Obama tells US farmers he backs ethanol mandate

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Bullshit! Government buying power creates markets that aren't there.

That's exactly the problem, Moonbeam.

The free market where customers decide what products and services succeed or fail is the most efficient.

When the government is restrained and the people are powerful, we will succeed.

When the people are restrained and the government is powerful, we will fail.

Yup that moon thingi was a fucking failure. There was no market to go to the moon. A fool is somebody who denies what is stuck right up in his face, the glaringly obvious. You should become a Buddhist since you love to chant mantras.

What is more relevant here, Moonbeam, is the failure of Ethanol as a substitute for oil.

 

[MiniDoom]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Use food to power our cars, good idea.

well, I use food to power my bike. 2500 miles to a gallon, or at least the energy equivalent to 1 gallon of gasoline. 😛

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
I'd hope Obama's main focus is cellulosic-based ethanol, cornstarch-based ethanol is beyond stupid. The $0.51/gal tax credit for cornstarch-based ethanol is supposed to expire here in the next few years (end of 2010, I believe). Congress has also implemented a $1.01/gal subsidy for cellulosic-based ethanol.

I gather that his position is that it is transitional, that it is not a long term good solution or the answer to energy independence. Rural America suffers from a lack of opportunity and jobs and corn ethanol is a partial fix for some. He comes from a corn state and would not be a senator there were he opposed to corn in every aspect. Politics is the art of the possible. Obama is intelligent and will deal with truth when he has the political freedom to do so. He needs, first to be elected, and then to have a Democratic congress that will support him. Then and only then can he act fully against the interests of corn.

:laugh:

That is hilarious when you think about. All hail the good dictator, all he needs is complete power for him to be good to you!

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Use food to power our cars, good idea.

Intellectually dishonest. Non-food cellulosic materials can be used to produce ethanol

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
I'd hope Obama's main focus is cellulosic-based ethanol, cornstarch-based ethanol is beyond stupid. The $0.51/gal tax credit for cornstarch-based ethanol is supposed to expire here in the next few years (end of 2010, I believe). Congress has also implemented a $1.01/gal subsidy for cellulosic-based ethanol.

I gather that his position is that it is transitional, that it is not a long term good solution or the answer to energy independence. Rural America suffers from a lack of opportunity and jobs and corn ethanol is a partial fix for some. He comes from a corn state and would not be a senator there were he opposed to corn in every aspect. Politics is the art of the possible. Obama is intelligent and will deal with truth when he has the political freedom to do so. He needs, first to be elected, and then to have a Democratic congress that will support him. Then and only then can he act fully against the interests of corn.

:laugh:

That is hilarious when you think about. All hail the good dictator, all he needs is complete power for him to be good to you!

Fucking sounds like a sith lord. Lie, pander to everyone to get in power then exercise your power for the people's own good. DO ANYTHING TO GET ELECTED THEN I PROMISE WE WILL BE IN UTOPIA. What is he? Stalin?

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Use food to power our cars, good idea.

Hm, food can theoretically be grown domestically and is a renewable resource, versus oil, of which there is a finite amount and we haven't got much of. You're right, we should stick with oil.
Never mind switchgrass and other more efficient methods of generating ethanol.
So, just how short-sighted ARE you?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
I'd hope Obama's main focus is cellulosic-based ethanol, cornstarch-based ethanol is beyond stupid. The $0.51/gal tax credit for cornstarch-based ethanol is supposed to expire here in the next few years (end of 2010, I believe). Congress has also implemented a $1.01/gal subsidy for cellulosic-based ethanol.

I gather that his position is that it is transitional, that it is not a long term good solution or the answer to energy independence. Rural America suffers from a lack of opportunity and jobs and corn ethanol is a partial fix for some. He comes from a corn state and would not be a senator there were he opposed to corn in every aspect. Politics is the art of the possible. Obama is intelligent and will deal with truth when he has the political freedom to do so. He needs, first to be elected, and then to have a Democratic congress that will support him. Then and only then can he act fully against the interests of corn.

:laugh:

That is hilarious when you think about. All hail the good dictator, all he needs is complete power for him to be good to you!

What is halarious is that you didn't mention we just gave Bush that chance and he turned out to be a moronic disaster, as well as having a strong propensity to be a dictator.

Obama is not a moron and may not be a disaster. It couldn't be more obvious to me that the difference between him and Bush are staggering. Of course you can't let go of all the cabbage you've collected and worship in the form of biased opinions. You can't see beyond the end of your nose.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
I'd hope Obama's main focus is cellulosic-based ethanol, cornstarch-based ethanol is beyond stupid. The $0.51/gal tax credit for cornstarch-based ethanol is supposed to expire here in the next few years (end of 2010, I believe). Congress has also implemented a $1.01/gal subsidy for cellulosic-based ethanol.

I gather that his position is that it is transitional, that it is not a long term good solution or the answer to energy independence. Rural America suffers from a lack of opportunity and jobs and corn ethanol is a partial fix for some. He comes from a corn state and would not be a senator there were he opposed to corn in every aspect. Politics is the art of the possible. Obama is intelligent and will deal with truth when he has the political freedom to do so. He needs, first to be elected, and then to have a Democratic congress that will support him. Then and only then can he act fully against the interests of corn.

:laugh:

That is hilarious when you think about. All hail the good dictator, all he needs is complete power for him to be good to you!

Fucking sounds like a sith lord. Lie, pander to everyone to get in power then exercise your power for the people's own good. DO ANYTHING TO GET ELECTED THEN I PROMISE WE WILL BE IN UTOPIA. What is he? Stalin?

The funny part is that you can't see any irony here at all.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Bullshit! Government buying power creates markets that aren't there.

That's exactly the problem, Moonbeam.

The free market where customers decide what products and services succeed or fail is the most efficient.

When the government is restrained and the people are powerful, we will succeed.

When the people are restrained and the government is powerful, we will fail.

Yup that moon thingi was a fucking failure. There was no market to go to the moon. A fool is somebody who denies what is stuck right up in his face, the glaringly obvious. You should become a Buddhist since you love to chant mantras.

What is more relevant here, Moonbeam, is the failure of Ethanol as a substitute for oil.

Obama agrees, corn is transitional and not a long term answer. Remember when we had corn coming out of our ears (Oh puny) and farmers earning nothing? A little tweak and man oh man them poor damn farmers is rich. Hee Haw!

 

[Budmantom]

Obama is in the pocket of big corn.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: bamacre
The market should decide which forms of energy should succeed or fail, not the government. This is absurd.

The market tried, they failed with oil, but they want to continue to milk us dry until they are absolutely forced to switch. Next...

How has the market failed with oil? It is still cheaper than alternative energy and consumed by the vast majority of the people within our economy.

To me, the market has failed in this situation because they abused their freedom and privileges too much. Do we really need to recap all of the dirty crap Big Oil has pulled on us over the years? They had too much money, power, and freedom and they abused it so now it looks like some it might be taken away. That's what happens when you abuse your freedom.

Beyond that, I believe that the use of oil is very efficient and I wish it was a renewable resource, produced zero emissions, and is a dime a dozen for the barrels but just isn't the case nor is that what I expect from our next resource but something closer is certainly doable. We can't rely on oil forever and if the free market gets its way then they will continue to rely on it until the suffering is so unbearable that they are forced away from it by someone else or their profits are no longer coming in by the truckloads. Until then, they will be milking us for every penny. I see no reason why we should allow that to happen when we can pressure them to make changes sooner then later.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
I'd hope Obama's main focus is cellulosic-based ethanol, cornstarch-based ethanol is beyond stupid. The $0.51/gal tax credit for cornstarch-based ethanol is supposed to expire here in the next few years (end of 2010, I believe). Congress has also implemented a $1.01/gal subsidy for cellulosic-based ethanol.

I gather that his position is that it is transitional, that it is not a long term good solution or the answer to energy independence. Rural America suffers from a lack of opportunity and jobs and corn ethanol is a partial fix for some. He comes from a corn state and would not be a senator there were he opposed to corn in every aspect. Politics is the art of the possible. Obama is intelligent and will deal with truth when he has the political freedom to do so. He needs, first to be elected, and then to have a Democratic congress that will support him. Then and only then can he act fully against the interests of corn.

:laugh:

That is hilarious when you think about. All hail the good dictator, all he needs is complete power for him to be good to you!

Fucking sounds like a sith lord. Lie, pander to everyone to get in power then exercise your power for the people's own good. DO ANYTHING TO GET ELECTED THEN I PROMISE WE WILL BE IN UTOPIA. What is he? Stalin?

The funny part is that you can't see any irony here at all.

Don't expect imbeciles to see their own favorites, HAVE, IF THEY ARE CANDIDATES IN AN ELECTION, done exactly the same themselves. McSame has a long long and illustrious record of flip flops and pandering, his latest being running on experience and nominating the dog catcher to be President when he dies in office.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
I'd hope Obama's main focus is cellulosic-based ethanol, cornstarch-based ethanol is beyond stupid. The $0.51/gal tax credit for cornstarch-based ethanol is supposed to expire here in the next few years (end of 2010, I believe). Congress has also implemented a $1.01/gal subsidy for cellulosic-based ethanol.

I gather that his position is that it is transitional, that it is not a long term good solution or the answer to energy independence. Rural America suffers from a lack of opportunity and jobs and corn ethanol is a partial fix for some. He comes from a corn state and would not be a senator there were he opposed to corn in every aspect. Politics is the art of the possible. Obama is intelligent and will deal with truth when he has the political freedom to do so. He needs, first to be elected, and then to have a Democratic congress that will support him. Then and only then can he act fully against the interests of corn.

:laugh:

That is hilarious when you think about. All hail the good dictator, all he needs is complete power for him to be good to you!

What is halarious is that you didn't mention we just gave Bush that chance and he turned out to be a moronic disaster, as well as having a strong propensity to be a dictator.

Obama is not a moron and may not be a disaster. It couldn't be more obvious to me that the difference between him and Bush are staggering. Of course you can't let go of all the cabbage you've collected and worship in the form of biased opinions. You can't see beyond the end of your nose.

Well no shit sherlock to the bolded. So in your infinite wisdom after watching what history has shown us and what Bush did with his power. You demand we give this power to another. Ok comrade!

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Budmantom
Obama is in the pocket of big corn.

McSame is in the pocket of fundamentalist psychopaths who believe with all their lack of intelligence that the Bible is the one and only, of the millions of only absolute truth, the real one and not a part of a deeper truth that all religions, unbeknownst to their superficial believers, allude to.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: bamacre
The market should decide which forms of energy should succeed or fail, not the government. This is absurd.

The market tried, they failed with oil, but they want to continue to milk us dry until they are absolutely forced to switch. Next...

How has the market failed with oil? It is still cheaper than alternative energy and consumed by the vast majority of the people within our economy.

To me, the market has failed in this situation because they abused their freedom and privileges too much. Do we really need to recap all of the dirty crap Big Oil has pulled on us over the years? They had too much money, power, and freedom and they abused it so now it looks like some it might be taken away. That's what happens when you abuse your freedom.

I am sure you felt this same way when Oil was going for 8 bucks a barrel in 1997 and gas was 69 cents right? :roll: How noble of you to ride their ass on low prices but when the world market turns it is time to yank their freedom! They are clearly abusing us!

The only case for abuse are the speculators who work the system due to such a low margin between world demand and supply.

Beyond that, I believe that the use of oil is very efficient and I wish it was a renewable resource, produced zero emissions, and is a dime a dozen for the barrels but just isn't the case nor is that what I expect from our next resource but something closer is certainly doable. We can't rely on oil forever and if the free market gets its way then they will continue to rely on it until the suffering is so unbearable that they are forced away from it by someone else or their profits are no longer coming in by the truckloads. Until then, they will be milking us for every penny. I see no reason why we should allow that to happen when we can pressure them to make changes sooner then later.

If a free market gets its way we will ride it until it costs more than alternative sources of energy. In the meantime providing the vast majority of its consumers with a higher standard of living.

What you propose is allowing a select few milk us for billions in govt handouts for a product we wont use. At least with oil when you pay at the pump, you recieve something in return.

Free markets work, it is just people dont like the outcome all the time.

 

[alphatarget1]

That's real change!

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: bamacre
The market should decide which forms of energy should succeed or fail, not the government. This is absurd.

The market tried, they failed with oil, but they want to continue to milk us dry until they are absolutely forced to switch. Next...

How has the market failed with oil? It is still cheaper than alternative energy and consumed by the vast majority of the people within our economy.

To me, the market has failed in this situation because they abused their freedom and privileges too much. Do we really need to recap all of the dirty crap Big Oil has pulled on us over the years? They had too much money, power, and freedom and they abused it so now it looks like some it might be taken away. That's what happens when you abuse your freedom.

Beyond that, I believe that the use of oil is very efficient and I wish it was a renewable resource, produced zero emissions, and is a dime a dozen for the barrels but just isn't the case nor is that what I expect from our next resource but something closer is certainly doable. We can't rely on oil forever and if the free market gets its way then they will continue to rely on it until the suffering is so unbearable that they are forced away from it by someone else or their profits are no longer coming in by the truckloads. Until then, they will be milking us for every penny. I see no reason why we should allow that to happen when we can pressure them to make changes sooner then later.

Milking us by offering a cheap product to power our homes and our cars at a minimal profit margin.

I guess you'd rather be milked twice as hard by Obama and his corn farming lobby.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Genx87
If a free market gets its way we will ride it until it costs more than alternative sources of energy. In the meantime providing the vast majority of its consumers with a higher standard of living.

What you propose is allowing a select few milk us for billions in govt handouts for a product we wont use. At least with oil when you pay at the pump, you recieve something in return.

Free markets work, it is just people dont like the outcome all the time.

Free markets do work, but they have their weaknesses too which very often centers around abuse of the freedoms we allow them to have. We allow the loopholes and if they exploit them too much then the government steps in before things get way out of hand. Complete government control of such things is stupid, but so is complete free market control. We need a balance and I do like the kind of balance that Obama has proposed to me. You may not like it and that's fine. Your vote is as powerful as mine.

Keep in mind that no where amongst any of my posts have I stated that I am in complete support of ethanol. I have opted to omit a detailed opinion on that matter, but let's just say that I am not exactly in love with the idea. That's ok though because Obama is not limiting himself to that option by any means. That is just what the Repubs and Libertarians want to believe.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Genx87
If a free market gets its way we will ride it until it costs more than alternative sources of energy. In the meantime providing the vast majority of its consumers with a higher standard of living.

What you propose is allowing a select few milk us for billions in govt handouts for a product we wont use. At least with oil when you pay at the pump, you recieve something in return.

Free markets work, it is just people dont like the outcome all the time.

Free markets do work, but they have their weaknesses too which very often centers around abuse of the freedoms we allow them to have. We allow the loopholes and if they exploit them too much then the government steps in before things get way out of hand. Complete government control of such things is stupid, but so is complete free market control. We need a balance and I do like the kind of balance that Obama has proposed to me. You may not like it and that's fine. Your vote is as powerful as mine.

Keep in mind that no where amongst any of my posts have I stated that I am in complete support of ethanol. I have opted to omit a detailed opinion on that matter, but let's just say that I am not exactly in love with the idea. That's ok though because Obama is not limiting himself to that option by any means. That is just what the Repubs and Libertarians want to believe.

Sure they do which requires a govt regulating body to ensure the markets are truely free. But you didnt sound like you supported govt regulation on cracking down any abuse as much as you sounded like it was time for govt to reign in big oil for the sake they are making profits.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Genx87
If a free market gets its way we will ride it until it costs more than alternative sources of energy. In the meantime providing the vast majority of its consumers with a higher standard of living.

What you propose is allowing a select few milk us for billions in govt handouts for a product we wont use. At least with oil when you pay at the pump, you recieve something in return.

Free markets work, it is just people dont like the outcome all the time.

Free markets do work, but they have their weaknesses too which very often centers around abuse of the freedoms we allow them to have. We allow the loopholes and if they exploit them too much then the government steps in before things get way out of hand. Complete government control of such things is stupid, but so is complete free market control. We need a balance and I do like the kind of balance that Obama has proposed to me. You may not like it and that's fine. Your vote is as powerful as mine.

Keep in mind that no where amongst any of my posts have I stated that I am in complete support of ethanol. I have opted to omit a detailed opinion on that matter, but let's just say that I am not exactly in love with the idea. That's ok though because Obama is not limiting himself to that option by any means. That is just what the Repubs and Libertarians want to believe.

Sure they do which requires a govt regulating body to ensure the markets are truely free. But you didnt sound like you supported govt regulation on cracking down any abuse as much as you sounded like it was time for govt to reign in big oil for the sake they are making profits.

You assumed far too much then. If you didn't know then you should have asked instead of judging me under false pretense. I have no problems with people being successful in business. I have problems with people who abuse their freedoms, expect to keep those freedoms, and even ask for more.

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: bamacre
The market should decide which forms of energy should succeed or fail, not the government. This is absurd.

The market tried, they failed with oil, but they want to continue to milk us dry until they are absolutely forced to switch. Next...

How has the market failed with oil? It is still cheaper than alternative energy and consumed by the vast majority of the people within our economy.

To me, the market has failed in this situation because they abused their freedom and privileges too much. Do we really need to recap all of the dirty crap Big Oil has pulled on us over the years? They had too much money, power, and freedom and they abused it so now it looks like some it might be taken away. That's what happens when you abuse your freedom.

I am sure you felt this same way when Oil was going for 8 bucks a barrel in 1997 and gas was 69 cents right? :roll: How noble of you to ride their ass on low prices but when the world market turns it is time to yank their freedom! They are clearly abusing us!

The only case for abuse are the speculators who work the system due to such a low margin between world demand and supply.

Beyond that, I believe that the use of oil is very efficient and I wish it was a renewable resource, produced zero emissions, and is a dime a dozen for the barrels but just isn't the case nor is that what I expect from our next resource but something closer is certainly doable. We can't rely on oil forever and if the free market gets its way then they will continue to rely on it until the suffering is so unbearable that they are forced away from it by someone else or their profits are no longer coming in by the truckloads. Until then, they will be milking us for every penny. I see no reason why we should allow that to happen when we can pressure them to make changes sooner then later.

If a free market gets its way we will ride it until it costs more than alternative sources of energy. In the meantime providing the vast majority of its consumers with a higher standard of living.

What you propose is allowing a select few milk us for billions in govt handouts for a product we wont use. At least with oil when you pay at the pump, you recieve something in return.

Free markets work, it is just people dont like the outcome all the time.

Ethanol is already cheaper than gas, or at least it was at $150/bbl crude (now that oil is at $100/bbl and falling, that will surely take some of the wind out of the ethanol sails), yet only two stations in my area offer ethanol blends. Unfortunately it's not as simple as you make it. The transition to any biofuel will be a slow process, because oil is so entrenched in our daily lives. Subsidizing the industry can give it a head start that it wouldn't have in a purely free market system. You can say "so what," but your opinion might change the next time oil spikes to $150 or higher and the local station offers E85 for 1/2 the cost per gallon of gasoline. Oil will only get more expensive as time goes on due to decreased supply, while biofuels will get cheaper as we discover and commercialize more efficient methods of producing them.

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: Lowbean

Originally posted by: Budmantom
Obama is in the pocket of big corn.

McSame is in the pocket of fundamentalist psychopaths who believe with all their lack of intelligence that the Bible is the one and only, of the millions of only absolute truth, the real one and not a part of a deeper truth that all religions, unbeknownst to their superficial believers, allude to.

Where are you from my mathematically challenged friend?

 

[ElFenix]

big oil or big ag. big ag causes more direct harm to the gulf of mexico with its fertilizer induced dead zones than big oil does.

ethanol is cheaper than gas because ethanol contains less energy than gas. afaik it actually costs more to drive the same distance on ethanol than it does on gas. not to mention the giant subsidies that big ag gets because iowa is the first presidential caucus in the country. fuck all these subsidies, fuck iowa and fuck the screwed up nominating process that lets small states hold the big states hostage.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: bamacre
The market should decide which forms of energy should succeed or fail, not the government. This is absurd.

The market tried, they failed with oil, but they want to continue to milk us dry until they are absolutely forced to switch. Next...

How has the market failed with oil? It is still cheaper than alternative energy and consumed by the vast majority of the people within our economy.

To me, the market has failed in this situation because they abused their freedom and privileges too much. Do we really need to recap all of the dirty crap Big Oil has pulled on us over the years? They had too much money, power, and freedom and they abused it so now it looks like some it might be taken away. That's what happens when you abuse your freedom.

I am sure you felt this same way when Oil was going for 8 bucks a barrel in 1997 and gas was 69 cents right? :roll: How noble of you to ride their ass on low prices but when the world market turns it is time to yank their freedom! They are clearly abusing us!

The only case for abuse are the speculators who work the system due to such a low margin between world demand and supply.

Beyond that, I believe that the use of oil is very efficient and I wish it was a renewable resource, produced zero emissions, and is a dime a dozen for the barrels but just isn't the case nor is that what I expect from our next resource but something closer is certainly doable. We can't rely on oil forever and if the free market gets its way then they will continue to rely on it until the suffering is so unbearable that they are forced away from it by someone else or their profits are no longer coming in by the truckloads. Until then, they will be milking us for every penny. I see no reason why we should allow that to happen when we can pressure them to make changes sooner then later.

If a free market gets its way we will ride it until it costs more than alternative sources of energy. In the meantime providing the vast majority of its consumers with a higher standard of living.

What you propose is allowing a select few milk us for billions in govt handouts for a product we wont use. At least with oil when you pay at the pump, you recieve something in return.

Free markets work, it is just people dont like the outcome all the time.

Ethanol is already cheaper than gas, or at least it was at $150/bbl crude (now that oil is at $100/bbl and falling, that will surely take some of the wind out of the ethanol sails), yet only two stations in my area offer ethanol blends. Unfortunately it's not as simple as you make it. The transition to any biofuel will be a slow process, because oil is so entrenched in our daily lives. Subsidizing the industry can give it a head start that it wouldn't have in a purely free market system. You can say "so what," but your opinion might change the next time oil spikes to $150 or higher and the local station offers E85 for 1/2 the cost per gallon of gasoline. Oil will only get more expensive as time goes on due to decreased supply, while biofuels will get cheaper as we discover and commercialize more efficient methods of producing them.

Are you judging this at the pump?

 

[heyheybooboo]

^^^^^

I think he must be including the subsidy in that calculation ....