Vilsack says this would distort the market: "So you, as a [milk] producer, would have a choice of selling it to your normal purchaser at $18 or $19 a hundred weight or to USDA at $38 a hundred weight. What do you think producers will do?"
Of course the producers would sell to the government. And that, says Jim Dunn, a professor of agricultural economics at Penn State University, "would be terrible."
I disagree with the article, those Republican god loving farmers would never sell out to the government to make more profit using our tax payer dollars. They'd never take subsid................................
Lets also ignore the fact that obama's green energy campaign and ethanol requirements are taking up tons of corn that could otherwise be used for feed in the livestock trades. Less corn for feed means higher feed prices...now just where do yo think those higher prices are gonna land? My lord you idiots are dense.
Mr.B wrote:Soooo....all (milk-producing) farmers are God-loving Republicans?
That's a new one.....no wonder Democrats are such sour-pusses.....they can't be farmers or God lovers......
Seriously, I'm just trying to say that Farmer's are viewed as the "salt of the earth" type people. I couldn't prove one way or another if they are mostly Republican or mostly Democrat. However, I think most would accept that the majority are indeed Republican even without proof.
I'm just continually amazed at what Republicans consider "acceptable", something like this is fine, making sure people don't starve to death? Woh woh woh, hang on, that crosses the line!
Roland Deschain wrote:Lets also ignore the fact that obama's green energy campaign and ethanol requirements are taking up tons of corn that could otherwise be used for feed in the livestock trades. Less corn for feed means higher feed prices...now just where do yo think those higher prices are gonna land? My lord you idiots are dense.
Yep raised the price of corn but lowered the price of oil. But this way, the profits are going to Americans instead of to middle eastern sheiks, and as a result we are less reliant on foreign oil than ever before. See Roland, you need to learn to listen to more than the right wing noise so you don't make such stupid comments all the time.
Roland Deschain wrote:Lets also ignore the fact that obama's green energy campaign and ethanol requirements are taking up tons of corn that could otherwise be used for feed in the livestock trades. Less corn for feed means higher feed prices...now just where do yo think those higher prices are gonna land? My lord you idiots are dense.
Ethanol requirements are a product of self-serving Midwest pols - Dem & GOP - not Obama, and no greenie has considered them green for a long time - for the reason you cite as well as land use issues and because the life cycle carbon footprint sucks. The ethanol-boosting Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 was signed by Shrub. Subsequently, the Dem U.S. Senate and POTUS and GOP House did not extend the tariff and the tax credit, allowing both to expire on December 31, 2011 thus ending the estimated $45 billion in subsidies granted to the ethanol industry since 1980. Obama has pushed green energy, but not corn ethanol requirements.
Roland Deschain proves he's a dense idiot, again.
True, the ethanol push was started under Bush. However, obama has held the presidency for over five years now, has done nothing to roll it back, and still supports it use.
At the White House and the Department of Agriculture, though, there was plenty of enthusiasm.
One of Obama's senior advisers, Pete Rouse, had worked on ethanol issues as chief of staff to Sen. Tom Daschle of South Dakota, a major ethanol booster and now chair of the DuPont Advisory Committee on Agriculture Innovation and Productivity.
Another Obama adviser at the time, Heather Zichal, grew up in northeast Iowa — as a child, she was crowned "sweet corn princess" — and was one of the Obama campaign's leading voices on ethanol in her home state.
The administration had no greater corn ethanol advocate than Vilsack, the former Iowa governor.
"Tom understands that the solution to our energy crisis will be found not in oil fields abroad but in our farm fields here at home," Obama said in 2008. "That is the kind of leader I want in my Cabinet."
Roland Deschain wrote:True, the ethanol push was started under Bush.
Wrong again. As I clearly posted, ethanol subsidies began in 1980. And, You're the one that called the mandate Obama's program when it was Shrub's. You're running away from your screw up again.
However, obama has held the presidency for over five years now, has done nothing to roll it back, and still supports it use.
What part of allowing the ethanol tariff and tax credit to expire was unclear to you?
...The numbers behind the ethanol mandate have become so unworkable that, for the first time, the EPA is soon expected to reduce the amount of ethanol required to be added to the gasoline supply...
Get that? The "ethanol requirements" that Roland Deschain cited in his OP are going to be rolled back. Let me know how that works out
The article goes on to describe in detail the conflict between DoAg which has supported ethanol regardless of POTUS as I implied and the EPA which has strongly resisted it, something that never would have happened in Shrub's anti-science, corporate-dominated EPA.
Then:
...In June, when Obama gave a major policy speech on reducing greenhouse gas, he didn't mention ethanol. Biofuels in general received a brief, passing reference.
What was once billed as an environmental boon has morphed into a government program to help rural America survive...
Get that? It has nothing to do with a "green energy campaign" that Roland Deschain cited in his OP. It's welfare for the Midwest, exactly as I posted.
Vrede proves he is a know it all who actually knows very little...AGAIN
Once AGAIN, Roland Deschain's own link debunks him and once again Roland Deschain proves incapable of admitting that tangent he started was a complete screw up. Run away, Roland Deschain, run away.
Once again vrede is so bent on proving himself superior to all that he can't see for the most part I am agreeing. Other than missing the obvious higher corn demand is driving up prices in all agricultural fields where corn is used as feed. Must be a pitiful existence to live with such a case of "little man syndrome"
Less than a month old (11-15-13) and I missed it. Glad to hear it though because the engine damage is a VERY REAL side effect, especially in two stroke and older model engines. However, it will be interesting to see what the final decision is as this is only a PROPOSAL.
Vrede wrote: opposition to corn ethanol subsidies have long been led by treehuggers, as Roland Deschain's own link demonstrates, not anyone that ever has or will play for Roland Deschain's team.
I've never been much of a fan of Ethanol produced from such easily fermentable feedstocks as corn, sorghum or beets.. low hanging fruit in my opinion.. sure it's a fast ROI but much too economically intrusive.. A more apt ethanol feedstock might be cassava but being tropical that sort'a defeats the purpose as we end up importing such ethanol....
Cellulosic ethanol .. ethanol from biomass..is the future of ethanol production. It yields about 80% more energy than it takes to produce it.. (corn= +30%)
Roland Deschain wrote:Less than a month old (11-15-13) and I missed it...
Your own link said the exact same thing, dummy. Again:
...The numbers behind the ethanol mandate have become so unworkable that, for the first time, the EPA is soon expected to reduce the amount of ethanol required to be added to the gasoline supply...
Your comprehension sucks....as you quoted the "EPA is SOON EXPECTED" My link don't say jack crap about them actually doing anything and even the 11-15 article clearly states that only a PROPOSAL is out there now. Nothing has been finalized as of yet.
Roland Deschain wrote:because the engine damage is a VERY REAL side effect, especially in two stroke and older model engines.
Why should I care about the outcome when careless people elect to fill their vehicles with an improper fuel?
Are you as adamant about having government protect individuals from filling their Hubmobile with kerosene? Seems as though you'd prefer to have your nanny state hold their hands at the pump...
Roland Deschain wrote:because the engine damage is a VERY REAL side effect, especially in two stroke and older model engines.
Why should I care about the outcome when careless people elect to fill their vehicles with an improper fuel?
Are you as adamant about having government protect individuals from filling their Hubmobile with kerosene? Seems as though you'd prefer to have your nanny state hold their hands at the pump...
I'm not talking about "improper fuel"...I'm talking about using today's "normal" gasoline. Older year model engines, and small engines (mowers, etc) do not like ethanol at all. It is even less liked in two stroke engines once it is mixed with two cycle oil. Has nothing to do with using improper fuel.
Roland Deschain wrote:because the engine damage is a VERY REAL side effect, especially in two stroke and older model engines.
Why should I care about the outcome when careless people elect to fill their vehicles with an improper fuel?
Are you as adamant about having government protect individuals from filling their Hubmobile with kerosene? Seems as though you'd prefer to have your nanny state hold their hands at the pump...
I'm not talking about "improper fuel"...I'm talking about using today's "normal" gasoline. Older year model engines, and small engines (mowers, etc) do not like ethanol at all. It is even less liked in two stroke engines once it is mixed with two cycle oil. Has nothing to do with using improper fuel.
Since "Older year model engines, and small engines (mowers, etc)" are not designed to function on an ethanol/gasoline mix.. clearly that is an "improper fuel". (You remind me a bit of a "Ludicrous" poster that was livid over the fact that he couldn't use a compact fluorescent lamp as his oven light.. he didn't understand proper product selection for a given application either..)
[irony]Sounds more like you're whining about the absence of more government oversight in warning the unknowledgeable consumer .. Clearly you feel that more handholding is required for some people..[/irony]
I can't imagine why this isn't enough for you.. .. .. .
Unless perhaps the "gubermint ain't gonna tell me what to do" mentality is simply too great for some to overcome.. then I think there is a great deal of evidence to say that rightwingers have been acting against their best interests for some decades now .. .
Roland Deschain wrote:because the engine damage is a VERY REAL side effect, especially in two stroke and older model engines.
Why should I care about the outcome when careless people elect to fill their vehicles with an improper fuel?
Are you as adamant about having government protect individuals from filling their Hubmobile with kerosene? Seems as though you'd prefer to have your nanny state hold their hands at the pump...
I'm not talking about "improper fuel"...I'm talking about using today's "normal" gasoline. Older year model engines, and small engines (mowers, etc) do not like ethanol at all. It is even less liked in two stroke engines once it is mixed with two cycle oil. Has nothing to do with using improper fuel.
Since "Older year model engines, and small engines (mowers, etc)" are not designed to function on an ethanol/gasoline mix.. clearly that is an "improper fuel". (You remind me a bit of a "Ludicrous" poster that was livid over the fact that he couldn't use a compact fluorescent lamp as his oven light.. he didn't understand proper product selection for a given application either..)
[irony]Sounds more like you're whining about the absence of more government oversight in warning the unknowledgeable consumer .. Clearly you feel that more handholding is required for some people..[/irony]
I can't imagine why this isn't enough for you.. .. .. .
Unless perhaps the "gubermint ain't gonna tell me what to do" mentality is simply too great for some to overcome.. then I think there is a great deal of evidence to say that rightwingers have been acting against their best interests for some decades now .. .
Again, you make an ASSumption. I'm not talking about E-15....I'm talking about "regular unleaded" that contains up to 10% ethanol that is the ONLY gasoline available unless you are lucky enough to have one of the very rare stations in your area that sells ethanol free gasoline. So please inform us as to how a gasoline engine, running on gasoline, is using an "improper fuel".
Roland Deschain wrote: I'm not talking about E-15....I'm talking about "regular unleaded" that contains up to 10% ethanol that is the ONLY gasoline available unless you are lucky enough to have one of the very rare stations in your area that sells ethanol free gasoline. .
I don't know where you live, but in WNC, Marathon stations aren't rare.
Vrede wrote:The solution is simple, use a 4-stroke or electric mower and get rid of your 2-stroke toys. It's the right thing to do with or without ethanol.
For once we agree. However, the solution is not that simple most boat engines are two stroke and the four stroke engines are much heavier requiring lower HP ratings on the same hulls, not to mention saws, weed eaters, and other small, yard power tools. Older engines (classic cars, motorcycles etc) will not handle the E-10 either. Finally, i don;t know of ANY internal combustion engine that runs on water and ethanol is a hygroscopic substance and actually attract water into your fuel systems.
Roland Deschain wrote: I'm not talking about E-15....I'm talking about "regular unleaded" that contains up to 10% ethanol that is the ONLY gasoline available unless you are lucky enough to have one of the very rare stations in your area that sells ethanol free gasoline. .
I don't know where you live, but in WNC, Marathon stations aren't rare.
True, but not all Marathons carry ethanol free. I know of only one that is ethanol free in this area.
Roland Deschain wrote: please inform us as to how a gasoline engine, running on gasoline, is using an "improper fuel".
Well.. to anyone NOT so desperate to be as obtuse as you seem to wish to be it's rather simple ...
When an engine designed to operate on unblended gasoline is operating on unblended gasoline it is NOT operating on an "improper fuel" . . . whereas . . . an engine designed to operate on unblended gasoline attempting to operate on a gasoline/ethanol blend is clearly operating on an "improper fuel". . .Q.E.D. . .
You confusion appears to lie in your need to mislabel the product else your question would have been.. "please inform us as to how a gasoline engine, running on a gasoline/ethanol blend, is using an "improper fuel"."
btw.. though I'm not as versed in this gasoline additive as you.. for an engine designed to operate on unblended gasoline.. a gasoline/bullshit blend is also an "improper fuel". seems you'll just have to continue spreading bullshit here as you can't run it through your Hupmobile ..
