Conservatives should not support subsidies.
Only for the large amount they will need if hellary wins.
It seems that yes, they do care.
Trump got a big bump in the polls after he read his statement for increasing ethanol subsidies.
Read the following and let us know what you think? Actually, the link norwaypinesavage sent is from Auburn but is about irrigated corn grown on the high dry plains in Texas, a poor place to grow corn anyway. Most corn of course is dry land raised and the article provides some good science-based evidence, not the leftIsts usual attack on private businesses. The following is straight out of the executive summary of the article and is supportive of what I have written.1 A more comprehensive analysis by USDA found a 34% net energy gain,2 rising to 67% after accounting for co- product energy credits.3 The consensus is that dryland production of corn results in a net energy gain of 30-70%, depending on soil productivity, production practices, and distillation technology.
There is no ETOH subsidy now.
Trump will say and promise anything to get elected. He and Sarah Palin make a great team.
I see Bush is your favorite president on your home page.
Many people claim that they hate pork until it is their pork. Pork buys votes.
They drink loads of it.
It really depends. Last year under the farm program, most of the plains states (South Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa) were encouraged to increase their corn base (percentage of crops grown per year). This affects not only subsidies but other farm business as well (like crop insurance). Farm bases are not adjusted every year or even every farm bill, so if ethanol is cut then many farmers are going to be hurt.
It is easy to say ‘conservatives shouldn’t support subsidies’ but reality is much more complicated (and only farmers really understand this - sorry). As a farmer, I am of two minds. I oppose price controls in general, and I object to welfare being part of the farm bill. But I also understand the history of it (subsidies were to help keep farmers afloat and the excess product bought was given to the poor - now it is cash funds not product which I object to).
The other side, is subsidies overall help the larger farms, and some do abuse the system but it does keep smaller farms like my tenants (I no longer drive the tractor but either sharecrop or cash rent the land) going and keeps the monopoly farms from taking over a lot of the family farms.
What happened to butanol?
It was supposed to be much better than ethanol.
As Roy Orbison would say:
ONYLYyyy.........the lonely.
Sheese, meant to say FARMERS!!!
Betcha ton of Iowans saw it for what it is - very obvious pandering.
The subsidy will be around for a long time just like all subsidies. That’s what reps do.....feed its constituents.
I didn’t read the whole article. But as a Texan I certainly don’t support oil subsidies, and while I’m all for a successful oil industry, I wouldn’t base my vote for a presidential candidate based on just that. So much attention goes to Iowa and it seems they hold the corn subsidy up as a bribe to the candidates.
Actual Iowan’s contribute very little to the politicians campaigns in comparison to ADM. That could have some influence on this non story.
Iowans know which side their bread’s buttered on, so of course it matters, to them. That’s why it’s so tough to get rid of subsidies, even relatively conservative voters who benefit are not all that prone to vote themselves into economic pain, even in the short term for long term benefit.
The conservative Iowa voters will probably care mostly about who will pick the best judges, as they know how important that is with so many issues.
What kind of judges would pro-eminent domain Trump pick if he ever became president? It was the LIBERAL justices who voted for the UNconstitutional eminent domain to be used for private property, not just public use. These justices would be the same kind of liberals who would vote for all liberal causes, including abortion.