Posted on 12/17/2015 11:43:19 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
The fortunes of the wonder fuel that promised to help clean the environment, secure America and save small family farms have steadily dwindled as environmentalists, food advocates and auto enthusiasts sour on its promise. Now that fuel, corn-based ethanol, finds itself threatened with a defection that was once unthinkable: Iowa voters.
The electorate here in the early voting state often defined by its vast expanses of corn has long demanded that candidates pledge allegiance to government production mandates for millions of gallons of ethanol, the homegrown product. But as the 2016 White House hopefuls traverse the state, they are seeing that Iowans have grown strikingly ambivalent....
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Iowa Poll: Likely caucusgoers favor ethanol mandate
Support for the mandate is lower among likely Republican caucusgoers, but still a solid majority, at 61 percent. Thirty-four percent oppose it, and 5 percent aren’t sure.
Donald Trump is still fighting WW II. He just attacked Ted Cruz over ethanol subsidies. The Trump has still not gotten the memo.
That is the conservative free market way.
Gutsy. Perfect.
Trump will win Iowa. Period.
Now that fuel, corn-based ethanol, finds itself threatened with a defection that was once unthinkable: Iowa voters.If accurate, the timing has a twinkle of the divine to it.
Sorry, Smokey -
Both you and the LA Crimes reporter have it wrong.
1. There have been three polls out after the stale Monmouth, out on December 7th, with Trump on top over Cruz in Iowa. To then state, on December 17th, that Cruz is “now polling strongest in Iowa” is flat-out inaccurate.
2. Trump never mentioned the word “subsidies”.
You just went up in Smoke, Smokey.
I’ve noticed that I get much better mileage with 100% gas than I do with any ethanol blend.
It’s not saving gas because I’m burning more in my car than before.
Back to all gas....
“I get much better mileage with 100% gas”........
Not to leave out the fact that 100% gas is better for your car/truck and small engines. The only benefit is that ethanol is less expensive Over the long run that may prove to be wrong.
The ethanol-corn subsidy is SOOO wrong. It has the net effect of tying the price of food grains to the world price of substitute-able hydrocarbons from crude oil. The “ethanol mandate” for motor vehicle fuels means that a gasoline distributor must be willing to pay whatever the price is for enough ethanol he needs to blend with the amount of gasoline the public needs.
Then prices for farm land, farm equipment and supplies is bid up by higher prices that come from the government subsidy. Farmers go in to debt to expand but government will eventually get exhausted by the burden of the subsidy expense. The subsidy will get cut, but the debt remains. When farm land prices fall, the loan collateral covenants will be breached and the loan foreclosed on.
We are still debating about the net environmental benefit. All for the vain Utopian concept of “sustainability”.
It’s less expensive per gallon, but in the long run, since I use more of it, it is not cost effective for me.
The memo Trump works from is one that his supporters here don't want to read.
Exactly.
ethanol ruins small engines, finally we can buy ethanol free. Why not just stop adding it altogether?
Lol....that’s been happening to a lot of claims, today.
At least they’re showing us what they fear.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.