Reply With Quote
That's what happens with lib ed idea.
Five years ago, rural America was giddy for ethanol.
Backed by government subsidies and mandates, hundreds of ethanol plants rose among the golden fields of the Corn Belt, bringing jobs and business to small towns, providing farmers with a new market for their crops and generating billions of dollars in revenue for the producers of this corn-based fuel blend.
Those days of promise and prosperity are vanishing.
Nearly 10 percent of the nation’s ethanol plants have stopped production over the past year, in part because the drought that has ravaged much of the nation’s crops pushed commodity prices so high that ethanol has become too expensive to produce.
A dip in gasoline consumption has compounded the industry’s problem by reducing the demand for ethanol.
The situation has left the fate of dozens of ethanol plants hanging in the balance and has unsettled communities that once prospered from this biofuel.
Thousands of barrels of ethanol now sit in storage because there is not enough gasoline in the market to blend it with — and blends calling for a higher percentage of ethanol have yet to catch on widely in the marketplace. Advanced biofuels from waste like corn stalks and wood chips have also yet to reach commercial-level production as some had predicted they would by now.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/17/us...s&emc=rss&_r=0
Repug's ethanol boondoggle was nothing but rural/bubba vote-buying, as was unfunded Medicare Part D nothing but senior vote-buying in 2003 campaign, as well as gratuitously, willfully running up the deficit, just one among 100s of Repug deficit increases, which Repugs now use to attack Medicare/medicaid/SS.
That's what happens with lib ed idea.
nobody forced the Repugs to pimp ethanol, like nobody forced the banks into sub-prime lending. Repugs wanted it and they got it. We know the Repugs didn't/don't GAF about the environment.
The corn gas idea is as bipartisan as it is stupid. It never made any sense and never can make sense.
Energy Policy Act of 2005
the Act increases the amount of biofuel (usually 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;[1] two years later, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 extended the target to 36 billion US gallons (140,000,000 m3) by 2022.[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Policy_Act_of_2005
Who controlled SCOTUS, Exec, and Legislature in 2005?
After Three Decades, Tax Credit for Ethanol Expires
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/02/business/energy-environment/after-three-decades-federal-tax-credit-for-ethanol-expires.html?_r=0
LOL @ Boo blaming ethanol only on republicans. Shows just how ing stupid he really is.
Repugs seriously ramped up the ethanol MANDATE (and they HATE mandates and regulations, n'est-ce-pas?) in 2005
The primary ethanol subsidy offered by the federal government is a tax incentive called the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit, which was passed by Congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2004. It took effect in 2005.
The ethanol subsidy, which is commonly referred to as the "blender's credit," offers ethanol blenders registered with the Internal Revenue Service a tax credit of 45 cents for every gallon of pure ethanol they blend with gasoline.
That particular ethanol subsidy cost taxpayers $5.7 billion in forgone revenues in 2011, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office, the nonpartisan congressional watchdog agency.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/moneym...ol-Subsidy.htm
So why didn't Obama kill it in 2008 when he had the Presidency and both houses of congress? Did I miss the Obama anti-ethanol campaign?
Barry NEVER had the Senate.
2008/09 the economics crisis was the overwhelming priority, not trying to shutdown Repug gifts to BigAg and BigOil
lol..the blending credit legislation was a rider on the Jobs Creation Act. Refiners that blended 10% ethanol into motor gasoline received a 45¢/gal credit — a direct dollar-for-dollar reduction in their tax bill — for every gallon of ethanol they used.
When that credit was taken away, the price of ethanol collapsed by 60 to 70¢/gallon, and stabilized.
lol..thinkprogress and the progressive echo chamber.
The Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC) Act (the blender's credit) was as bi-partisan as it gets. Looking at the authorship, it's almost exactly D and R. This was not "Repug gifts to BigAg and BigOil". It was a group effort.
However, since you're all about waving the red v blue flag, you'll be interested to know it was the work of mostly Republican senators that shot down the VEETC extension. I'm sure thinkprogress and alternet don't mention those little data points.
Last edited by TeyshaBlue; 03-18-2013 at 10:47 AM.
Typical right-wing-bat defense of Repugs, the Dems are just as badlol..thinkprogress and the progressive echo chamber.
The Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC) Act (the blender's credit) was as bi-partisan as it gets. Looking at the authorship, it's almost exactly D and R. This was not "Repug gifts to BigAg and BigOil". It was a group effort.
However, since you're all about waving the red v blue flag, you'll be interested to know it was the work of mostly Republican senators that shot down the VEETC extension. I'm sure thinkprogress and alternet don't mention those little data points.
Typical moonbat talking point . "Repug gifts to BigAg and BigOil"Typical right-wing-bat defense of Repugs, the Dems are just as bad
I understand. You have no defense of your vapid talking point nonsense.
so the Repugs, controlling Congress and Exec, were powerless to stop this Dem cramdown of BigOil/BigAg giveaways?
What part of "bi-partisan" do you not understand?
Do you need to consult thinkprogress before you continue?
This is why people argue for a line item veto. So a president can remove such added ingredients to the sausage.Typical right-wing-bat defense of Repugs, the Dems are just as bad
I don't want that crap in my car or in my harley... no choice though, living in san antonio.
Ethanol Doesn’t Lower Gas Prices — Gas Prices Not Substantially Affected By Inclusion Of Ethanol, Research Finds
The widespread use of ethanol hasn’t substantially reduced the wholesale cost of gasoline, according to new research from MIT. The new findings contradict earlier research that attributed an observed reduction in the wholesale cost of gasoline during certain years to the increased use of ethanol as a gasoline additive during those years. Earlier research, which according to the researchers behind this new work, is problematic for a number of different reasons — and was essentially just a case of “a correlation being interpreted as a causal relationship.”
The findings of the previous research — that widespread use of ethanol has reduced the wholesale cost of gasoline by $0.89-$1.09 per gallon — have been repeatedly referenced over the past couple of years, and have been cited by a number of important policymakers during debates and public conversations. And yet, as this new work shows, the findings appear to have been merely the result of a trick of the eye.
The press release from MIT explains:
That prior work involves what energy economists call the “crack ratio,” which is effectively the price of gasoline divided by the price of oil. The crack ratio is something energy analysts can use to understand the relative value of gasoline compared to oil: The higher the crack ratio, the more expensive gasoline is in relative terms. If ethanol were a notably cheap component of gasoline production, its increasing presence in the fuel mix might reveal itself in the form of a decreasing crack ratio.
So while gasoline is made primarily from oil, there are other elements that figure into the cost of refining gasoline. Thus if oil prices double, Knittel points out, gasoline prices do not necessarily double. But in general, when oil prices — as the denominator of this fraction — go up, the crack ratio itself falls.
The previous work evaluated time periods when oil prices rose, and the percentage of ethanol in gasoline also rose. But researchers Christopher Knittel and Aaron Smith assert that the increased proportion of ethanol in gasoline merely correlated with the declining crack ratio, and did not contribute to it in any causal sense. Instead, they think that changing oil prices drove the change in the crack ratio, and that when those prices are accounted for, the apparent effect of ethanol “simply goes away.”
http://cleantechnica.com/2013/10/15/ethanol-doesnt-lower-gas-prices-gas-prices-substantially-affected-inclusion-ethanol-research-finds/
... but it does lower your gas mileage (lower energy density than gasoline)
Iowans worry about ethanol's lost political clout
For decades, presidential candidates' chances in Iowa were wounded if not doomed unless they backed federal support for ethanol, a boon to the state's corn-growing economy.
That rule of politics collapsed resoundingly in the 2012 campaign when five of the six top Republican candidates said it was time for such intervention in the private market to end.
Now, Iowa's senior political leaders are pondering how to shore up political support for the corn-based fuel at a time when its economic and environmental benefits are under attack .
The latest blow came this month, when the Obama administration proposed cutting the required amount of ethanol in the nation's fuel supply for the first time since Congress established a standard in 2007.
The state's leading Republicans and Democrats hope they can still use Iowa's political importance as a swing-voting state and as the site of the first presidential nominating contest to get candidates to support keeping the requirement, or at least part of it, in place.
But the case has become a tough sell for Republicans as the party has moved to the right and become increasingly hostile to government programs and directives.
Even among Democrats, concern has grown about ethanol's role in rising food prices and in cultivation of land that had been used for conservation.
The recent boom in domestic oil production has also made ethanol less prized as a U.S.-produced fuel that limits dependence on foreign oil. The grain alcohol burns cleaner than gasoline but produces less energy.
"I think there are some that feel it's potentially safer now to be lukewarm at least, or not supportive of it," said Iowa's Secretary of Agriculture Bill Northey, a Republican. "I think it's yet to be seen if that's a smart political position."
http://m.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco...nt?oid=2634368
These kind of threads are more entertaining when SickDSM comes in and flames everyone who points out that ethanol ing blows.
More Repug misgovernance, nothing but their stratetegy for screwing government as much as possible. Boner is a particularly nasty bag.
Congress Got 239 Days Off This Year, Workers Are Guaranteed Zero
In total, the House will have had 239 days off this year with even more scheduled for next year.
The picture is very different for the rest of Americans, however. The country doesn’t guarantee its citizens any paid vacation or holiday time off, unlike 20 of its developed peers. All European Union countries guarantee workers at least 20 paid days of vacation a year, with France going so far as to lock in 30, the United Kingdom mandating 28, and Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden guaranteeing 25. Thirteen also mandate paid holidays off. Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Greece, and Sweden go even further, requiring employers to give workers an extra bonus to cover vacation expenses. (but America is the greatest country in the world (for the UCA screwing its employees))
Of course, many American employers still give their workers paid vacation time and holidays off. But that holds true for fewer and fewer workers. Today, 77 percent of workers have access to paid vacation days, compared to 80 percent 20 years ago. The biggest drops have come for those who work part-time — a position more and more find themselves in — or for employers with fewer than 100 workers. And while those who get paid vacation get more days than back then, they get fewer paid holidays, which offsets the increase.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/201...ress-vacation/
This Congress could be least productive since 1947
Congress is on pace to make history with the least productive legislative year in the postWorld War II era.
Just 61 bills have become law to date in 2012 out of 3,914 bills that have been introduced by lawmakers, or less than 2% of all proposed laws, according to a USA TODAY analysis of records since 1947 kept by the U.S. House Clerk's office.
In 2011, after Republicans took control of the U.S. House, Congress passed just 90 bills into law. The only other year in which Congress failed to pass at least 125 laws was 1995.
These statistics make the 112th Congress, covering 2011-12, the least productive two-year gathering onCapitol Hill since the end of World War II. Not even the 80th Congress, which President
Truman called the "do-nothing Congress" in 1948, passed as few laws as the current one, records show.
The difference between 1995 and now is that Republicans rebounded in the second year of the 104th Congress in 1996, churning out 245 laws with a Democratic president, including a tax cut package, a minimum wage increase, an overhaul of the nation's welfare system, and requiring law enforcement to disclose where sex offenders live.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/...lls/57060096/1
Last edited by boutons_deux; 12-04-2013 at 02:17 PM.
haven't seen much of "Cooler Girl" since this thread: http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=172108
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
