Posted on 01/06/2016 11:23:15 AM PST by springwater13
SIOUX CENTER - During a bus tour stop in Sioux Center, Iowa last night, Senator Ted Cruz expressed support for the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) through 2022.
Responding to a question from an ethanol investor from Iowa about whether he would allow the landmark energy program to continue through its current expiration in 2022, Sen. Cruz responded by expressing support for the RFS through 2022.
Senator Cruz also expressed passionate support for breaking through the so-called "blendwall." That "blendwall" makes it illegal for ethanol to expand its market penetration, and I intend to eliminate the EPA blendwall to get rid of that barrier, which will enable ethanol to expand in the marketplace to a much larger penetration to sell more ethanol…."
The comments were substantially repeated at another stop in Cherokee, Iowa the same evening. You can listen to audio of the remarks here. and below.
(Excerpt) Read more at americasrenewablefuture.com ...
I will not say he (Cruz) can get more done. By the same token, can Trump get more done? I do not have a fear of the evanglical vote, and that it scares the MSM is what drove both Nixon and Reagan into the White House (albeit, with different outcomes/results)
FYI, Reagan once said, that if he got 70% of what he asked for, he called it a success.
Would. I {as Cruz supporter) and Trump supporters be okay with that?
I think it is an interesting exercise in civics, would you agree?
For the record, I support Cruz, but I would vote ALL nominees not named Clinton or Sanders, or with a “D” behind their name.
I know the retoric gets heated, and I am guilty of the same. Can we all agree that Trump or Cruz would be better than whatever the opposition has to offer?
Not too much to ask....
Of course....I mean, I guess.
I'm just a little gun shy of 'conservatives' saying one thing then doing another once elected.
If “conservatives “ you mean Rinos like McCain, Lindsay Graham, etc..
I agree
Fortunately, I have Raul Labrador as a representative and he’s typically on the right side of things. On the other end of the state is Mike Simpson who’s a republican piece of garbage.
Yeah, I have a similar issue. Pete Olson, our Rep. Spoke at the 4/15/2009 tea party rally, then just voted for this omnibus debacle. This is the man we voted to replace Tom DeLay. I feel your pain (sorry for the Clinton reference) Lol
Donald Trump in Iowa: I Love Ethanol
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/13/donald-trump-iowa-love-ethanol/
True his website says he wants to do away with it but nowhere does it say right now... or next month... next year... all of these programs are on his agenda to close.
He has just given the timeline for this particular program five years, to allow the markets to settle, and get used to the program going out of effect, and how that would affect the markets. Let me ask you if you where an Iowan Corn farmer who was dependent on selling to the ethanol producers to get by, would it be right to remove all of the things propping the market up. Collapsing it and ruining the farmers, ethanol producers, workers and the communities those businesses thrive in, for a principle. No it is much better to announce that it is going away, set a timeline for it to go away, and possibly phase it over that period of time.
Which allows the market to regularize on its own. So many markets are being artificially held down, propped up, expanded, shrunk, and who knows what else. If we get the government out of the way, the markets will eventually normalize, but to do it all at once spells disaster for the economy.
Second the only thing I have against ethanol is that the government has artificially propped up and enlarged the market share. If someone wants to grow THEIR corn, and sell it someone to make ethanol out of it, then it is THEIR choice. Also, if someone wants to BUY that ethanol, to put in THEIR car, then that is also THEIR choice.
I think that is the gist of TED Cruz’s argument, and the words he has said on this issue. Your argument is just taking the general words someone says. Then taking another statement on the same topic, which is a little more specific, and claiming that the general and specific statements disagree. In this case they do not because the general statement is this subsidy needs to end. The specific one, that this subsidy should be ended in the next five years.
Cruz was for a five year phase out all along.I asked you because you said it. Strawman statement doesn't address the question.How long ago was that?
Ask the other people in the Senate who won't vote for it.
I'm pretty patient when I have to correct posters who are "hating" on Cruz.
Well good for you. You have NEVER seen me hate on Cruz. I was with Palin, Cruz and his father and thousands of other supporters that helped Cruz win the senate.
To maintain your credibility you may want to lecture some of those folks.
I don't have a credibility problem but you are expressing yours. It's childish to lecture people over petty annoyances.
Sorry you didn't get the Bush/Trump thing I posted. Go back and read the comment if you want to understand.
Well good for you.
Thank you.
You have NEVER seen me hate on Cruz. I was with Palin, Cruz and his father and thousands of other supporters that helped Cruz win the senate.
Well good for you. I don't "hate on Trump". Those are your words. In fact I have defended him when he has been attacked from the left.
I don't have a credibility problem but you are expressing yours. It's childish to lecture people over petty annoyances.
So you can lecture me over petty annoyances but I can't do it to others?
There's your credibility problem but you don't see it.
No, I never said that. Stop misquoting me, that is dishonest and a leftist debate tactic.
So you can lecture me...
Two sentences isn't a lecture. Look it up now that you have accused me.
My post was an admonition and correction, kinda like this one.
It looks like you not only have a credibility problem, but also a character one.
Geez. How dare I get your silly quote slightly wrong after what, about 24 hours? My point is still similar. I don't go around initiating hate on (any candidate or) "supporters of" any candidate.
And you accuse me of using a dishonest and leftist debating tactic. As if you've gone into my mind and determined that I didn't honestly, slightly mix your silly statement up, from a silly post of yours that is now 24 hours old.
Using your logic, it's you who is being dishonest, or are you delusional.
What I do know is that you are not smart enough to know my intentions.
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.