http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-16/obama-said-to-reject-request-to-ease-corn-based-ethanol-law.html


We are going to run out of corn (due to the drought) in about March, and these bufoons still want to pi$s it away on ethanol.

The insanity from the marxist left-wing radicals is immeasurable.



Change we can believe in ...

First!

Good idea for a thread.

Well, obviously the lack of feed corn will reduce the number of cows, which lowers methane emissions, and slows global warming. You guys just can't grasp the depths of Obama's genius.

Shouldn't the thread be titled QQ II?

I voted for Cletus!

gut;1321739 wrote:Well, obviously the lack of feed corn will reduce the number of cows, which lowers methane emissions, and slows global warming. You guys just can't grasp the depths of Obama's genius.

So did the steaks we had the other night.

Vegans are killing the planet.

Geithner: Lift Debt Limit to Infinity...



Change we can believe in ...

It's those Red State farmers in middle America that want the corn based ethenol the most, although they say there's an envronmental component, as well. I think trading food for fuel is pretty stupid. Brazil's method is a better way. They've got sugar coming out their butts.

If we were doing it with swichgrass or wood scraps it would be more acceptable to me.

MoldyDog;1325423 wrote:It's those Red State farmers in middle America that want the corn based ethenol the most

Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota, and Nebraska produce over half the corn grown in the United States. 3/4 of these states are blue. In 2008 the lone red state (Nebraska) cast some electoral votes with the other three blue states because their state law apportions electoral votes per winning congressional district. These states however have tended to split their representation in the senate.

The corn producing house districts in these states have in the 2012 election voted decisively red in Illinois and Nebraska, split in Iowa, and decisive blue in Minnesota. County to county some of those districts that are blue lean red in geographical area. In most cases in these states that play the highest stakes in the ethanol business its the population centers that tend to shift blue. In other words the centers of business. Right where big corn is bought, sold, and distributed on the open market. Big ethanol is smack dab in the middle of it. Masses of businessmen. Bankers, distributors, manufacturers, accountants, lawyers, insurers, etc... Not to mention government regulators, licensing authorities, etc...

One thing is for certain rural farmers are not voting solely on ethanol subsidies. With everyone telling them the republicans want to cut this and that from the little guy in order to preserve low tax rates for corporate fat cats so they can enjoy a little more wine and brie at the expense of the little guy. The democrats of course just the opposite. Why would they take the chance and go red?

This is an interactive map on how they voted 2012. http://www.politico.com/2012-election/map/#/President/2012/

This map gives one a general view of where the corn producing areas of the country exist by county. One can draw his own conclusions from the maps. I just don't see how the facts line up with the conclusion you have drawn.

MoldyDog;1325423 wrote:I think trading food for fuel is pretty stupid. Brazil's method is a better way. They've got sugar coming out their butts..

You and I are in total agreement here. Corn is a staple. Only a fool burns his excess staple food supplies. A wise man lays it up in stock to balance years that yield low agricultural production. Low yield years in nearly all cases lie outside the control of government.

ccrunner609;1325450 wrote:this is real scary stuff.....these people are ****ing insane

I honestly don't know. It was put in place, I'm guessing, to impose some sort of fiscal responsibility lacking a balanced budget amendment. Obviously it's been kind of a pointless measure, as they just keep voting to increase it (and will). Maybe it does have some value it can still be somewhat of a check on spending, theoretically. But for the most part it just creates opportunity for a lot of pointless posturing and then they kick the can.

For all the hand-wringing over the last debate and the fearsome sequestration mandate to appear serious about the budget, they are just going to punt.

I won't be surprised to see 2 more years of gridlock. Nobody came out of this election with a mandate. Expect the next 2 years to be posturing and finger pointing from both sides to gain control of the House & Senate in 2014.

ccrunner609;1321746 wrote:quality

always

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57552225-38/senate-bill-rewrite-lets-feds-read-your-e-mail-without-warrants/?part=rss&subj=news&tag=title


Ok all you privacy defenders and libertarians, have at it. obama feds and senate dems in the act of stealing your freedom .......................... change we can believe in ...

QuakerOats;1325384 wrote:Geithner: Lift Debt Limit to Infinity...



Change we can believe in ... I will continue to spout the same old bullshhit for another 4 years

Actually, A Debt Cieling is redundant. If the congress passes a spending bill, The money is already appropriated whether we have it or not.

Why should you have a vote to spend what you have already voted to spend.

The debt itself is a whole other debate.

Not sure this is an Obama measure, but what the heck?

http://news.yahoo.com/illinois-may-grant-drivers-licenses-illegal-immigrants-001637595.html

I don't get this at all. Is the U.S. the only country that not only doesn't restrict its borders, but also encourages illegal immigration? This doesn't happen in virtually every other first world country. We don't necessarily have to create a physical border, just make it impossible for an illegal to rent a house/apartment, obtain a cell phone/internet access or even apply for a job. This is how other countries handle illegal immigrants.

Manhattan Buckeye;1326380 wrote:Not sure this is an Obama measure, but what the heck?

http://news.yahoo.com/illinois-may-grant-drivers-licenses-illegal-immigrants-001637595.html

I don't get this at all. Is the U.S. the only country that not only doesn't restrict its borders, but also encourages illegal immigration? This doesn't happen in virtually every other first world country. We don't necessarily have to create a physical border, just make it impossible for an illegal to rent a house/apartment, obtain a cell phone/internet access or even apply for a job. This is how other countries handle illegal immigrants.

Serious question on this topic kind of. How would you personally feel about the U.S. government borrowing money to finance a large, impenetrable border wall along the Mexican border. It seems to me to be an infrastructure keynesian stimulus type project that conservatives could get on board with because it would finally "secure the border."

1. It could be aesthetically pleasant and become a national landmark.

2. It undermines the cause of one-day-illegals-granted amnesty trying to return the southwest back to Mexico

3. It has a lot of bang for the buck because it's a legit infrastructure project and not just digging holes and re-filling them.

4. Cheaper in the long-run than illegal immigrants using government services.

If it's a given that liberal states like Illinois and California will continue to provide incentives to illegals, could you get on board with something like this?

An impenetrable wall? Really? You don't think illegals would still find a way under, over, and yes - thru - the wall?

What Manhatten is saying is the way other countries handle it is they just make it impossible for illegals to live there. Seems pretty damn simple to me, and doesn't require some multi-trillion down Keynesian erection.

gut;1326482 wrote:An impenetrable wall? Really? You don't think illegals would still find a way under, over, and yes - thru - the wall?

What Manhatten is saying is the way other countries handle it is they just make it impossible for illegals to live there. Seems pretty damn simple to me, and doesn't require some multi-trillion down Keynesian erection.

1. Well when (R) Duncan Hunter was proposing this idea they estimated that a state of the art border wall with lights and cameras and barriers oh my would cost about $12-14 billion...not too bad borrowed at 1.5% interest. Certainly not a multi-trillion keynesian erection...

2. We chose to build a really lame fence over a lot of it anyways...

3. You, being an alleged rational-pragmatist after all, can surely see a problem with your solution "make it impossible for illegals to live here" when there are liberal states exercising their police powers in ways that make it not only possible but comfortable for illegals, no? Seems unlikely (and a bit hypocritical i.e. state's rights and all) for conservative types to support some kind of federal law (and get it passed) that would eradicate these accommodative uses of state police power.

We have a federal system and we clearly have asymmetric approaches to illegal immigrants going on at the state level that complicate any attempt to make it "impossible" for them to live here...wouldn't you agree?

5. Sure it will work out for Republican voters to keep going with "self-deport" :laugh:

$12-$14B to build an impenetrable wall spanning hundreds of miles? Really? Smells like one of those potential $100B+ budget overruns that aren't particularly uncommon (cough cough bullet train cough cough)

The rest of your points are fair. Although with regard to the liberal states I say it's their problem. Cut-off federal funding for illegals and let the states deal with it. CA is already well on its way to a Greece-type meltdown.

A wall as infrastructure? If you want a 'keynesian type stimulus' project, there are plenty of aging areas in our cities that could use bridges repaired, water supply infrastructure upgrades etc.etc.

Another thing we could do would be to build a super modern oil pipeline to transport oil from Canada to our refineries. Think how many jobs that would create!

Oh, wait......

Maybe we extend the wall along the coastline so it also serves as a hurricane barrier? :thumbup:

I mean, these walls are damn cheap, apparently. Rather than trillions in economically damaging cap & trade taxes, let's just spend a few hundred billion to raise the coastlines and wall-off the ocean.

HitsRus;1326565 wrote:A wall as infrastructure? If you want a 'keynesian type stimulus' project, there are plenty of aging areas in our cities that could use bridges repaired, water supply infrastructure upgrades etc.etc.

Another thing we could do would be to build a super modern oil pipeline to transport oil from Canada to our refineries. Think how many jobs that would create!

Oh, wait......

These are all great ideas!

gut;1326573 wrote:Maybe we extend the wall along the coastline so it also serves as a hurricane barrier? :thumbup:

I mean, these walls are damn cheap, apparently. Rather than trillions in economically damaging cap & trade taxes, let's just spend a few hundred billion to raise the coastlines and wall-off the ocean.

Really not that outrageous as over the next century something like this is going to have to happen as the Earth warms and sea level rises. Would be much better than just handing out food stamps methinks

BoatShoes;1326616 wrote:Really not that outrageous as over the next century something like this is going to have to happen as the Earth warms and sea level rises. Would be much better than just handing out food stamps methinks

If and when that does come to pass, maybe simply rebuilding further inland makes more economic sense.

Disgusted with the Obama Administration:
Replies: 4,289 Views: 91,029
What an example of a conversation in an echo chamber. Of course the participants get fooled into thinking they are a majority until the people speak through the vote.

^^^that may be one of the strangest posts I've seen on here. What are you trying to say?


here is a government website dedicated to'tracking' the money spent on the 'stimulus'..the Recovery Act.

http://www.recovery.gov/Transparency/fundingoverview/Pages/fundingbreakdown.aspx#ContractsGrantsLoans

While we have been running trillion dollar deficits...in the 3 1/2 years since the beginning of the 'stimulus' about $840 billion has been allocated/ distributed. It has been apparently allocated equally between 1)"Tax benefits" 2) "contracts loans and grants" and 3) "entitlements". Near as I can ascertain...about $32B has been spent on infrastructure projects.