Posted on 01/31/2016 11:19:49 AM PST by justlittleoleme
Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz explains why he opposes farm subsidies as well as biofuel mandates.
See #40
“The issue is national security. A self sufficient USA needs X gallons of liquid fuel per year produced within our borders by us. Until we have that we are vulnerable to the hatred of nations that have us over a “barrelâ€.
There is no problem with ethanol that cannot be solved and most already are.”
that is ridiculous. If you were really interested in national security, then you should be lobbying against the demonization of coal and nuclear. Those are far, far better than ethanol, and a lot, lot cheaper for energy security, and are plentiful for us in this country.
Ethanol jus rewards bad business practices in a non-commercial enterprise.
I do argue for coal and nuke. ALL forms combine to make a total amount of liquid fuel needed.
AND it is the best octane booster.
AND electric cars still suck
This is another reason why I hope when the dust settles we'll have a Trump/Cruz ticket. Ted has a bright future, but I'm not convinced it's his time just yet. Fortunately he's still very young as far as presidential politics goes.
I don’t think Cruz would ever agree to VP. Not under a Liberal.
This country needs Cruz; now.
From a Cruz guy, thanks for a fair-minded and encouraging contribution.
Same with me. This issue alone should be the definitive proof that Cruz is the man. What could he possibly gain by taking an anti-ethanol-subsidy position in Iowa, other than principled leadership?
Let’s agree on an energy supply that does NOT entail fat subsidies then, including ethanol to see if it can compete in the marketplace.
Otherwise, it is not worth it.
Same pro-pork b.s., different plate.
and as far an ethanol being an octane booster, that dog just can’t fly.
http://www.fuel-testers.com/gasoline_octane_and_ethanol_E10.html
Then why subsidize McDonnell Douglas?
I do not understand your point. Please explain.
are you trying to equate energy subsidies with defense industry contracting by the govt?
Ethanol has an octane rating of 113. It is plentiful. It is the industry’s favorite and easiest way to increase octane
Yes. They should finance their own research costs, design costs, test costs, production costs and put it for sale on the market. Then they should compete with other companies doing the same thing. Those contracts carrying their every cost is a subsidized manufacturer. They have little to no exposure at all. The energy industry should have it so good.
Free market or not free market. Not.
National security trumps doctrinaire conservatism here. And it should on our next fighter jet. But energy independence is just as important a national security issue.
You DO know that every poll disagrees with you, don't you? Polls consistently show that Trump has one of the lowest, if not THE lowest chance of beating Hillary of anyone in the race.
It's no different than paying McDonnell Douglas to build aircraft for the military.
There is absolutely no comparison. If the government was paying the ethanol producers to supply ethanol to the military, THAT would be the same.
I do not disagree with what you are saying, but there is no reason to subsidize energy production such as ethanol if alternatives exist that are not subsidized.
You seem to want subsidies for some unwarranted reason.
I believe this country is much better off not to rely on the federal tit.
Then how do you explain the fact that he submitted legislation to eliminate the mandate long before he started running for president? Is it so hard for you to accept that someone could actually believe in the Constitution and act on that belief, regardless of the political cost?
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.