Ethanol credit, subsidy, and tariff voted down

[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 su ious, 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.

This was the exact same bull 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.

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

This was the exact same bull 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/LI...n=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

Roll Call 90, SA 476

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!

[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 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 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.