Posted on 12/11/2015 7:08:47 PM PST by springwater13
Billionaire Donald Trump on Friday went on the offensive against U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, putting an end to the most closely watched alliance in the GOP race for the White House.
Speaking in Iowa, Trump launched his first attack on Cruz by zeroing in on the senator's opposition to ethanol standards, an issue dear to Iowan hearts.
"Heâs got to come a long way because heâs right now for the oil," Trump said at a rally in Des Moines. "I understand it. Oil pays him a lot of money. Heâs got to be for oil, right? The oil companies give him a lot of money, but Iâm with you.â
Later in the rally, Trump suggested Cruz's stance on ethanol subsidies could be a stumbling block in the first-in-the-country caucus state, where the senator has been rising in the polls.
"If Ted Cruz is against ethanol, how does he win in Iowa? Because thatâs very anti-Iowa," Trump said.
Trump's criticism of Cruz on ethanol echoes that of America's Renewable Future, an advocacy group in Iowa that has been hammering Cruz for his opposition to the Renewable Fuel Standard. Cruz's campaign has countered that he opposes all energy subsidies, not just those that favor ethanol producers but also ones that benefit the oil industry.
(Excerpt) Read more at texastribune.org ...
I agree...If Cruz dropped out of the race, his support would go to hillary...
Trump's Record on Free-market Issue: (from the Conservative Review)
Trump has a terrible record on free market issues. The only bright spot is the Federal Reserve's quantitative easing, but this glimmer is countermanded by his repeated support for bailing out Wall Street and the auto industry, and increased stimulus spending. Of particular concern is Trump's belief that the government can use eminent domain powers to seize private property in the name of private economic development. This comes as no surprise, given his support for using eminent domain to profit his own company.
Trump supported the Supreme Court’s 2005 decision in Kelo v. City of London, allowing public authorities to seize private land for economic development by private investors; Trump said, “I happen to agree with [the decision] 100 percent.” (National Review) This is no surprise given Trump’s attempt to use eminent domain in his own line of work. (Institute for Justice)
Trump supported President Obama’s 2009 stimulus, saying: “The word stimulus is probably not used in its fullest…you know, certain of the things that were given weren't really stimulus. They were pork, as we call it, or they were gifts to certain people. But overall, I think he's [President Obama] doing very well. You do need stimulus and you do have to keep the banks alive.” (CNN)
Trump supported TARP, saying, "You had to do something to shore up the banks, because ... you would have had a run on every bank." (CNN)
Trump supported the 2008 auto bailout, saying, “I think the government should stand behind them 100 percent. You cannot lose the auto companies. They’re great. They make wonderful products.” He also said that the federal government could “easily save the companies.” (Daily Caller)
Trump criticized the Federal Reserve’s intervention in the debt market, saying quantitative easing creates “phony numbers” that mislead the marketplace and “will not ultimately benefit the economy. The dollar will go down in value and inflation will start rearing its ugly head.” (CNBC)
Donald Trump has a history of using eminent domain to complete business deals. Multiple times Trump has supported the use of government agencies to take possession of homes and businesses for use in his private business plans. Eminent domain seizures are reserved only for public use of property rather than abuse by the government taking property from one individual and giving to another. (Washington Post)
Donald Trump has sought and received crony capitalist tax breaks for his commercial properties in New York. These tax breaks, and even an abatement, force the property taxes of other property owners to rise at the expense of the connected. Special treatment for one business or industry over another with the tax code conflicts with free market principles. (National Review)
In 2009, Trump supported Barack Obama's call for limits on the pay of executives. (CNN)
Truz Control
Cruz is against subsidizing any form of energy. He thinks the free market should decide. Looks like Trump is beholden to the ethanol cartel. Talk about pandering.
Campaign fun. They’re both great regardless.
C'mon liberal leave the conservative alone.
Batman? LOL, Trump is The Joker. He’s trolling everyone.
Regardless what FDRs activist justices wanted everybody to believe about the scope of Congresss Commerce Clause powers (1.8.3), neither constitutionally low-information Trump, Harvard Law School-indoctrinated Cruz, or the low-information citizens of Iowa seem to understand that the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate, tax and spend for intrastate agricultural purposes.
In fact, a previous generation of state sovereignty-respecting justices had clarified this not only in general, but also singling out agriculture as a specific example.
State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphases added]. - Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States. - Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited. None to regulate agricultural production is given, and therefore legislation by Congress for that purpose is forbidden [emphasis added]. - United States v. Butler, 1936.
So Cruz is right to discourage subsidies, not that he or any post-FDR era law school grad can argue specific constitutional problems with subsidies.
And if Iowa farmers are understandably concerned about lost federal subsidies then they can do the following. They can work with their state lawmakers to lead the states to put a stop to unconstitutional federal taxes, taxes that Congress cannot justify under its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers, like the taxes used pay for agricultural subsidies.
so you support ethanol? Are you crazy?
And BTW, our own AMERICAN oil has almost made us indy from Arab oil. OPEC is not even a factor anymore.
oh, nice try.....really nice try....wrong, poor analogy, not true, but nice try. I mean actually, laughable.
....HAH...actually, yes I'm a writer and you just missed MY LITERARY DEVICE......hah, you are so funny when you are so over your head.
SoConPubbie....thanks...
....yeah, that's a funny way of putting it....heck, now Kelo and ethanol subsidies are conservative values on FR.
We all love these cheap A-rab oil prices...But it will only last until domestic oil production is destroyed...Who doesn't know that???
-— it will only last until domestic oil production is destroyed..-—
It will only stall production. The fracking technology genie can’t be put back in the bottle. SA has to know this, so I’m not sure what they’re after.
I don’t think you understand the energy markets, and if you support ethanol, I KNOW you don’t.
He didn't. He answered a question and the fact is that big oil has donated substantially to Cruz. Somewhere he has to highlight differences and this was a pretty mild way to go about it - hardly the "attack" that the GOPe/NRC/Left would love to make it seem like...
Perhaps part of the solution for Cruz is to have more of the everyday People donate. So many have such a wide array of opinions and so few are willing to actually invest in the Nation's future - kind of pathetic when one thinks about it.
Now for a short public service announcement to all on FR:
We need to ensure we don't get another Obama-like America Hater as the next President.
The best way to ensure that is to actively support a candidate as the next President.
I prefer Cruz and my money goes to his campaign, hence the Cruz link. If you like someone else, donate to him/her (find your own link to do it) and if you use FR and don't donate, then please don't complain about the welfare leeches or those who have Obama Phones because, functionally, you are no different than any other FReeloader
PS - If you are one of those who cannot afford even a small donation to FR or a candidate, God Bless and happy FReeping!.....
GO CRUZ!! Keep it up Trump!!
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.