethanol is that 1. the government gives them subsidies to help offset their price per gallon so they are not truly competing in a free market. and 2. is most people do not know how in efficient it is, say a pick up truck that gets 20 miles per gallon with regular unleaded might only get like 12 miles per gallon with E85.

Ethanol has to be lots cheaper per gallon to pay in the end. And when you factor in Subsidies and the rising cost to all meat and other food products then it really has to be a lot cheaper for the average American to benefit from it.

I believe the answer might lye in Battery power, Battery powered cars with all of them having roof solar panels charging as we drive. And then use our existing oil to go towards diesel motors that can pull loads such as Semi's and Trains. But that is just me.

Do you think grain or cotton could compete without subsidies? I have also heard several people say that they have burned alcohol and get as good or better gas mileage. It may very well come to solar powered vehicles but I don't think they will become the norm anytime soon. There isn't enough horsepower yet.

Ethanol getting less gas mileage is a fact actually a scientific fact, hear say does not carry any weight.

I think 0 to 60 in 4 seconds is plenty of power for me!

COVER-TESLA-side1_fmt.jpg


http://www.latc.com/2006/09/06/news/news1.html

The technology is already here if all the oil ran out tomorrow we could be driving Battery Cars in a year or two.
 

schnurrbart

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
schnurrbart said:
aplusmnt said:
Biggest problem I have with ethanol is that 1. the government gives them subsidies to help offset their price per gallon so they are not truly competing in a free market. and 2. is most people do not know how in efficient it is, say a pick up truck that gets 20 miles per gallon with regular unleaded might only get like 12 miles per gallon with E85.

Ethanol has to be lots cheaper per gallon to pay in the end. And when you factor in Subsidies and the rising cost to all meat and other food products then it really has to be a lot cheaper for the average American to benefit from it.

I believe the answer might lye in Battery power, Battery powered cars with all of them having roof solar panels charging as we drive. And then use our existing oil to go towards diesel motors that can pull loads such as Semi's and Trains. But that is just me.

Do you think grain or cotton could compete without subsidies? I have also heard several people say that they have burned alcohol and get as good or better gas mileage. It may very well come to solar powered vehicles but I don't think they will become the norm anytime soon. There isn't enough horsepower yet.

Ethanol getting less gas mileage is a fact actually a scientific fact, hear say does not carry any weight.

I think 0 to 60 in 4 seconds is plenty of power for me!

COVER-TESLA-side1_fmt.jpg


http://www.latc.com/2006/09/06/news/news1.html

The technology is already here if all the oil ran out tomorrow we could be driving Battery Cars in a year or two.

That is correct in that alcohol has less btu that gasoline but any engine can be modified and tuned to burn it with virtually no difference in mpg and to produce the same or more horsepower. Look at dragsters and monster trucks. As for battery only cars, I don't believe that the power is sufficient to satisfy the consumer. And for sure the distance traveled between charges isn't good. I guess for going around in the same town is ok but going across the country could get a little hairy I would think.
 

jigs

Well-known member
somehow, I see a serious problem with battery vehicles....imagine the truck stops and the truckers talking...... no more Pete / KW or Cat / Detroit arguments...it will all be Duracell / Rayovac debates!
 
Top