Azazello1313 Posted June 16, 2011 Author Share Posted June 16, 2011 Seirously? You post an link to an article that attempts to imply democrats are trying to increase the deficit by supporting ethanol subsidies which also makes them hypocrits because ethanol is bad for the environment. Your atricle wants us to believe not only are republicans trying to trim the deficit but also protect the environment. I considered those assertions so dubious on their face that I replied that it makes me reconsider my position on ethanol since there is no way the right would ever support the environment without an alterior motive. As it turns out, your article references no vote on whether or not ethanol is good or bad or whether or not we should continue to subsidize it or not because some Republican is playing games with the estate tax and alternative energy mandates. I've never supported anything but the notion that your article and your inferences were total $hit and I was right. And as it turned out, everyone voted for what you wanted in the first place once it was determined that demint is a turd who can be ignored. Seems to me if it weren't for demint playing the games you decry you would have gotten what you wanted in the first place. So what's you gripe with democrats here? That they forced the republicans to stay on-point? You can put a gold start by my name on this one. jim demint and the estate tax had nothing to do with the vote on tuesday, I don't know where the hell you are getting this. it was whipped by reid (against coburn), because as majority leader he wants to control what comes up for a vote and he felt like coburn was screwing with that, which was alluded to in the very first link I posted. the second link I posted was titled "Big Corn eats the GOP", excoriating the mostly farm state republicans who lined up behind the subsidies. you're right that I assumed democrats lining up in opposition were hiding behind "procedural problems" in order to protect a valued constituency. which really is not such a foolhardy assumption, since the obama administration still opposes repealing the subsidies. but now that most of them voted yes the second time on the exact same amendment, I have nothing to say but 'good for them'. but clubby, you can have your gold star for being tricked into favoring ethanol subsidies simply because 34 republicans voted against them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetsfan Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 I'm pulling for hydrogen power, myself. We need a Manhattan project to make it a reality. Then we don't have to worry about all this strip mining and land clearing just so we can get to and from work. I rode in a liquid hydrogen powered car in Germany a couple years ago. The air coming out the exhaust was cleaner than the air going into the engine. The corn, oil, naty gas industries will never let it happen in this country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 Senate vote marks start of end for ethanol subsidies WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Senate voted overwhelmingly on Thursday to eliminate billions of dollars in support for the U.S. ethanol industry, sending a strong message that the era of big taxpayer support for biofuels is ending. The 73-27 vote may ultimately be symbolic since the White House has vowed not to repeal ethanol subsidies fully and the bill the repeal language is attached to is not expected to make it into law. But it underscores the growing desperation to find savings in a budget crisis that is forcing both sides of the aisle to consider sacrificing once-sacred government programs. "Ending this wasteful handout would ensure taxpayers no longer subsidize the already profitable corn ethanol industry," Democratic Senator Frank Lautenberg said. The increasingly hostile attitude toward federal ethanol support has added fuel to a steep fall this week in the price of corn, from which most U.S. ethanol is made. The Senate vote shows the odds are diminishing that the 45-cent-a-gallon subsidy the government gives refiners and the 54-cent-per-gallon tariff on imported ethanol -- both targeted in Thursday's vote -- will be extended at current rates beyond their scheduled expiration at the end of this year. [ For complete coverage of politics and policy, go to Yahoo! Politics ] The Senate measure still faces a long road to becoming final. The White House issued a statement saying it was against a full repeal of ethanol subsidies, indicating it could use its veto power if the amendment continued to advance in Congress. "We need reforms and a smarter biofuels program, but simply cutting off support for the industry isn't the right approach," Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said. The strong vote in favor of eliminating the $6 billion a year in ethanol subsidies reflects the push by both parties to rein in the government's huge deficit. "The way we get out of trouble as a nation is a couple of billions of dollars at a time," said Republican Senator Tom Coburn, who co-sponsored the ethanol amendment. The Senate vote also comes as criticism mounts globally over subsidies for corn-based ethanol, blamed by some for raising food costs. Last week, the World Bank and other international organizations called on governments to stop their ethanol subsidies because of concerns they were driving up food prices. While more ethanol is good for corn farmers, U.S. livestock producers argue their feeding costs have gone up, which has raised food prices for consumers. CORN PRICE COLLAPSE While a loss of subsidies may hurt profits for companies such as Valero and Marathon Oil that blend ethanol into gasoline, it would be unlikely to cause a large or sudden fall in ethanol output. Fuel companies must still blend a minimum of 12.6 billion gallons of ethanol into the gasoline pool this year under the federal Renewable Fuels Standard. Current output is running at less than 10 percent above that rate. But the prospect of an even modest reduction in demand has helped drive Chicago corn prices more than 12 percent lower this week, pulling them down from a record near $8 a bushel a week ago. Traders are betting on reduced demand from ethanol makers whose profit margins are being squeezed by near-record corn costs and falling gasoline prices, in addition to the longer-term risk of reduced government support. "This helps explain continued fund liquidation in the feed-grains today, as the continued record prices keep pressure on government to lower food prices," said analyst Mike Zuzolo of Global Commodity Analytics & Consulting in Lafayette, Indiana. The Brazilian Sugarcane Industry Association welcomed the Senate vote. "Allowing other alternative fuels like sugarcane ethanol to compete fairly in the U.S. will save Americans money, cut dependence on Middle East oil and improve the environment," the trade group said. The U.S. Renewable Fuels Association trade group called the vote shortsighted and said it didn't make sense given that the Senate voted less than a month ago to keep billions of dollars in tax breaks for big oil companies that are making record profits. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid asked his Republican colleagues who voted down the ethanol subsidies also to end government financial breaks for Big Oil. U.S. lawmakers are working on other compromise measures to scale back ethanol subsidies. Republican Senator Charles Grassley and fellow Democrat Kent Conrad have introduced legislation to continue the blender tax credit and import tariff at much lower rates for five years. On Tuesday, the Senate fell far short of the 60 votes needed that would have stripped the industry of federal incentives. The ethanol subsidy amendment on Thursday from Coburn and Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein will be tacked on to an underlying economic development bill, which faces a difficult time passing the Senate. Meanwhile, the House of Representatives voted 283-128 on Thursday to prevent Agriculture Department funding for tanks and blender pumps that the ethanol industry wants so stations can sell gasoline with higher ethanol blend rates. The Senate took the opposite view, voting against a separate amendment that would have blocked federal funding for such ethanol infrastructure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted June 17, 2011 Author Share Posted June 17, 2011 well, now that obama is threatening a veto, I'm cure club is back to being against cutting the corn ethanol subsidies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 well, now that obama is threatening a veto, I'm cure club is back to being against cutting the corn ethanol subsidies. You didn't get enough yesterday? I tell you what, I'm going to give you a gold start too, simply based on your tenacity. After the throttling you took yesterday, most huddlers would have been more than happy to let this post drop down to oblivion. But here you are bumping the a$$ kicking just in case some huddler had a big conference yesterday and missed it. The biggest question I have is what did you do to pi$$ off Big John? If he wasn't mad at you, you'd figure he would have put the Mercy Rule into effect and locked this thread a few posts ago. Az, you are the best. I mean it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted June 17, 2011 Author Share Posted June 17, 2011 club, I'll grant that you've got some balls changing positions three times in one thread and claiming overwhelming victory. jim demint's ghost says I win hands down, so there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikesVikes Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 Count me one Huddler who missed a pi$$ing match yesterday. I haven't followed this thread until today. I live in a town that has a hugh ethanol plant. One of my best friends works there. I'd say that not only did the voting not go down the way of the Ethanol industry, but it also appeared to be voted on by the congress with malice in their hearts. Almost like somebody in the industry pissed the wrong person off in Washington and suffered the consequences. Or just maybe it was a way to get back at Obama, who has always supported alternative fuel sources. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 Or just maybe it was a way to get back at Obama, who has always supported alternative fuel sources. Pretty much everything is points scoring one way or another. Usually it's small potatoes stuff while the big potatoes carry on as usual. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted June 17, 2011 Author Share Posted June 17, 2011 I'd say that not only did the voting not go down the way of the Ethanol industry, but it also appeared to be voted on by the congress with malice in their hearts. Almost like somebody in the industry pissed the wrong person off in Washington and suffered the consequences. Or just maybe it was a way to get back at Obama, who has always supported alternative fuel sources. I'd rather hold out hope for the possibility that a majority of senators from both parties were just finally willing to admit that it's a terrible policy on many levels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted October 20, 2011 Author Share Posted October 20, 2011 update on this stupid, sordid affair It seems a rare act of civic sacrifice: in the name of deficit reduction, lawmakers from both parties are calling for the end of a longstanding agricultural subsidy that puts about $5 billion a year in the pockets of their farmer constituents. Even major farm groups are accepting the move, saying that with farmers poised to reap bumper profits, they must do their part. But in the same breath, the lawmakers and their farm lobby allies are seeking to send most of that money — under a new name — straight back to the same farmers, with most of the benefits going to large farms that grow commodity crops like corn, soybeans, wheat and cotton. In essence, lawmakers would replace one subsidy with a new one. how can we ever expect meaningful spending restraint in congress with these vile turds running the show? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 update on this stupid, sordid affair how can we ever expect meaningful spending restraint in congress with these vile turds running the show? We could publicly fund elections. That might reduce the effects of lobbying, which are clearly at work in this case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.