Ethanol credit, subsidy, and tariff voted down

[boutons_deux]

Senate rejects Coburn bill to repeal ethanol subsidies


WASHINGTON – By a vote of 59-40, the Senate on Tuesday afternoon struck down a measure to roll back $6 billion in federal ethanol subsidies.

S.1057, dubbed the "Ethanol Subsidy and Tariff Repeal Act," would have repealed a 45-cents per gallon tax credit for ethanol blended into gasoline as well as a 54-cent tariff on imported ethanol. The controversial ethanol credit is hailed by proponents as a boost to domestic energy production and rejected by opponents as a gratuitous giveaway.

Twenty-five Democrats joined 34 Republicans to defeat the bill, which was forced to a vote by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), as an amendment to the Economic Development Revitalization Act.

The vote caused some friction within the conservative movement. The billionaire Koch brothers backed the Coburn amendment, citing free-market principles and opposition to federal subsidies. But conservative activist Grover Norquist decried it as an effective tax increase, something he and his group American For Tax Reform virulently oppose.

The debate over ethanol subsidies on Capitol Hill is heavily colored by the fact that Iowa, a major beneficiary of the policy, holds the first primary test for presidential contenders. It's also complicated because farm-state senators such as Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Dick Durbin (D-IL) are motivated by local politics to support them.


http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/06/14/senate-rejects-coburn-bill-to-repeal-ethanol-subsidies/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

[Blake]

ah hell. That sucks.

[boutons_deux]

corrupted politicians take care of wealthy Corporate-Americans, and screw (poor) Human-Americans.

[TeyshaBlue]

Wondered when you'd work that in. Missing is "Repug".

[boutons_deux]

Gfy

[TeyshaBlue]

:lmao

[scott]

Wait... so boutons is WITH the Koch brothers on this one?

[Borat Sagyidev]

Bad decision. Very bad decision to not pass this repeal.
Ethanol form corn is nothing more than the result from heavy farm lobbying. It's grossly inefficient and and drives up the cost of food. Brazil produces ethanol 6 times more efficiently form sugar cane...AND THEY ARE ENERGY INDEPENDENT.

Not to mention the state (TX) focuses on the increase of NoX emissions from biodiesel and ignorse ethanol increase. It's corruption all over, thanks to farm lobying

The Kochbrothers did right here, but by accident and their own self interest. Bachman would have opposed this because her family is built on welfare/farm subsidies.

[boutons_deux]

I figger the Kocks own or have interests in production of Brazilian sugar ethanol, so would benefit maybe more from the tariff disappearing than from all that nasty work of producing domestic corn ethanol.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Boutons, figgers.

[Borat Sagyidev]

I just wonder when the GOP of Dems are going to pass something that isn't tainted with wealth and kickbacks for the wealthy.

Health care to Defense to Agriculture, most people are getting shafted.

[TeyshaBlue]

I figger the Kocks own or have interests in production of Brazilian sugar ethanol, so would benefit maybe more from the tariff disappearing than from all that nasty work of producing domestic corn ethanol.

George Soros sure as hell does.:lmao

[TeyshaBlue]

Oh my...a little reading reveals the Koch Bros are into US Ethanol, not Brazillian.

bouton's head just asploded.

[Borat Sagyidev]

I can't think of what's worse. 1) this corn subsidy f* over the economy or 2) running backwards through a cornfield naked

[boutons_deux]

Oh my...a little reading reveals the Koch Bros are into US Ethanol, not Brazillian.

bouton's head just asploded.

I say they're into both, asshole. GFY, after you get your teeth on my ankles.

[Wild Cobra]

Senate rejects Coburn bill to repeal ethanol subsidies

Went to Thomas to look at the vote, and it's not updated yet. Guess i have to wait till tomorrow.

Dammit. I wanted to raise hell with my senators or praise them for their vote.

[TeyshaBlue]

I say they're into both, asshole. GFY, after you get your teeth on my ankles.

You say a lot of shit, bot. But it don't make it so.:lmao

[MannyIsGod]

Why are you guys busy fucking with boutons when he actually brings up a valid point?

[TeyshaBlue]

What point was that, Manny?

[ElNono]

http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/2/popcorn_2.gif

[MannyIsGod]

What point was that, Manny?

How stupid this action was. Dude made two posts not even blaming the GOP and highlighting how the Dems went along with him and you guys had to drag him back to bot mode.

I'm sick of these stupid nonlogical efforts to keep funneling money to corn ethanol when its neither clean nor efficient. I wish this country would go AWAY from corn and instead we artificially make it more profitable than we should FOR NO GOOD REASON!

[TeyshaBlue]

Point taken, Manny. Props to boutons.:toast. I guess I can be a bit Pavlovian in my responses.:lol

And completely agree on the Ethanol point.

[CosmicCowboy]

Proving again that politics is local. This was a farm state vs. non farm state vote and the farm states won. In the Senate, South Dakota is just as powerful as California or Texas.

[Wild Cobra]

This does not compute.

The OP lists S 1057 as the one voted down. However, it was not discussed in congress on 6/14. S Admd 436 was voted on and titled listed as Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Coburn Amdt. No. 436; To repeal the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit. However, i was unable to find text for it outside of this:


SA 436. Mr. COBURN (for himself and Mr. Cardin) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 782, to amend the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 to reauthorize that Act, and for other purposes; as follows.

Beginning on page 17, strike line 14 and all that follows through page 18, line 10, and insert the following:

(a) Brightfields Demonstration Program.--Section 218 of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3154d) is repealed.

(b) Termination of Global Climate Change Mitigation Incentive Fund.--Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Commerce shall terminate the Global Climate Change Mitigation Incentive Fund of the Department of Commerce.

Looking deeper I found this is what would be repealed in (a):

Sec. 3154d. Brightfields demonstration program (http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/42C38.txt)

-STATUTE-
(a) Definition of brightfield site
In this section, the term "brightfield site" means a brownfield
site that is redeveloped through the incorporation of 1 or more
solar energy technologies.
(b) Demonstration program
On the application of an eligible recipient, the Secretary may
make a grant for a project for the development of a brightfield
site if the Secretary determines that the project will -
(1) use 1 or more solar energy technologies to develop
abandoned or contaminated sites for commercial use; and
(2) improve the commercial and economic opportunities in the
area in which the project is located.
(c) Savings clause
To the extent that any portion of a grant awarded under
subsection (b) of this section involves remediation, the
remediation shall be subject to section 3222 of this title.
(d) Authorization of appropriations
There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section
$5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2004 through 2008, to remain
available until expended.

What I found for (b) is this:

FY 2009 Global Climate Change Mitigation Incentive Fund (http://www.eda.gov/PDF/GCCMIF_%20OnePager_External%20_081409.pdf).

I don't see it as an ethanol subsidy. Maybe someone wants to research it.

I am baffled. I tend to believe the title had nothing to do with the text, but was an intentional misdirection.

The bill to be amended is S782 (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s782rs/pdf/BILLS-112s782rs.pdf). Here is the removed text by the amendment:

Section 218 of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3154d) is amended—

(1) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following:

‘‘(a) DEFINITION OF RENEWABLE ENERGY SITE.—
In this section, the term ‘renewable energy site’ means a brownfield site that is redeveloped through the incorporation of 1 or more renewable energy technologies, including, but not limited to, solar, wind, and geothermal technologies.’’;

(2) in subsection (b)—
VerDate Mar 15 2010 22:51 May 02, 2011 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S782.RS S782 Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
(A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘brightfield’’ and inserting ‘‘renewable energy’’; and
(B) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘solar energy technologies’’ and inserting ‘‘renewable energy technologies, including, but not limited to, solar, wind, and geothermal technologies’’; and
(3) in subsection (d), by striking ‘‘2004 through 2008’’ and inserting ‘‘2011 through 2015’’.

I was unable to find ethanol.

help.....

[Wild Cobra]

Vote #89 (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00089)

Democrats voting No:

Akaka
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Blumenthal
Boxer
Brown
Cardin
Carper
Conrad
Coons
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson
Nelson
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Udall
Udall
Warner
Whitehouse
Wyden
Wyden

Democrats voting Yes:

Cantwell
Manchin
Pryor
Tester
Webb

Republicans voting No:

Blunt
Coats
Cochran
Grassley
Hoeven
Johanns
Kirk
Lugar
Moran
Portman
Roberts
Thune
Wicker

Republicans voting Yes:

Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Boozman
Brown
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Enzi
Graham
Hatch
Heller
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kyl
Lee
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Paul
Risch
Rubio
Sessions
Shelby
Snowe
Toomey
Vitter

Other:

Casey (D) No Vote
Leiberman (I) Yes
Sanders (I) No

[ChumpDumper]

I tend to believe you have no idea what you are talking about anyway -- but if those are the actual texts, do the words "but not limited to" mean anything to you?

[Wild Cobra]

I tend to believe you have no idea what you are talking about anyway -- but if those are the actual texts, do the words "but not limited to" mean anything to you?
Yes, I saw that, but there is no trail to it.

Care to show me by chance?

My God. The votes listed don't match roll call 89. There is clearly something fishy.

[Blake]

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s112-1057

It doesn't look to have been any kind of update here, but I don't see any reason to discredit the author in the op.

[ChumpDumper]

Yes, I saw that, but there is no trail to it.

Care to show me by chance?It's your trail. You showed it to us.

[Wild Cobra]

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s112-1057

It doesn't look to have been any kind of update here, but I don't see any reason to discredit the author in the op.
Yes, I looked it up initially. When it didn't show up after a day, I did some digging, hence my posts today. It was never voted on, the OP is lying about which bill:

S.1057
Latest Title: Ethanol Subsidy and Tariff Repeal Act
Sponsor: Sen Coburn, Tom [OK] (introduced 5/24/2011) Cosponsors (None)
Related Bills: H.R.1075, H.R.1188, S.520, S.871
Latest Major Action: 5/25/2011 Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 69.ALL ACTIONS:

5/24/2011:
Introduced in the Senate. Read the first time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under Read the First Time.
5/25/2011:
Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 69.

[Wild Cobra]

It's your trail. You showed it to us.
I showed you the OP is wrong.

Need to stop believing leftist media without verifying.

[Blake]

Yes, I looked it up initially. When it didn't show up after a day, I did some digging, hence my posts today. It was never voted on, the OP is lying about which bill:

Meh. If the OP has it wrong, great.....then there's still a chance for repeal.

Why do you think it's a fishy situation?

[Wild Cobra]

Meh. If the OP has it wrong, great.....then there's still a chance for repeal.

Why do you think it's a fishy situation?
Why is the journalist lying?

Why does the bill voted on have a title that doesn't fit the action?

These questions are why.

[ChumpDumper]

I showed you the OP is wrong.Nah, as I said, my default is to believe you have no idea what you're babbling about.


Need to stop believing leftist media without verifying.There are plenty of right wing sources in the 800 or so stories that verify what happened
and verify that you are completely wrong.

[Wild Cobra]

Nah, as I said, my default is to believe you have no idea what you're babbling about.

There are plenty of right wing sources in the 800 or so stories that verify what happened
and verify that you are completely wrong.
Show me.

[ChumpDumper]

Show me.If you are too stupid to look it up yourself, ask a black person to help you.

[Blake]

Why is the journalist lying?

Why does the bill voted on have a title that doesn't fit the action?

These questions are why.

I know 8 year olds that can out-investigate you using google.

Pathetic.

[ChumpDumper]

lol "my capabilities"

[TeyshaBlue]

Show me.

Goddamn, son. The leftists have taken over Fox News!
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/06/14/senate-debates-eliminating-ethanol-tax-credits/
:lmao

[Wild Cobra]

Goddamn, son. The leftists have taken over Fox News!
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/06/14/senate-debates-eliminating-ethanol-tax-credits/
:lmao
If you say so.

I think she is just reporting on what others said.

One article I found called it a "first step." Not elimination.

I have not been able to find where the voted on measure covers what the media is saying. Can you?

If what the articles are saying is true, USA ethanol will be $0.45 more expensive at wholesale and imported ethanol will be $0.54 cheaper...

A bill often fails because of other things it does other than what it is advertised to do.

Assuming it is true, why does he want to favor imported ethanol?

[ChumpDumper]

If you say so.

I think she is just reporting on what others said.

One article I found called it a "first step." Not elimination.

I have not been able to find where the voted on measure covers what the media is saying. Can you?

If what the articles are saying is true, USA ethanol will be $0.45 more expensive at wholesale and imported ethanol will be $0.54 cheaper...

A bill often fails because of other things it does other than what it is advertised to do.

Assuming it is true, why does he want to favor imported ethanol?Why do you think you are the only person in the world who knows the "real" story here?

[Wild Cobra]

Why do you think you are the only person in the world who knows the "real" story here?
I don't. Stop making things up. I asked others how this traces to ethanol, and nobody can show me except other people say so.

Hearsay isn't fact. I want to see the text. I already looked, and failed at finding it.

[MannyIsGod]

Did you want to see text when you made your conclusions regarding "black culture".

[Wild Cobra]

Did you want to see text when you made your conclusions regarding "black culture".
STFU you moron.

[Wild Cobra]

OK, someone at the library of congress must have fucked up. they are linking the wrong information.

Here is the amendment that was voted on yesterday:

S. Amendment 436 (http://coburn.senate.gov/public//index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=8de18e5f-8cef-4ba6-91c8-d9d4ee9e1e3e)

[Wild Cobra]

S4eIc_bLc7A

It might have passed if it didn't remove the $0.54 tariff on imported ethanol.

[Blake]

OK, someone at the library of congress must have fucked up. they are linking the wrong information.

Here is the amendment that was voted on yesterday:

S. Amendment 436 (http://coburn.senate.gov/public//index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=8de18e5f-8cef-4ba6-91c8-d9d4ee9e1e3e)

someone at the LOC fucked up?

sounds fishy to me....

[Wild Cobra]

someone at the LOC fucked up?

sounds fishy to me....
Say what you want. I found the actual amendment, different from the LOC linked material.

[Blake]

Say what you want.

k.

I say you're a nutjob that jumped to a crazy, conspiracy conclusion because of your poor google skillz.

[boutons_deux]

I read where the many Dems supported the bill but objected to some procedures, and that very probably it will be presented, maybe by the Dems, in different form.

Sounds like typically overcomplicated BS, bowing to corporate $$.

kill the subsidy, kill the tariff, period.

[Wild Cobra]

I read where the many Dems supported the bill but objected to some procedures, and that very probably it will be presented, maybe by the Dems, in different form.

Sounds like typically overcomplicated BS, bowing to corporate $$.

kill the subsidy, kill the tariff, period.
The tariff needs to stay, or do you want the corporations to buy foreign instead of local?

[TeyshaBlue]

I'm assuming by corporations you mean oil companies. You do realize that they're buying foreign right now, right? You don't think all that oil we buy is domestic, do you? The only reason we're blending ethanol right now is because it's subsidized. Without the subsidy, it's not feasible economically. Imported ethanol might be, but that case hasn't been made yet.

[coyotes_geek]

I'll vouch for WC's googling skills on this one. Transcripts from the congressional record (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2011-06-14/pdf/CREC-2011-06-14-pt1-PgS3752-4.pdf#page=2) clearly show a debate specifically about ethanol, but the text of the amendment on the LOC website doesn't have anything to do with ethanol.

[Blake]

I'll vouch for WC's googling skills on this one. Transcripts from the congressional record (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2011-06-14/pdf/CREC-2011-06-14-pt1-PgS3752-4.pdf#page=2) clearly show a debate specifically about ethanol, but the text of the amendment on the LOC website doesn't have anything to do with ethanol.

neh, he couldn't do a simple search of conservative sources that also reported the story, even when ChumpDumper basically laid up what to put in the search box for him.

thus the fishy smell reported by his conspiracy nose.

[coyotes_geek]

I'm just vouching for his googling of the LOC website. Not any conspiracy theories or other conclusions he's trying to draw.

[MannyIsGod]

STFU you moron.

:lmao

[Winehole23]

neh, he couldn't do a simple search of conservative sources that also reported the story, even when ChumpDumper basically laid up what to put in the search box for him.

thus the fishy smell reported by his conspiracy nose.If WC omitted to check Fox or Right Blogistan before googling that's to his credit.

[Blake]

I am baffled. I tend to believe the title had nothing to do with the text, but was an intentional misdirection.



My God. The votes listed don't match roll call 89. There is clearly something fishy.


It was never voted on, the OP is lying about which bill:


I showed you the OP is wrong.

[you] Need to stop believing leftist media without verifying.


There are plenty of right wing sources in the 800 or so stories that verify what happened
and verify that you are completely wrong.


Show me.

No credit.

[Winehole23]

WC treads thin ground when he relies upon his own lights, no doubt. We all do. I salute WC's attempts to think for himself. Gruesomely misfired though they may be, they are occasionally fountains of hilarity. That is worth something.

[Winehole23]

Without the daily spectacle of jackassed absurdity in all its human and post-human forms, this forum would be no fun.

[Blake]

I salute WC's attempts to think for himself.

I salute anyone that thinks for themselves.

I make fun of anyone that doesn't think twice before double checking and posting their stupid conclusions.

[Blake]

Without the daily spectacle of jackassed absurdity in all its human and post-human forms, this forum would be no fun.

I would never encourage it, but I agree that it would suck without it.

[Winehole23]

(urp)

[Winehole23]

I make fun of anyone that doesn't think twice before double checking and posting their stupid conclusions.If that was all you did you'd be indistinguishable from ChumpDumper. :wow

[MannyIsGod]

WC treads thin ground when he relies upon his own lights, no doubt. We all do. I salute WC's attempts to think for himself. Gruesomely misfired though they may be, they are occasionally fountains of hilarity. That is worth something.

If thats what constitutes thinking for one's self I'm deeply saddened.

[ChumpDumper]

Does the word "ethanol" have to be in a bill that could include ethanol?

[ChumpDumper]

The tariff needs to stay, or do you want the corporations to buy foreign instead of local?I want to stop using corn for ethanol. The only reason it is being used is because it is heavily subsidized and protected by tariffs. Brazil's ethanol scheme may not be perfect, but it's much better than this stupid corn business.

[ElNono]

I salute WC's attempts to think for himself. Gruesomely misfired though they may be, they are occasionally fountains of hilarity.

:lol

[CosmicCowboy]

I want to stop using corn for ethanol. The only reason it is being used is because it is heavily subsidized and protected by tariffs. Brazil's ethanol scheme may not be perfect, but it's much better than this stupid corn business.

X2

WC, this is one you should really give up on and hope it just fades away into the archives.

[boutons_deux]

The tariff needs to stay, or do you want the corporations to buy foreign instead of local?

If you support a tariff on imported sugar cane ethanol to protect local industry, then would you support an tariff on imported oil?

Americans aren't mature enough to reduce their driving consumption on their own, they need to be beat with price stick, like taxing transport fuel to $6 or $7 a gallon. Short-sighted, infantile, greedy Americans are already switching back to lowest-mileage land yachts and other vehicles as the price of gas has dropped recently.

[Winehole23]

:lolFWIW, the salute was sincerely meant.

[Winehole23]

That is not an endorsement of anything it has caused WC to say then or subsequently, nor is it a defense of the same.

[Wild Cobra]

I read where the many Dems supported the bill
The article said 25 voted yes when only 5 did.

[Wild Cobra]

If WC omitted to check Fox or Right Blogistan before googling that's to his credit.
People will believe what they want, but I never seek their sites out. When I seek out a specific source, I prefer USA Today and the likes.

[Wild Cobra]

No credit.
Blake, I based all that on the fact I couldn't find anything related in the material linked to the amendments talked about.

The Library of Congress had the wrong amendment linked. I never expected them to do that!

After I explain that, you still have to rail against me.

You most certainly have some poor morality and ethics.

[ChumpDumper]

People will believe what they want, but I never seek their sites out. When I seek out a specific source, I prefer USA Today and the likes.But you didn't look there either.

[Wild Cobra]

X2

WC, this is one you should really give up on and hope it just fades away into the archives.
You too missed the post where I said the LoC had the wrong material linked.

All my original posts are wrong, based on the LoC having the wrong amendment text linked.

[Wild Cobra]

I want to stop using corn for ethanol. The only reason it is being used is because it is heavily subsidized and protected by tariffs. Brazil's ethanol scheme may not be perfect, but it's much better than this stupid corn business.
I want to do away with it too. Think it will happen if we remove the $0.54/gallon tariff?

[ChumpDumper]

I want to do away with it too. Think it will happen if we remove the $0.54/gallon tariff?And the subsidies, yes.

[Wild Cobra]

But you didn't look there either.
Library of Congress is the preferred source for bills in congress, but it was wrong.

Give it a rest.

My statement meant to reflect that I don't go to the usual suspect sites.

[ChumpDumper]

Library of Congress is the preferred source for bills in congress, but it was wrong.Reading the text you posted, I don't think it was wrong. You just didn't understand what was being debated.


Give it a rest.:lol


My statement meant to reflect that I don't go to the usual suspect sites.USAToday is about as mainstream as media gets.

And still, you didn't go to it.

[Blake]

Blake, I based all that on the fact I couldn't find anything related in the material linked to the amendments talked about.

The Library of Congress had the wrong amendment linked. I never expected them to do that!

so that means something's fishy!


After I explain that, you still have to rail against me.

You most certainly have some poor morality and ethics.

I didn't have to rail against you, I just wanted to.

You're an ass for jumping to shitty conclusions.

[Winehole23]

Bitter? I heard they got a pill for that now.

[Blake]

Bitter?

me? no. I've been called worse than morally poor. :lol

[Winehole23]

How lame. It's like that sometimes.

[ElNono]

YOU LIE! ankle bitter, VRWC!

[TeyshaBlue]

YOU LIE! ankle bitter, VRWC!

gfy

[Blake]

gfy

Bot!

[boutons_deux]

Senate votes to end $6 billion in ethanol subsidies

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 taxpayer support for biofuels is ending.

The Senate in a 73-27 vote approved an amendment to end the 45-cent-a-gallon subsidy the government gives refiners and the 54-cent-per-gallon tariff on imported ethanol, which would be a boon to a major ethanol-producing country such as Brazil that makes ethanol from sugarcane.

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.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/16/us-usa-senate-ethanol-idUSTRE75F5IN20110616

=========

fuck the Exec. They are as owned by the corporations as any Repug.

[Wild Cobra]

Roll call #90 (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00090)

Almost 3/4 of the senators. More than 70% of each party and both independents.

Same amendment. I wonder why the change?

[Wild Cobra]

Anyone else think the ethanol industry in the USA will collapse if this passed as is? How many more jobs lost?

If people want ethanol, I'm OK with that. I'm just not OK with subsidizing it. However, to also remove the tariffs also... what sense is that?

I'll add that the corn and ethanol industries are both safe with the mandated ethanol in gas, unless cheaper ethanol from elsewhere is used.

I say keep the import tax.

[Winehole23]

wc SUPPORTS CONTINUED DISTORTION OF THE MARKET VIA TAXATION. INTERESTING MOVE FOR wc

[Winehole23]

Are you sentimental about farmers or somethin?

[ElNono]

Tariffs distort the free-market for the better...

[ChumpDumper]

Wild Cobra loves him some taxes and hopelessly inefficient energy schemes.


Let the corn go to soda and tortillas like God meant it to be.

[boutons_deux]

"I'll add that the corn and ethanol industries are both safe"

cherry picking even bogus facts.

UCA industrial agriculture and beef/pork factories are unsustainable, with extremely high externalized costs.

We'll see if the algae bloom from the poison dumped into the Gulf by the floods is really the biggest ever this summer.

Our fucking fat ass, greedy, UCA-created/dictated lifestyle is unsustainable.

[RandomGuy]

Bad decision. Very bad decision to not pass this repeal.
Ethanol form corn is nothing more than the result from heavy farm lobbying. It's grossly inefficient and and drives up the cost of food. Brazil produces ethanol 6 times more efficiently form sugar cane...AND THEY ARE ENERGY INDEPENDENT.

Not to mention the state (TX) focuses on the increase of NoX emissions from biodiesel and ignorse ethanol increase. It's corruption all over, thanks to farm lobying

The Kochbrothers did right here, but by accident and their own self interest. Bachman would have opposed this because her family is built on welfare/farm subsidies.

Brazil is only energy independent because they produce a lot of oil themselves, not because ethanol is capable of running their economy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_production

[TeyshaBlue]

Brazil is only energy independent because they produce a lot of oil themselves, not because ethanol is capable of running their economy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_production

Venezuela is busy copying the Brazillian model as well. Their oil production is right up there with Brazil and they are currently building out 15 sugar cane/ethanol plants.

[Borat Sagyidev]

Brazil is only energy independent because they produce a lot of oil themselves, not because ethanol is capable of running their economy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_production

You do realize that brazil has much more significant ethanol contribution?
Regular petrol must have at least 25% ethanol there, and they have plenty of 100% ethanol pumps as well

[RandomGuy]

This does not compute.

The OP lists S 1057 as the one voted down. However, it was not discussed in congress on 6/14. S Admd 436 was voted on and titled listed as Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Coburn Amdt. No. 436; To repeal the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit. However, i was unable to find text for it outside of this:



Looking deeper I found this is what would be repealed in (a):

What I found for (b) is this:

FY 2009 Global Climate Change Mitigation Incentive Fund (http://www.eda.gov/PDF/GCCMIF_%20OnePager_External%20_081409.pdf).

I don't see it as an ethanol subsidy. Maybe someone wants to research it.

I am baffled. I tend to believe the title had nothing to do with the text, but was an intentional misdirection.

The bill to be amended is S782 (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s782rs/pdf/BILLS-112s782rs.pdf). Here is the removed text by the amendment:


I was unable to find ethanol.

help.....

Perhaps then, padawan, you should simply insert the title of the act into google and hit "search".

Third link down here:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s112-1057

Which then gives you the option to see the text.


May 25, 2011 - Placed on Calendar Senate. This is the text of the bill once it was placed on a calendar of business in the Senate. This is the latest version of the bill currently available on GovTrack.


S 1057 PCS

Calendar No. 69

112th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 1057

To repeal the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

May 24, 2011

Mr. COBURN introduced the following bill; which was read the first time

May 25, 2011

Read the second time and placed on the calendar


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A BILL

To repeal the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘Ethanol Subsidy and Tariff Repeal Act’.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF VEETC.

(a) Elimination of Excise Tax Credit or Payment-

(1) Section 6426(b)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ‘December 31, 2011’ and inserting ‘the later of June 30, 2011, or the date of the enactment of the Ethanol Subsidy and Tariff Repeal Act)’.

(2) Section 6427(e)(6)(A) of such Code is amended by striking ‘December 31, 2011’ and inserting ‘the later of June 30, 2011, or the date of the enactment the Ethanol Subsidy and Tariff Repeal Act’.

(b) Elimination of Income Tax Credit- The table contained in section 40(h)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--

(1) by striking ‘2011’ and inserting ‘the later of June 30, 2011, or the date of the enactment of the Ethanol Subsidy and Tariff Repeal Act’, and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

-----------------------------

-----------------------------

‘After such date zero zero’.

-----------------------------

(c) Repeal of Deadwood-

(1) Section 40(h) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking paragraph (3).

(2) Section 6426(b)(2) of such Code is amended by striking subparagraph (C).

(d) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall apply to any sale, use, or removal for any period after the later of June 30, 2011, or the date of the enactment of the Act.

SEC. 3. REMOVAL OF TARIFFS ON ETHANOL.

(a) Duty-Free Treatment- Chapter 98 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by adding at the end the following new subchapter:

‘Subchapter XXIII

Alternative Fuels

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Heading/Subheading Article Description Rates of Duty

1 2

General Special

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9823.01.01 Ethyl alcohol (provided for in subheadings 2207.10.60 and 2207.20) or any mixture containing such ethyl alcohol (provided for in heading 2710 or 3824) if such ethyl alcohol or mixture is to be used as a fuel or in producing a mixture of gasoline and alcohol, a mixture of a special fuel and alcohol, or any other mixture to be used as fuel (including motor fuel provided for in subheading 2710.11.15, 2710.19.15 or 2710.19.21), or is suitable for any such uses Free Free 20%’.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) Conforming Amendments- Subchapter I of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended--

(1) by striking heading 9901.00.50; and

(2) by striking U.S. notes 2 and 3.

(c) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section apply to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after the later of June 30, 2011, or the date of the enactment of this Act.

Calendar No. 69

112th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 1057

A BILL

To repeal the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 25, 2011

Read the second time and placed on the calendar

This bill is very large, and loading it may cause your web browser to perform sluggishly, or even freeze. This is especially true for old and/or bad browsers. As an alternative you can download the PDF of the bill or read the text on THOMAS.
Continue on to the bill...


There is also an option to get it in pdf format at the same link. Only a few pages long.

Hope that helps.

[TeyshaBlue]

That RG. He's a giver, that boy.:lol

[RandomGuy]

You do realize that brazil has much more significant ethanol contribution?
Regular petrol must have at least 25% ethanol there, and they have plenty of 100% ethanol pumps as well

Notice I am not saying that ethanol is not significant to Brazil. It is highly significant. It just isn't 100% of their transportation energy consumption.

They still use a LOT of oil.

I once calculated what it would take to get the US to move all of its gasoline consumption to ethanol, using the same production charactoristics as Brazil, modified for the lower efficiency of corn.

It would require 1/3 of the entire land area of the lower 48 states or thereabouts, assuming you had the water for it. That was about the time I realized how pointless it was to do more than a small fraction of our transportation needs on corn ethanol.

[Blake]

Perhaps then, padawan, you should simply insert the title of the act into google and hit "search".

Third link down here:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s112-1057

Which then gives you the option to see the text.

Hope that helps.

It didn't seem to help when I posted that link earlier.

No reason to believe it'll help clear his fog this time either.

[RandomGuy]

Venezuela is busy copying the Brazillian model as well. Their oil production is right up there with Brazil and they are currently building out 15 sugar cane/ethanol plants.




Venezuela's oil industry, hampered by years of mismanagement and shortage of highly trained cadre of engineers and technical staff is a mess... Venuela is producing less than 60% of its production potential. Moreover, its refineeries are inadequate and long-term plans for expanding production capacity may have to be scaled back because of lack of investments.

He has treated the oil industry like a piggy bank to keep himself in power, by giving away massive subsidies to the poor for food and fuel, but he has failed to re-invest in new facilities or infrastructure. It is falling apart and taking the production with it, ala Libya.

The ethanol thing is likely a poorly concieved attempt to make up for the massive under-investment in his own oil industry.

I would like to see the results of Chavez taking Chinese money then "nationalizing" the investments. :corn:

[RandomGuy]

It didn't seem to help when I posted that link earlier.

No reason to believe it'll help clear his fog this time either.

Heh, haven't finished reading the whole thread yet.

I am just getting to the part where WC is saying the OP is lying because WC wasn't able to find the actual bill. :rollin

[Wild Cobra]

Perhaps then, padawan, you should simply insert the title of the act into google and hit "search".

Hope that helps.
My God...

This is already explained, and I found the text before anyone else did.

[RandomGuy]

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s112-1057

It doesn't look to have been any kind of update here, but I don't see any reason to discredit the author in the op.

You did indeed post this already. Sorry for the repeat.

Hell you also beat me :depressed to summarizing the series of posts where Wile E. Cobra goes on about how the "leftist" media is lying. :lol

This has all the makings of a classic politics thread.

Now we just need someone to derail it completely by talking about food/beer/coffee.

[RandomGuy]

My God...

This is already explained, and I found the text before anyone else did.


Bullshit.


http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s112-1057

It doesn't look to have been any kind of update here, but I don't see any reason to discredit the author in the op.

You found the text of some other bill, dumbass. You still haven't figured that out?

[TeyshaBlue]

You did indeed post this already. Sorry for the repeat.

Hell you also beat me :depressed to summarizing the series of posts where Wile E. Cobra goes on about how the "leftist" media is lying. :lol

This has all the makings of a classic politics thread.

Now we just need someone to derail it completely by talking about food/beer/coffee.

Huehuetenango ftw!

[RandomGuy]

This does not compute.

The OP lists S 1057 as the one voted down. However, it was not discussed in congress on 6/14. S Admd 436 was voted on and titled listed as Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Coburn Amdt. No. 436; To repeal the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit. However, i was unable to find text for it outside of this:



Looking deeper I found [the text of amendment 436] is what would be repealed in (a):
...

I was unable to find ethanol.

help.....

Edit:

Hmmm. Curiouser and curiouser.

That is indeed the amendment number. But that was the amendment in its original form. When one digs up the actuall congressional record for the day:

(hope the link works)
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r112:1:./temp/~r1122DYEOy:e239788:

(senate record, page 3661 or 3662, not sure wich works)


Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

The amendment is as follows:


Beginning on page 17, strike line 14 and all that follows through page 18, line 10, and insert the following:

(a) Brightfields Demonstration Program.--Section 218 of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3154d) is repealed.

(b) Termination of Global Climate Change Mitigation Incentive Fund.--Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Commerce shall terminate the Global Climate Change Mitigation Incentive Fund of the Department of Commerce.

AMENDMENT NO. 436, AS MODIFIED

Mr. COBURN. Madam President, as a matter of right, I ask that my amendment be modified with the changes I now send to the desk. Further, I make the point that I retain my right to the floor after the modification is made under the precedents of the Senate.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has the right to modify the amendment.

The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

(Purpose: To repeal the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit)
At the end, add the following:

SEC. __X. REPEAL OF VEETC.

(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Ethanol Subsidy and Tariff Repeal Act''.

(b) Repeal of VEETC.--

(1) ELIMINATION OF EXCISE TAX CREDIT OR PAYMENT.--

(A) Section 6426(b)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``December 31, 2011'' and inserting ``the later of June 30, 2011, or the date of the enactment of the Ethanol Subsidy and Tariff Repeal Act)''.

(B) Section 6427(e)(6)(A) of such Code is amended by striking ``December 31, 2011'' and inserting ``the later of June 30, 2011, or the date of the enactment the Ethanol Subsidy and Tariff Repeal Act''.

(2) ELIMINATION OF INCOME TAX CREDIT.--The table contained in section 40(h)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--

(A) by striking ``2011'' and inserting ``the later of June 30, 2011, or the date of the enactment of the Ethanol Subsidy and Tariff Repeal Act'', and

(B) by adding at the end the following:




``After such date zero zero''.

(3) REPEAL OF DEADWOOD.--

(A) Section 40(h) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking paragraph (3).

(B) Section 6426(b)(2) of such Code is amended by striking subparagraph (C).

(4) EFFECTIVE DATE.--The amendments made by this subsection shall apply to any sale, use, or removal for any period after the later of June 30, 2011, or the date of the enactment of the Act.

(c) Removal of Tariffs on Ethanol.--

(1) DUTY-FREE TREATMENT.--Chapter 98 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by adding at the end the following new subchapter:


``Subchapter XXIII
Heading/Subheading Article Description Rates of Duty
1 2
General Special

9823.01.01 Ethyl alcohol (provided for in subheadings 2207.10.60 and 2207.20) or any mixture containing such ethyl alcohol (provided for in heading 2710 or 3824) if such ethyl alcohol or mixture is to be used as a fuel or in producing a mixture of gasoline and alcohol, a mixture of a special fuel and alcohol, or any other mixture to be used as fuel (including motor fuel provided for in subheading 2710.11.15, 2710.19.15 or 2710.19.21), or is suitable for any such uses Free Free 20%''.

(2) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.--Subchapter I of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended--

(A) by striking heading 9901.00.50; and

(B) by striking U.S. notes 2 and 3.

(3) EFFECTIVE DATE.--The amendments made by this subsection apply to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after the later of June 30, 2011, or the date of the enactment of this Act.

CLOTURE MOTION

Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I now send a cloture motion to the desk on the pending amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.

The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

Cloture Motion

We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, hereby move to bring to a close debate on the pending amendment No. 436, as modified, to S. 782.


Mr. COBURN. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the names be waived.

Mr. MERKLEY. I object.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.

The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:


Tom Coburn, Jim DeMint, John McCain, Richard Burr, David Vitter, Kelly Ayotte, Scott P. Brown, James E. Risch, James M. Inhofe, Bob Corker, Michael B. Enzi, Johnny Isakson, John Barrasso, Lamar Alexander, John Cornyn, Jeff Sessions.


Mr. COBURN addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma has the floor.

Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I ask my colleague, my senior Senator from Oklahoma--who I do not think is on the floor right now--to allow time for Senator Brown to bring up an amendment.

I yield to him at this time.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Madam President, I thank the Senator who spoke before me.

AMENDMENT NO. 405


My apologies. You got the right amendment number, just not the final form of that amendment.

I'm really really sorry. The imputation was without merit, and I deeply regret any distress this has caused you or your family. I hereby undertake never to utter such slander...

[Wild Cobra]

Random, you should stop attacking me on my posts that are before the point I found an error in the LoC.

You're making yourself look like a fool. Jump ahead to post 45.

[RandomGuy]

Random, you should stop attacking me on my posts that are before the point I found an error in the LoC.

You're making yourself look like a fool. Jump ahead to post 45.

45>28, ergo you didn't find the text before anyone else did. You found part of it, but not the whole thing, and certainly not before being given the link by Blake.

(edit)

In any event, the OP article proved to have the correct information, contrary to your assertion that it was lying about the amendment, didn't it?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

[Blake]

You're making yourself look like a fool.

:lmao

WC with the goods

[RandomGuy]

On that note, gotta jet.

[Wild Cobra]

In any event, the OP article proved to have the correct information, contrary to your assertion that it was lying about the amendment, didn't it?

A simple yes or no will suffice.
Yes. So I already implied my earlier words were wrong, so what type of satisfaction do you get saying I'm wrong after admitting it?

Twisted aren't you...

[Wild Cobra]

45>28, ergo you didn't find the text before anyone else did.
No, I was the first to link the amendment text as voted on the failed vote. If I'm wrong, show me. These amendments often have several variations. It wasn't 1057 that was voted on. It was 436.

Don't you see...

Another reason the link in the OP was wrong.

Wrong amendment number

The number of both democrats and republicans voting no was way off.

If you cannot understand why it was not wrong to be suspicious, then you are too trusting of our government.

[Wild Cobra]

Random, don't overlook what Coyote says in #54:

I'll vouch for WC's googling skills on this one. Transcripts from the congressional record (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2011-06-14/pdf/CREC-2011-06-14-pt1-PgS3752-4.pdf#page=2) clearly show a debate specifically about ethanol, but the text of the amendment on the LOC website doesn't have anything to do with ethanol.

[Blake]

If you cannot understand why it was not wrong to be suspicious, then you are too trusting of our government.


Interesting.

what motive do you think the government might have by providing false information regarding an ethanol subsidy repeal bill?

[Wild Cobra]

Interesting.

what motive do you think the government might have by providing false information regarding an ethanol subsidy repeal bill?
I'm not thinking of anything in particular, except not to trust without verifying.

We have to pass the bill to see what's in the bill.
Anything could happen if you don't verify.

[Blake]

I'm not thinking of anything in particular, except not to trust without verifying.

Anything could happen if you don't verify.


yes, you can jump to a shitty conclusion that challenges another's integrity and makes you look like a fool.

[Wild Cobra]

and to jump to shitty conclusions that challenge others' integrity before verifying.
If you mean this thread, that is explained. LoC is the record. The record is wrong. Big difference when assuming bad integrity because of a good source having a very rare mistake.

Still, the journalist of the article in the OP has no integrity. Wrong amendment number, and said 25 democrats voted no when the correct count was 37. Republican count wrong too.

[Borat Sagyidev]

He has treated the oil industry like a piggy bank to keep himself in power, by giving away massive subsidies to the poor for food and fuel, but he has failed to re-invest in new facilities or infrastructure. It is falling apart and taking the production with it, ala Libya.

The ethanol thing is likely a poorly concieved attempt to make up for the massive under-investment in his own oil industry.

I would like to see the results of Chavez taking Chinese money then "nationalizing" the investments. :corn:

True, but you're forgetting the part that Chavez is doing it on purpose. He wants their reserves to last at least 200yrs.

[Blake]

If you mean this thread, that is explained. LoC is the record. The record is wrong. Big difference when assuming bad integrity because of a good source having a very rare mistake.

Is the record still wrong?


Still, the journalist of the article in the OP has no integrity. Wrong amendment number, and said 25 democrats voted no when the correct count was 37. Republican count wrong too.

So you are assuming that the journalist in the OP fudged the numbers on purpose.

Throw out a quick opinion as to the motivation of the journalist.

...and does this also mean that the LoC lacks integrity?

You don't trust the government.....why do you trust the LoC as a good source?

[Wild Cobra]

Is the record still wrong?



So you are assuming that the journalist in the OP fudged the numbers on purpose.

Throw out a quick opinion as to the motivation of the journalist.

...and does this also mean that the LoC lacks integrity?

You don't trust the government.....why do you trust the LoC as a good source?
OK Chump, you can take off that mask.

I use to play the "why" game when my kids were growing up. No time for you with that game..

As for the record.

Look for yourself. The record surrounding roll call 90 is correct. I doubt they edit past mistakes, but be my guest and look.

[Blake]

I use to play the "why" game when my kids were growing up. No time for you with that game..

you've been playing this game for 5 pages now.

you obviously have the time.


As for the record.

Look for yourself. The record surrounding roll call 90 is correct. I doubt they edit past mistakes, but be my guest and look.

huh? Why wouldnt the LoC edit mistakes?

If they don't, they fail as a "good source" and you fail again in whatever argument you think you are making.

[RandomGuy]

No, I was the first to link the amendment text as voted on the failed vote. If I'm wrong, show me. These amendments often have several variations. It wasn't 1057 that was voted on. It was 436.

Don't you see...

Another reason the link in the OP was wrong.

Wrong amendment number

The number of both democrats and republicans voting no was way off.

If you cannot understand why it was not wrong to be suspicious, then you are too trusting of our government.

It appears 436 was modified to include the entire section of another amendment, #1057, that was in committee.


AMENDMENT NO. 436, AS MODIFIED

Mr. COBURN. Madam President, as a matter of right, I ask that my amendment be modified with the changes I now send to the desk. Further, I make the point that I retain my right to the floor after the modification is made under the precedents of the Senate.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has the right to modify the amendment.

The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

(Purpose: To repeal the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit)
At the end, add the following:

SEC. __X. REPEAL OF VEETC.

.... (pretty much includes, word for word that of 1057 posted earlier)

Yes, the minor clerical mistake completely invalidates the entire idea or assertion of the article. :rolleyes

This was the exact same bullshit you pull all the time.

Unable to really meet an idea head on, you rooted around until you found what amounts to a typo, jumped up and down and said "AHA! Look how wrong they are".

I dunno, delving into this kind of hard-to-read minutae, where it seems that it is *very* easy to make a mistake and/or misread something, hardly seems to me to indicate that the author of the article in the OP had no "integrity".

It is perfectly possible to have all the integrity in the world, and still make a honest mistake in reading something.

[Wild Cobra]

It appears 436 was modified to include the entire section of another amendment, #1057, that was in committee.

You are close to correct.

SA 436 is the recarnate of S 1057. Still, it was not S1057 that was voted on. When the facts are presented wrong, what is one to think?


Yes, the minor clerical mistake completely invalidates the entire idea or assertion of the article. :rolleyes

Placing the incorrect text in the congressional record is not a minor mistake.


This was the exact same bullshit you pull all the time.

If that's what youn want to think.


Unable to really meet an idea head on, you rooted around until you found what amounts to a typo, jumped up and down and said "AHA! Look how wrong they are".

No, it was beyond a typo. Why can't you see that?

Tell me. Is this text:


Beginning on page 17, strike line 14 and all that follows through page 18, line 10, and insert the following:

(a) Brightfields Demonstration Program.--Section 218 of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3154d) is repealed.

(b) Termination of Global Climate Change Mitigation Incentive Fund.--Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Commerce shall terminate the Global Climate Change Mitigation Incentive Fund of the Department of Commerce.
found in eithe S 1057 or SA 436?


I dunno, delving into this kind of hard-to-read minutae, where it seems that it is *very* easy to make a mistake and/or misread something, hardly seems to me to indicate that the author of the article in the OP had no "integrity".

WTF...

The journalist made two serious mistakes.


It is perfectly possible to have all the integrity in the world, and still make a honest mistake in reading something.

Yes, it is. But two serious mistakes?

[RandomGuy]

You are close to correct.

SA 436 is the recarnate of S 1057. Still, it was not S1057 that was voted on. When the facts are presented wrong, what is one to think?

Placing the incorrect text in the congressional record is not a minor mistake.

If that's what youn want to think.

No, it was beyond a typo. Why can't you see that?

Tell me. Is this text:

found in eithe S 1057 or SA 436?

WTF...

The journalist made two serious mistakes.

Yes, it is. But two serious mistakes?

I presented the actual senate minutes, and it was very clear what they were voting on, website snafu or no.

The main claim of the article in the OP was clear as well.

Did "the Senate on Tuesday afternoon [strike] down a measure to roll back $6 billion in federal ethanol subsidies"?

Yes or no?

[Wild Cobra]

I presented the actual senate minutes, and it was very clear what they were voting on, website snafu or no.

It is clear what they said they were voting on. The linked text when debating SA 436 was different.


The main claim of the article in the OP was clear as well.

About the subsidy and tariff, yes. But it wasn't 1057 voted on, and the vote results were reported wrong. Then to top it off, the senate record of SA 436... My God. I'm tired of repeating myself.

Don't you get it?


Did "the Senate on Tuesday afternoon [strike] down a measure to roll back $6 billion in federal ethanol subsidies"?

Yes or no?

Yes, but that's not what I'm arguing against.

Why are you making an issue out of this? My earlier words were based on the research I had at hand, and nobody showed me otherwise. The only text they showed had other numbers attached. Not 436.

Why cant you let it go, and accept the facts at hand?

[RandomGuy]

FWIW, as far as I can figure, the answer is "no".

The bill is still under debate, from what I can see.

Your link about vote #89:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00089

Leads to the bit here:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:SP436:

One of the links on that page shows the bill "as submitted" wich is what you found and posted.

If you read the rest of it, it seems that there was a modification, which I posted, and was quite clear.

The current status, as of today is that it is under consideration.

The article in the OP had it wrong in one sense, because the vote was NOT to defeat the amendment, it was simply for "cloture" or to close debate on the matter. (edit) This would I presume then require the senate to actually vote on it.(end edit #4)

This could very well be a de facto defeat however, if the intent of the opponents of the amendment is to talk it to death, because they know they don't have the votes to defeat it outright.

In that context the article would have it right, but you or I don't have the insight into the context to judge that. I get the feeling the writer is probably getting their information from someone who does.

The best way to figure out if that is what happens is to simply revisit the amendment in a few months. If it was never formally voted on then we have a good indication that the defeat of the cloture motion meant there was never an actual vote on it. This would then have been little more than a parlimentary manuever intended to defeat it without actually voting on it outright.

[Wild Cobra]

Random, I think it's interesting to note that roll call 90 was an overwhelming YES of the same legislation, by text, as Roll Call 89. The difference was, SA 436 was introduced by a republican. SA 476 was introduced by a democrat. The republicans voted the same on both amendments. Democrats didn't, though the legislation is the same.

You should compare the votes:

Roll Call 89, SA 436 (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00089)

Roll Call 90, SA 476 (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00090)

SA 436 is now dead since SA 476 took its place.

Wanna make any bets on if this was done so Feinstein can triumph her amendment for her 2012 election? Maybe I should reword that. Think she will use it in her election campaign more effectively that she introduced it, rather than just voted for it?

[Wild Cobra]

Let me add...

SA 436 was introduced by a republican in a democrat controlled senate on 6/9/11, put on indefinite hold 6/14/11. The same legislation is introduced by a democrat on 6/15/11 and approved on 6/16/11.

Something stinks during election season. Plagiarism anyone?

[TeyshaBlue]

Let me add...

SA 436 was introduced by a republican in a democrat controlled senate on 6/9/11, put on indefinite hold 6/14/11. The same legislation is introduced by a democrat on 6/15/11 and approved on 6/16/11.

Something stinks during election season. Plagiarism anyone?

*sigh* Your willful ignorance knows no bounds, WC.

S.AMDT.436
Amends: S.782
Amendments to this amendment: S.AMDT.441
Sponsor: Sen Coburn, Tom [OK] (submitted 6/9/2011) (proposed 6/9/2011)
Cosponsors:
Sen. Ayotte, Kelly (R-NH)
Sen. Collins, Susan (R-ME)
Sen. Feinstein, Dianne (D-CA)
Sen. McCain, John III (R-AZ)

AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
To repeal the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit.

TEXT OF AMENDMENT AS SUBMITTED: CR S3695

[Wild Cobra]

*sigh* Your willful ignorance knows no bounds, WC.

S.AMDT.436
Amends: S.782
Amendments to this amendment: S.AMDT.441
Sponsor: Sen Coburn, Tom [OK] (submitted 6/9/2011) (proposed 6/9/2011)
Cosponsors:
Sen. Ayotte, Kelly (R-NH)
Sen. Collins, Susan (R-ME)
Sen. Feinstein, Dianne (D-CA)
Sen. McCain, John III (R-AZ)

AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
To repeal the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit.

TEXT OF AMENDMENT AS SUBMITTED: CR S3695
The ignorance is on your part.

I already know that. Point is, one was voted down by democrats, the other voted in. Both are the same. Look familiar:

S.AMDT.476
Amends: S.782
Sponsor: Sen Feinstein, Dianne [CA] (submitted 6/15/2011) (proposed 6/15/2011)

AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
To repeal the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit.

TEXT OF AMENDMENT AS SUBMITTED: CR S3845-3846

STATUS:

6/15/2011:
Amendment SA 476 proposed by Senator Reid for Senator Feinstein. (consideration: CR S3847; text: CR S3847)
6/16/2011:
Considered by Senate. (consideration: CR S3852-3872)
6/16/2011:
Amendment SA 476 as modified, under the order of 6/15/2011, having achieved 60 votes in the affirmative, the amendment was agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 73 - 27. Record Vote Number: 90. (text as modified: CR S3871)

COSPONSORS(6):

Sen Coburn, Tom [OK] - 6/15/2011
Sen Webb, Jim [VA] - 6/16/2011
Sen Collins, Susan M. [ME] - 6/16/2011
Sen Menendez, Robert [NJ] - 6/16/2011
Sen Lieberman, Joseph I. [CT] - 6/16/2011
Sen Shaheen, Jeanne [NH] - 6/16/2011

The difference between sponsor and cosponsor means something to some people. same legislation, two different results.

[TeyshaBlue]

The ignorance is on your part.

I already know that. Point is, one was voted down by democrats, the other voted in. Both are the same. Look familiar:

Dumbass. You do realize these bills get modified constantly, and the sponsorship/authorship rotates as the modifications are made. If you'd read any of the minutes of the various steps you'd see passages such as : 6-14-11 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REVITALIZATION ACT OF 2011 -- (Senate - June 14, 2011) "Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, we have introduced into the Record the industry that gets this tax credit--they represent 97 percent of all of the ethanol that is blended--does not want the $3 billion. They say it is not a disruption to them, and, in fact, it is $3 billion that we cannot afford to pay.

It is something that already has accomplished its purpose through a government mandate. I would yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein."


But I don't expect you to bother because doing so might conflict with the conclusions you've already drawn...asinine as they may be.

[TeyshaBlue]

The ignorance is on your part.

I already know that. Point is, one was voted down by democrats, the other voted in. Both are the same. Look familiar:


The difference between sponsor and cosponsor means something to some people. same legislation, two different results.

It apparently only matters to you and your hyper-partisan myopia.

[Blake]

Something stinks during election season.

no, really?

why?


I don't trust government. Show me why it doesn't stink.


Plagiarism anyone?

since it's you asking the question, I'll say "probably not."

[TeyshaBlue]

no, really?

why?





since it's you asking the question, I'll say "probably not."

'shup, Chump!:ihit

[Wild Cobra]

It apparently only matters to you and your hyper-partisan myopia.
What point are you trying to make?

What other reason is there to reject legislation introduced by a republican, just to have the same legislation plagiarized and introduced by a democrat to pass?

Yes, I assumed the reason as a slam on the democrats. I will freely admit that. So, if I am wrong, what other reason is there?

[TeyshaBlue]

Because, as I stated, modifications were made constantly during it's trip to the senate. Following the link you posted clearly shows that.....well, it does if your not so myopically handicapped that you can't consider anything that doesn't conform to your partisan straight jacket.

[Wild Cobra]

Because, as I stated, modifications were made constantly during it's trip to the senate. Following the link you posted clearly shows that.....well, it does if your not so myopically handicapped that you can't consider anything that doesn't conform to your partisan straight jacket.
It wasn't modified yet. SA 441 was to be an amendment to it, but wasn't voted on either.

How else would you explain it then than the democrats hijacking a republican amendment?

If you know of changes made to it, please show us.

[Blake]

What point are you trying to make?

What other reason is there to reject legislation introduced by a republican, just to have the same legislation plagiarized and introduced by a democrat to pass?

Yes, I assumed the reason as a slam on the democrats. I will freely admit that. So, if I am wrong, what other reason is there?

'other' reason?

What is 'the' reason?

[TeyshaBlue]

It wasn't modified yet. SA 441 was to be an amendment to it, but wasn't voted on either.

How else would you explain it then than the democrats hijacking a republican amendment?

If you know of changes made to it, please show us.

Did you willfully leave out Amends: S.782?

lol @ hijacking when it was literally handed off to Feinstein for modification.
Do you really think that this amendment is in any way unique in it's trip to the senate and a final vote? It's not. It's life has been fairly routine.

Most adults understand it doesn't matter who authors what if the end result is accomplished....well most adults without the lobotomy that partisan hackery causes.
Your constant finger pointing and denial is pathetically childish. Grow the fuck up already.

[Wild Cobra]

Did you willfully leave out Amends: S.782?

Of course not.


lol @ hijacking when it was literally handed off to Feinstein for modification.
Do you really think that this amendment is in any way unique in it's trip to the senate and a final vote? It's not. It's life has been fairly routine.

If that's the case, fine.

Can you show that's the case?


Most adults understand it doesn't matter who authors what if the end result is accomplished....well most adults without the lobotomy that partisan hackery causes.

It doesn't matter to me. I'm saying such things do matter to some.


Your constant finger pointing and denial is pathetically childish. Grow the fuck up already.

LOL...

Are you getting angry?

Calm down genius.

[ChumpDumper]

It doesn't matter to me. I'm saying such things do matter to some.If not you, who?

lol hijack

[Wild Cobra]

Because, as I stated, modifications were made constantly during it's trip to the senate. Following the link you posted clearly shows that.....well, it does if your not so myopically handicapped that you can't consider anything that doesn't conform to your partisan straight jacket.
LOL...

So why did they drop 436 and create 476? Was it necessary?

[ChumpDumper]

LOL...

So why did they drop 436 and create 476? Was it necessary?Why does that matter to you?

[Wild Cobra]

Why does that matter to you?
I'm playing Chump for a day. Figured it was my turn.

[ChumpDumper]

I'm playing Chump for a day. Figured it was my turn.So what was changed between the two?

Give me the details since it matters to you.

[TeyshaBlue]

Of course not.

If that's the case, fine.

Can you show that's the case?

I'm sure you've covered this at some point in your life, but here's a refresher.

http://youtu.be/mEJL2Uuv-oQ




It doesn't matter to me. I'm saying such things do matter to some.
It obviously matters to you. It's fishy! It's plagiarism! "What other reason is there to reject legislation introduced by a republican, just to have the same legislation plagiarized and introduced by a democrat to pass?"


LOL...

Are you getting angry?

Calm down genius.

lol @ angry. No, I'm not angry. You do make me look like a genius tho.

[Blake]

OK Chump, you can take off that mask.

I use to play the "why" game when my kids were growing up. No time for you with that game..



LOL...

So why did they drop 436 and create 476? Was it necessary?


I'm playing Chump for a day. Figured it was my turn.

I doubt anyone will mistake you for ChumpDumper.

Just you being hypocritical you.

[RandomGuy]

Random, I think it's interesting to note ...

I don't.

You seem to be trying awfully hard to feed your confirmation bias today.

[Wild Cobra]

If anyone is interested, there was another vote regarding the bill the ethanol subsidy removal amendment was put in:

Roll Call #94; S. 782 (Economic Development Revitalization Act of 2011 ) (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00094)

I'm not going to do the leg work. Maybe someone knows. Has SA 476 remained intact once agreed to?

[boutons_deux]

New Report Urges Western Governments to Reconsider Reliance on Biofuels

Western governments have made a wrong turn in energy policy by supporting the large-scale conversion of plants into fuel and should reconsider that strategy, according to a new report (http://www.wri.org/publication/avoiding-bioenergy-competition-food-crops-and-land) from a prominent environmental think tank.

Turning plant matter into liquid fuel or electricity is so inefficient that the approach is unlikely ever to supply a substantial fraction of global energy demand, the report found. It added that continuing to pursue this strategy — which has already led to billions of dollars of investment — is likely to use up vast tracts of fertile land that could be devoted to helping feed the world’s growing population.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/01/29/science/new-report-urges-western-governments-to-reconsider-reliance-on-biofuels.html?_r=0

Thanks, Repugs. Y'all fucked that up,too, but your BigAg paymasters made $Bs.

[CosmicCowboy]

It's about three states and 27 electoral votes. Both parties want them.

[Wild Cobra]

New Report Urges Western Governments to Reconsider Reliance on Biofuels

Western governments have made a wrong turn in energy policy by supporting the large-scale conversion of plants into fuel and should reconsider that strategy, according to a new report (http://www.wri.org/publication/avoiding-bioenergy-competition-food-crops-and-land) from a prominent environmental think tank.

Turning plant matter into liquid fuel or electricity is so inefficient that the approach is unlikely ever to supply a substantial fraction of global energy demand, the report found. It added that continuing to pursue this strategy — which has already led to billions of dollars of investment — is likely to use up vast tracts of fertile land that could be devoted to helping feed the world’s growing population.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/01/29/science/new-report-urges-western-governments-to-reconsider-reliance-on-biofuels.html?_r=0

Thanks, Repugs. Y'all fucked that up,too, but your BigAg paymasters made $Bs.




If you say so Shazbot. As I recall, it was the democrats pushing it and bullying the republicans into voting for it. Republicans would have lost all chance of so many electrical votes the way they would have been made out to be the bad guys.

[boutons_deux]

If you say so Shazbot. As I recall, it was the democrats pushing it and bullying the republicans into voting for it. Republicans would have lost all chance of so many electrical votes the way they would have been made out to be the bad guys.

Repugs controlled WH, Senate, House but it was a Dem bill? :lol

[CosmicCowboy]

Repugs controlled WH, Senate, House but it was a Dem bill? :lol

It continues to be renewed no matter who is in control of the House, Senate, or Presidency Boo Bird. You just look fucking stupid when you try to blame everything on Republicans.

[TeyshaBlue]

This asinine narrative of boutons has been destroyed time and time again. But the facile coward can't admit a mistake because his masters wont allow him to.
Here's a link where boutons was destroyed (Again).
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=211059&p=7247121#post7247121

:lol boutons

[Wild Cobra]

Repugs controlled WH, Senate, House but it was a Dem bill? :lol

That went through now many years ago, to create the 10% ethanol mandate and subsidies? Are we speaking of the same thing or not?

[CosmicCowboy]

This asinine narrative of boutons has been destroyed time and time again. But the facile coward can't admit a mistake because his masters wont allow him to.
Here's a link where boutons was destroyed (Again).
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=211059&p=7247121#post7247121

:lol boutons

:lmao

Forgot about boo getting totally bitch slapped in that one too...

[boutons_deux]

Four U.S. lawmakers begin second effort at biofuels reform bill

The reform would effectively do away with a mandate that corn-based ethanol be blended in gasoline and repeal the waiver that raised the cap on ethanol content at 15 percent from 10 percent after Congress expanded the RFS policy in 2007.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/04/us-usa-ethanol-reform-idUSKBN0L80BK20150204?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews

[boutons_deux]

That went through now many years ago, to create the 10% ethanol mandate and subsidies? Are we speaking of the same thing or not?

yep, first in 2005 and then renewed in 2007

[Wild Cobra]

yep, first in 2005 and then renewed in 2007

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the 2005 a test run, and the 2007 a mandate?

Who controlled congress on 2007?

[boutons_deux]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the 2005 a test run, and the 2007 a mandate?

Who controlled congress on 2007?

as usual, you are



the 2005 Act increases the amount of biofuel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biofuel) (usually ethanol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol)) that must be mixed with gasoline sold in the United States to 4 billion US gallons (15,000,000 m3) by 2006, 6.1 billion US gallons (23,000,000 m3) by 2009 and 7.5 billion US gallons (28,000,000 m3) by 2012;[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Policy_Act_of_2005#cite_note-3) two years later, theEnergy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Independence_and_Security_Act_of_2007) extended the target to 36 billion US gallons (140,000,000 m3) by 2022.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Policy_Act_of_2005#cite_note-4)


After the Repug WH, Congress got that stupid ethanol shitball rolling, it's nearly impossible to shut down, just like the Repug wars.

Now we've got BigAg committed to corn ethanol, ethanol plants, and car mfrs with cars modified for ethanol. Who's gonna shut all that down by removing tax breaks, subsidies, mandates?

[TeyshaBlue]

lol simpleton

[boutons_deux]

End the Ethanol Rip-Off

, a hidden levy that has benefited a small group of farmers and manufacturers in a handful of states: the corn ethanol tax.

The tax is hidden because, on paper, it appears as a clean-energy mandate. Federal law currently requires fuel retailers to blend about 13 billion gallons of corn ethanol per year into the gasoline they sell to the public, making the gas more expensive. This year, that mandate, known as the Renewable Fuel Standard, will impose about $10 billion in additional fuel costs on motorists.

Ethanol contains about 76,000 B.T.U.s per gallon. Gasoline contains about 114,000 B.T.U.s per gallon. Therefore, to get the same amount of energy contained in a gallon of gasoline, a motorist must buy about 1.5 gallons of ethanol.

E10 (which contains 10 percent ethanol and 90 percent gasoline), will typically get “3 percent to 4 percent fewer miles per gallon” than they would if they were running on pure gasoline.

Between 2007 and 2014, about 92.5 billion gallons of ethanol were mixed into domestic gasoline supplies. Over that eight-year period, the energy-equivalent cost of ethanol averaged about 90 cents per gallon more than gasoline.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/03/10/opinion/end-the-ethanol-rip-off.html?_r=0

Ethanol mandate, another wonderful Repug policy.

Manhattan Inst is a VRWC stink tank, surprising they are against a Repug gift to BigCorp, but their hate of ALL taxes must override.

[TeyshaBlue]

Ethanol mandate, another wonderful Repug policy.



You lie.

[boutons_deux]

Plowing prairies for grains: Biofuel crops replace grasslands nationwide


- Clearing grasslands to make way for biofuels may seem counterproductive, but University of Wisconsin-Madison researchers show in a study today (April 2, 2015) that crops, including the corn and soy commonly used for biofuels, expanded onto 7 million acres of new land in the U.S. over a recent four-year period, replacing millions of acres of grasslands.

The study -- from UW-Madison graduate student Tyler Lark, geography Professor Holly Gibbs, and postdoctoral researcher Meghan Salmon -- is published in the journal Environmental Research Letters and addresses the debate over whether the recent boom in demand for common biofuel crops has led to the carbon-emitting conversion of natural areas. It also reveals loopholes in U.S. policies that may contribute to these unintended consequences.

"We realized there was remarkably limited information about how croplands have expanded across the United States in recent years," says Lark, the lead author of the study. "Our results are surprising because they show large-scale conversion of new landscapes, which most people didn't expect."

The conversion to corn and soy alone, the researchers say, could have emitted as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as 34 coal-fired power plants operating for one year -- the equivalent of 28 million more cars on the road.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-04/uow-ppf033115.php

[boutons_deux]

At a Crossroads, Biofuels Seek a New Path Forward

Attempting to chart a path forward for the beleaguered biofuels industry, a group of researchers at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the University of California, Berkeley, have devised what they describe as a novel method for producing renewable jet fuel (http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/06/15/leaving-on-a-biofueled-jet-plane/). Using sugarcane and the sugarcane waste called bagasse, the new process (described in a paper in the latest issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (http://www.pnas.org/content/112/25/7645.abstract)) could enable green refineries to put out a range of products, including bio-based aviation fuel and automotive lubricant base oils.

The research appears at a time when biofuels have reached a crossroads. Shrinking government funding, investor disenchantment, low oil prices, and concerns over the loss of food cropland to grow corn and sugarcane for biomass have combined to bring the industry close to a standstill (http://www.navigantresearch.com/blog/the-global-biofuels-industry-a-future-in-doubt). Although production of renewable fuels in the United States doubled between 2007 and 2013, the use of biofuels as a percentage of overall transportation fuel has hardly budged. And while most major airlines have biofuel programs in some stage, aviation—which needs highly energy-dense, oxygen-free fuel—has proved an especially tough field to penetrate.

As a result, the future of the Renewable Fuel Standard, released in 2005 and expanded under the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007, has been called into question.

“The current first-generation biofuels mainly use food crops as feedstock and are either expensive or have modest [greenhouse gas] improvements over petroleum fuels,” concluded a report released in April (http://energypolicy.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/energy/Renewable%20Fuel%20Standard_A%20Path%20Forward_Apr il%202015.pdf) by the Columbia Center on Global Energy Policy, written by James Stock, a professor of political economy at Harvard’s Kennedy School and a former member of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers.

“The development and commercialization of low greenhouse gas second-generation biofuels—critical to the ultimate success of the program—has fallen far short of the very ambitious goals laid out in the EISA.”

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/538876/at-a-crossroads-biofuels-seek-a-new-path-forward/

So food crops as feedstock for ethanol and biodiesel, brain-dead from the start (thanks, BigAg!).

So what's the next feedstock for this boondoggle?

Growing plants as feedstock requires water and fertilizer, then energy to "fuel" the conversion process. Where the fuck is the advantage, other than to BigAg profits?

Transfer all govt funding from bioethanol and biodiesel to renewable solar energy and storage, to upgrading and extending the electrical grid.

ALL energy derived from plants comes the the sun anyway.

[sickdsm]

You should be comparing ethanol to MTBE.


If not you need to compare subsidies on gas, solar, and wind.

[Wild Cobra]

You should be comparing ethanol to MTBE.


If not you need to compare subsidies on gas, solar, and wind.

Except there are other things that can be use.

But... Yes! Ethanol is an inexpensive solution for replacing lead and MTBE. But, is it really with how much ethanol is subsidized?

[sickdsm]

Except there are other things that can be use.

But... Yes! Ethanol is an inexpensive solution for replacing lead and MTBE. But, is it really with how much ethanol is subsidized?


How much is it subsidized?

[Winehole23]

If not you need to compare subsidies on gas, solar, and wind.How do they compare, or were you just clearing your throat, as usual?

[sickdsm]

How do they compare, or were you just clearing your throat, as usual?

Since he had brought up subsidies, wouldn't he have the numbers at his fingertips? Surely he didn't have to google data up afterwards. Considering there was a large thread about solar subsidies, why would he not share his numbers with those? I'm not familiar with the subsidies of wind and solar. I have a sister that's been pushing me to get a grant for covering my shop with solar panels. Is there by products produced?

I suppose you believe it falls on me to explain the non cancerous alternatives to MTBE also?

I wonder why many ethanol producers love the idea of the mandate going away? Insiders say it actually caps demand.

[boutons_deux]

BigAg didn't hire politicians to eliminate MTBE, but to enrich themselves with taxpayer subsidies and a MANDATED corn ethanol consumption.

[Wild Cobra]

How much is it subsidized?
I haven't seen the numbers in some time. I'm thinking outside of the corn subidies, which I don't recall seeing a number on, that the ethanol itself is at $0.50 per gallon.

[TeyshaBlue]

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/economic-intelligence/2014/03/11/obamas-2015-budget-backs-costly-corn-ethanol-subsidies

[Wild Cobra]

We pay the Petroleum Companies (sometimes the ethanol companies get the subsidy..but generally the petro companies do the blending and gets the blending credit of 51 cents per gallon) That's right , there is a blending credit of 51 cents for every gallon of ethanol blended with Gasoline.. which works very well when used as designed to build out the real alternative fuel.. E85.


http://e85prices.com/e10-ethanol.htm

[sickdsm]

So you bring up the ethanol subsidies then proceed to point out the subsidy in question is more of a petroleum subsidy?


TB's editorial implies that the ethanol lobbyists are a juggernaut

Such is the power of the corn ethanol lobby.

If the ethanol lobbyists are butting heads with big oil, does one really believe that ethanol is such a mightier force than the oil lobbyists?


I love blender pumps, i use e30 to e-50 all the time not bc its ethanol but that it saves me money at the pump. I see no noticable decrease in MPG, either with or without a flex fuel vehicle.

I will blend my own by topping off with e85 once in a while also.

[TeyshaBlue]

I get horrible mileage on anything more than 10%. The local Kroger nets shitty mileage but its cheap. I get 2-4 mpg better on top tier...QT for instance than the Kroger swill. I save more on a tank on mileage than I save on a tank of cheapo.

[sickdsm]

.60 break even for me on e85. Not surprising to see $1 difference.

I imagine without ethanol the unemployment rate would be more like the rest of the country.

[boutons_deux]

Iowa Voters Have Given Up On Ethanol; Presidential Candidates Are Following Suit

The fortunes of the wonder fuel that promised to help clean the environment, secure America and save small family farms have steadily dwindled as environmentalists, food advocates and auto enthusiasts sour on its promise. Now that fuel, corn-based ethanol, finds itself threatened with a defection that was once unthinkable: Iowa voters.

The electorate here in the early voting state often defined by its vast expanses of corn has long demanded that candidates pledge allegiance to government production mandates for millions of gallons of ethanol, the homegrown product. But as the 2016 White House hopefuls traverse the state, they are seeing that Iowans have grown strikingly ambivalent.

The Republican presidential contender now polling strongest in Iowa, Ted Cruz, is campaigning on an energy platform that would have been a death wish in elections past. Cruz, the U.S. senator from Texas, is an unabashed opponent of giving ethanol any special government help. He derides it as the worst kind of central planning. He champions legislation to wipe out the decade-old Renewable Fuel Standard, which mandates large amounts of ethanol get blended into the nation’s gas supply.

“Voters here are just not that interested in ethanol anymore,” said Steffen Schmidt, a professor of political science at Iowa State University. “You don’t even hear the word come out the mouths of candidates much.”

There are myriad reasons, not the least of which is a modern-day Republican electorate that takes pride in bucking the established order and is increasingly absolute in its disdain for subsidies. But it is also about the shifting politics of renewable fuels in a state where small family farms have given way to much bigger agribusinesses.

Only a fraction of the state’s voters work in the corn industry these days. There is as much buzz on the campaign trail in Iowa about wind power as there is about ethanol.

http://www.nationalmemo.com/iowa-voters-have-given-up-on-ethanol-presidential-candidates-are-following-suit/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Morning%20Memo%20-%202015-12-30&utm_term=MM_frequency_six

So Repug politicians are against the ethanol scam?

And BigAg's $Ms in corruption to the Repugs?

google isn't showing what happened to ethanol in the new budget.

[CosmicCowboy]

fuck ethanol

[boutons_deux]

fuck ethanol

we don't count. It all depends on how much BigAg pays Congress.

[boutons_deux]

Repug govt bribed to do a big STUPID thing

Corn Ethanol Can Be Worse Than The Gasoline It Replaces

the carbon emissions from using land to grow corn can negate or even reverse any climate advantages of corn ethanol relative to gasoline.

From a climate and environmental standpoint, corn ethanol is not a good biofuel solution.

https://scienceblog.com/528297/corn-ethanol-can-be-worse-than-the-gasoline-it-replaces

... and the precious water used to grow fucking corn to burn? :lol

[SnakeBoy]

Repug govt bribed to do a big STUPID thing

Corn Ethanol Can Be Worse Than The Gasoline It Replaces

the carbon emissions from using land to grow corn can negate or even reverse any climate advantages of corn ethanol relative to gasoline.

From a climate and environmental standpoint, corn ethanol is not a good biofuel solution.

https://scienceblog.com/528297/corn-ethanol-can-be-worse-than-the-gasoline-it-replaces

... and the precious water used to grow fucking corn to burn? :lol

How it started: Ethanol Good
How it ended: Ethanol Bad

Today's Libs smh

[Winehole23]

It's bad.

1699876104780337260 (https://twitter.com/GlobalEcoGuy/status/1699876104780337260?s=20)