Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

US Senate votes to end U.S. ethanol incentives
Retuers ^ | 16 June 2011

Posted on 06/16/2011 11:51:14 AM PDT by Fractal Trader

The U.S. Senate voted on Thursday to end the 45-cent-a-gallon subsidy the government gives refiners and the 54-cent-per-gallon tariff on imported ethanol from Brazil and other countries.

The proposal to end the ethanol incentives passed 73 to 27, and came in the form of an amendment that was tacked onto an underlying economic development bill that is not expected to pass the Senate.

The White House said it was against a "straight repeal" of the federal incentives for ethanol.

(Excerpt) Read more at uk.reuters.com ...


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: ethanol; ethanolsubsidies
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-30 next last
Woo, hoo, 73-27!

Is it possible that both Republicans and Democrats could display a sense of reasonableness?

1 posted on 06/16/2011 11:51:18 AM PDT by Fractal Trader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Fractal Trader

With those numbers they could override a veto from the Kenyan.


2 posted on 06/16/2011 11:53:15 AM PDT by quantim (Victory is not relative, it is absolute.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: quantim

“tacked onto an underlying economic development bill that is not expected to pass the Senate.”

bet most of those same 72 who voted for the bill will vote against the whole bill.

“I was for it before I was against it” comes to mind.


3 posted on 06/16/2011 11:54:59 AM PDT by cableguymn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Fractal Trader

“and came in the form of an amendment that was tacked onto an underlying economic development bill that is not expected to pass the Senate.”


4 posted on 06/16/2011 11:55:39 AM PDT by Dr. Bogus Pachysandra ( Ya can't pick up a turd by the clean end!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fractal Trader

Ending the ethanol subsidy without removing the requirement for it being in gasoline, is only going to make the cost at the pump go up.


5 posted on 06/16/2011 11:57:03 AM PDT by wolfman23601
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wolfman23601
Ending the ethanol subsidy without removing the requirement for it being in gasoline, is only going to make the cost at the pump go up.

This.
6 posted on 06/16/2011 12:00:38 PM PDT by thoolou ("I may have invented it, but Bill made it famous." - David Bradley, inventor of Ctrl-Alt-Del)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Fractal Trader

Who in their right mind would burn their own food as fuel?


7 posted on 06/16/2011 12:02:04 PM PDT by 240B (he is doing everything he said he wouldn't and not doing what he said he would)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fractal Trader
Again, let me be crystal clear,

ETHANOL SUCKS!

8 posted on 06/16/2011 12:07:03 PM PDT by Obadiah (If you don't believe you can win, there is no point in getting out of bed at the end of the day.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fractal Trader

Nothing more than a rope a dope vote, attach it to the debt ceiling and see how the bastards vote.


9 posted on 06/16/2011 12:10:44 PM PDT by org.whodat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fractal Trader

We need to end ALL government subsidies!


10 posted on 06/16/2011 12:12:00 PM PDT by martinidon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fractal Trader

!!Misleading Reuters Headline Alert!!


11 posted on 06/16/2011 12:15:48 PM PDT by Repeal The 17th (Proud to be a (small) monthly donor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thoolou

It removed the tariff as well. So, we’d be getting ethanol from Brazil.

Does it remove the sugar tariff, or just the ethanol tariff.

If the sugar tariff is removed, we can welcome back sugar and say goodbye to hfcs.


12 posted on 06/16/2011 12:17:32 PM PDT by truthfreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: cableguymn

Seems it might be intended to be a signal about the future. If this plays well, the strength of the proposal on its own will solidify and further attempts may be expected. Let’s not kill the messenger on this one. Applaud that the effort is being made and encourage the mice in the Senate to be more leonine on it.


13 posted on 06/16/2011 12:20:18 PM PDT by BelegStrongbow (St. Joseph, patron of fathers, pray for us!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Repeal The 17th

What is the point of passing an amendment to a bill not expected to pass other than to fool the public that you are for something that you are really against. They talk out of both sides of their mouths at the same time.

Will we ever get honesty in government?


14 posted on 06/16/2011 12:23:59 PM PDT by Okieshooter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Obadiah
Ethanol belongs in booze not gas tanks.
15 posted on 06/16/2011 12:24:54 PM PDT by JPG (Hey, LSM, how are those emails workin' out for ya?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Fractal Trader; SpinnerWebb
came in the form of an amendment that was tacked onto an underlying economic development bill that is not expected to pass the Senate

More posturing from the ruling class ... "I'm against the subsidy so I made a symbolic (french for bullsh!t) gesture that actually does nothing about the problem."

Yet another pantload from those who know what's best for us.

16 posted on 06/16/2011 12:25:54 PM PDT by tx_eggman (Liberalism is only possible in that moment when a man chooses Barabas over Christ.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Okieshooter

“...Will we ever get honesty in government?..”
-
We never had it, and we never will.


17 posted on 06/16/2011 12:33:40 PM PDT by Repeal The 17th (Proud to be a (small) monthly donor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Fractal Trader

Well this vote may be meaningless as far as doing anything, but it does suggest that at least 71 Senators are worried enough about the unpopularity of government mandated ethanol in our gas to stage a symbolic vote.

It looks as if they are feeling the pressure. We need to keep pushing, and talking to our friends about it.


18 posted on 06/16/2011 12:35:07 PM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tx_eggman

My pants are full. It is running down into my socks.


19 posted on 06/16/2011 12:39:32 PM PDT by SpinnerWebb (In 2012 you will awaken from your HOPEnosis and have no recollection of this... "Constitution")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Fractal Trader

The only advantage I ever saw in putting ethanol in gasolin is that it forced muslims to buy and use alcohol and carry it around with them; a technical violation of their “religion”. Burning ones food for fuel is otherwise just stupid when there is so much oil in our own nation.


20 posted on 06/16/2011 12:53:14 PM PDT by muir_redwoods (Somewhere in Kenya, a village is missing an idiot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-30 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson