The Washington Times: Stop 'Big Corn'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseline bum

The most fun machine language is MIX (from Donald Knuth's The Art of Computer Programming series), because you have to write it generally enough to work on a decimal or a binary computer (with 6-bit bytes :lol). Plus, self-modifying code is always fun.

---

Well, MIX was hypothetical. However, MMIX became a reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnakeBoy

Just as I thought, simplistic view.

---

It ain't rocket surgery.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnakeBoy

Shouldn't that read - Americans are such gluttons that they'll eat the nastiest shit a corporation can put in front of them as long as it's cheap and loaded with enough fat and/or sugar.

---

that's true, too.

Americans are their own worst enemy, not foreigners.

All great empires rot from within, and America is rotting apace.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

Talking off-the-cuff with no evidence here, but I think the majority of people will agree that ethanol is a failed idea.

---

Unless the idea is to get us to fill up more often.

"ethanol is a failed idea"

yep, but it's Repugs' idea of "green" economy, which was really smokescreen for tranferring taxpayer wealth to BigAg.

Again, WTF did the Repugs do right in their 8-year Reign of Error?

Simplistic view? Seriously? When you're the one talking about their different because of a semantical difference?

Here's the scenario. Congressman passes a law saying that if you grow corn you get a tax break off of regular taxes that all Americans are going to pay in order to make it more profitable for growers to grow corn. If they grow corn then they get a save a said amount of money simply because they are growing corn. The end result of legislation it to make it more enticing to grow corn.

Another congressman says no I'd rather give them money to grow corn but they pay higher taxes. Well, the end result of said legislation is to make it more enticing to grow corn.

To act as if one method is superior to the other when the goal for both is to artificially make it more enticing to grow a crop based upon government and not fee market action is fucking BEYOND simplistic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

No, it matters.

With a tax break, your money can be no greater than your earnings. With a subsidy, your money can be greater than your earning.

My God....

Why am I trying to explain this again.... I must be insane. Afterall, one definition of being insane is doing the same thing over, expecting a different result....

---

... unless of course the "tax break" happens to be a direct tax credit, then you get a refund.

There is also the concept that if you are not profitable, you would not be able to earn a tax break, and being unprotifable is not, in the long run, sustainable for businesses.

You are right that for a pure tax break, where the break is equal to or less than the net income, the effect would not be the same.

In more practical terms, the difference is vanishingly small, though.

Remember that a tax break represents a fraction of a tax that represents a fraction of income. The subset of companies that would not benefit from the fraction of the fraction is pretty small and remember that if a company IS unprofitable, they get to apply that tax break to calculations of future taxes in loss carryforwards, i.e. deferred tax assets.

Random, let's not forget, a tax credit is most often a subsidy itself.

Back on point... gasoline engines were not designed for combusting ethanol... the mechanical wear on the engines themselves increases due to incompatibilities with the engine's design and the thermodynamic properties of combusting alcohols.

That's why the push to increase the mandated percentage from 10% to 15% is being done with complete disregard to how that affects the consumer (us).... and yet, those pushing for it are demanding an increase in the subsidies as well...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phenomanul

Back on point... gasoline engines were not designed for combusting ethanol... the mechanical wear on the engines themselves increases due to incompatibilities with the engine's design and the thermodynamic properties of combusting alcohols.

That's why the push to increase the mandated percentage from 10% to 15% is being done with complete disregard to how that affects the consumer (us).... and yet, those pushing for it are demanding an increase in the subsidies as well...

---

I think it's the fuel system rather than the engine, but otherwise, you are on target.

Maybe it's a master plan to get older cars off the road by making them break down in an unrepairable manner? Afterall, they are only concerned with the effects on 2001 and newer models. They all have ECC IV or newer computer emissions control systems.