Posted on 01/08/2016 1:57:40 PM PST by Isara
The author made a good point. Cruz will stand up to the special interests. Trump will be McCain, reaching across the isle.
Is Cruz for or against ethanol subsidies today?
We don’t pay for their goodies; it goes into the 16 trillion dollar (plus) debt that we’ve racked up. If politicians were limiting only to that which they take from the people, it’d be us paying for their goodies.
Of course, we do pay for their goodies a second time at the pump, that comes straight from our pocket. And again when we buy some of our food. But food is kind of a wash, as we also benefit from the goodies in lower food prices that use subsidized products.
Corn Subsidies: Red State Welfare
Crony Capitalism aka Communism.
1. There are no ethanol subsidies.
2. Cruz has been steady in his opposition to ethanol mandates for some time now, the last year and a half at least.
3. If you really don’t know this it has to willful ignorance, the information is well published.
ethanol subsidy = white corporate welfare
Shut up peon!
Learn to respect your betters. If Big Corn talks, you listen!
This is exactly why government regulation is always bad. It has the effect of choosing winners and losers in the market, and the winners always exert their clout. If corn growers had an even playing field, there would be no “Big Corn” that controls the market.
As mentioned in related threads, regardless what FDRs anti-state sovereignty justices wanted everybody to believe about the scope of Congresss Commerce Clause powers (1.8.3), not only did a previous generation of state sovereignty-respecting justices clarify that the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate, tax and spend for INTRAstate commerce purposes, but the Court also singled out agricultural production as an example of such commerse that Congress is prohibited from legislatively addressing.
”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.
”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 if the Constitutions Article V state supermajority supports such subsidies then they need to quit sitting on their hands and protect and defend the Constitution like they are supposed to and amend the Constitution to delegate appropriate powers to the fed.
Otherwise, such subsidies remain unconstitutional imo.
That's a stupid question. Cruz has been against ethanol subsidies AND ethanol mandates from the beginning. The only change in his stance was whether to repeal the mandate immediately or phase it out over 5 years. He changed his position to phasing it out to allow the growers time to adjust without going bankrupt.
Trump bought clintoon, Reid, pelosi.. Admitted they returned favors. Why wouldn’t he buy Iowa?
These will be allowed to expire.
We simply cannot afford a political slush fund to enrich ethanol makers and those they bribe.
Phased out? Do crops need years to grow that requires phasing out? Seems the quickly enough shifted to grab the taxpayer $$, they should be able to shift away; especially knowing now his plans for the Presidency (IE: hedge your bets).
I can’t recall ANY govt tax/fee/etc. that was phased-out that didn’t give govt the time to rally and 1) shut it down or 2) propose to keep it going to pay for XYZ
Can you not understand that farmers make long-term investments in equipment, take out loans, etc.? And that it can take time to change from one crop to another? You would rather cause farmers to go bankrupt and lose their farms rather than allow them a couple of years to make an orderly transition to a new business model?
I am becoming more and more persuaded that most Trump supporters want to do nothing more than destroy anyone they disagree with. They are more excited about tearing down than building up. That's why they get so excited when Trump tears people down and insults them - it's not because he is not "politically correct" - it is because they wish they could insult and tear down and destroy people and get away with it like he does.
Why phase out?
Automakers rely on ethanol to legally cheat on CAFE standards, railroads are making a fortune transporting ethanol and DDGS, pork and chicken/egg producers rely on cheap high-protein feed from ethanol, there are balance-of-trade considerations, etc.
Iowa’s going to raise too much corn regardless of ethanol. Marginal corn producers like Texas, Oklahoma and Kentucky will take a bigger hit.
Yes, thanks, I do. Sounds like the same argument RE: ending welfare: “Mommy needs to raise her 8 children, so we HAVE to support them to at LEAST 18”
Farmers took the gamble going on the taxpayer teet. I’d had the same sympathy for ‘students’ taking out loans for gender-studies. They wanted the ‘easy $$’, damn the rest.
Continue farming corn. Repurposing, if possible. But get the TAXPAYER out of taking in the shorts on multiple fronts.
When/if milk gets to $6/gallon, I still have the CHOICE to pay or not; unlike when it’s stolen to begin.
I’ll presume the last point was for the general board, an off-hand personal observation. Else, it’s good to know we have a budding gypsy in our midst (might want to wipe the crystal ball, you know, like, with a cloth).
It might be why, just MAYBE, the (R), let alone ‘conservatives’ (whatever that means at the moment), haven’t even lifted a FINGER to stop the Socialist freight train in the W.H. Let alone reduced govt when THEY had the reigns of the whole of D.C.
As to ‘destroy’? I’m ALL for ‘tearing down’ when it comes to govt intervention, theft, slavery and lost of Freedoms. If Trump would do 1/2 of what he says, I’ll happily support the take-down of big govt.
Balance-of-trade considerations?
No offense, and I’m going to generalize here, I LOVE how (C) throw the Constitution to the wind when it’s their ox being gored.
Regardless of the down-wind kick-up, all build up around the ethanol, it is legal or it’s illegal; it is voluntary charity or it is theft.
If this thread were about PP, boy, that’s cut and dry (and rightly so). Switch it to Iowa, ethanol pandering, the ‘poor farmers’, well, we gotta split some hairs.
IMO, as others have posted, ‘our people’ are as just as afraid of true Freedom and free markets; they just talk a good game.
At least the Left is truthful; they come out and say, ‘You’ll be children of the govt’. (R)/(C) say, ‘We need smaller govt (IE: you’re responsible for your own actions)!’, then mumble, ‘...unless you’re too big to fail, a farmer, student, have hang-nails, etc., etc., etc.’.
“We simply cannot afford a political slush fund to enrich ethanol makers and those they bribe.”
‘We’? The politicians have *NEVER* had a problem using the taxpayer ‘slush fund’. $120T+ and growing for the last ~100 yrs.
Let’s try a thought exercise, which one will ‘win out’ 1st:
- taxpayers, whom support, by theft of property and paying more during purchase/repair, to subsidize a political group
- politicians, whom buy votes using the above and enrich themselves with the process.
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.