Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Iowa Voter Confronts Cruz on Farm Subsidies
NBC News ^ | Sun, Jan 31

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.


TOPICS: Front Page News; Politics/Elections; US: Iowa
KEYWORDS: canadian; cruz; ethanol; ineligible; iowa; subsidies
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-86 next last
To: dirtboy

See #40


41 posted on 01/31/2016 2:30:58 PM PST by xzins (Have YOU Donated to the Freep-a-Thon? https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: xzins

“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 “barrel”.

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.


42 posted on 01/31/2016 2:40:48 PM PST by doldrumsforgop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: doldrumsforgop

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


43 posted on 01/31/2016 2:46:41 PM PST by xzins (Have YOU Donated to the Freep-a-Thon? https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: OhioBuckeye
As a Trump supporter I agree. Superb performance under fire. Few politicians could stand toe-to-toe with an angry voter and calmly diffuse the anger and explain a principled position.

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.

44 posted on 01/31/2016 2:48:40 PM PST by AustinBill (consequence is what makes our choices real)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: justlittleoleme
That was wonderful. Ted Cruz actually speaks to people looking them straight in the eye. He explained his feeling on this issue, and the man understood.
45 posted on 01/31/2016 2:51:08 PM PST by annieokie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AustinBill

I don’t think Cruz would ever agree to VP. Not under a Liberal.

This country needs Cruz; now.


46 posted on 01/31/2016 2:52:37 PM PST by OhioBuckeye ("Here sir, the people govern." - Alexander Hamilton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: SteveSCH

From a Cruz guy, thanks for a fair-minded and encouraging contribution.


47 posted on 01/31/2016 2:58:20 PM PST by HoustonSam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: justlittleoleme

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?


48 posted on 01/31/2016 3:01:26 PM PST by HoustonSam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: xzins

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.


49 posted on 01/31/2016 3:23:38 PM PST by doldrumsforgop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Same pro-pork b.s., different plate.


50 posted on 01/31/2016 3:25:13 PM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: xzins

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


51 posted on 01/31/2016 3:27:53 PM PST by doldrumsforgop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: doldrumsforgop

Then why subsidize McDonnell Douglas?


52 posted on 01/31/2016 4:06:40 PM PST by xzins (Have YOU Donated to the Freep-a-Thon? https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: xzins

I do not understand your point. Please explain.

are you trying to equate energy subsidies with defense industry contracting by the govt?


53 posted on 01/31/2016 4:12:13 PM PST by doldrumsforgop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: doldrumsforgop

Ethanol has an octane rating of 113. It is plentiful. It is the industry’s favorite and easiest way to increase octane


54 posted on 01/31/2016 4:20:41 PM PST by xzins (Have YOU Donated to the Freep-a-Thon? https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: doldrumsforgop

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.


55 posted on 01/31/2016 4:29:03 PM PST by xzins (Have YOU Donated to the Freep-a-Thon? https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau
Ummm, Trump is on record as saying that even MORE ethanol should be mandated to be used - Ted has consistently said that the mandate should be eliminated. In what universe is that the same proposal???
56 posted on 01/31/2016 4:31:54 PM PST by CA Conservative (Texan by birth, Californian by circumstance)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: detch
I agree with Cruz on this, but don't agree that he has a better chance of beating Hillary than Donald Trump.

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.

57 posted on 01/31/2016 4:33:46 PM PST by CA Conservative (Texan by birth, Californian by circumstance)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Even if what you say is true, that is not a reason for a federal mandate. If ethanol is as wonderful as you say, it should be able to compete in the market without the Feds requiring it to be used.

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.

58 posted on 01/31/2016 4:37:07 PM PST by CA Conservative (Texan by birth, Californian by circumstance)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: xzins

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.


59 posted on 01/31/2016 4:40:14 PM PST by doldrumsforgop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Rashputin
I believe his "solution" being a five year phase out shows he's always been willing to play ball with that issue so there's a reduced percentage mandated or or even the whole thing left untouched in return for something else

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?

60 posted on 01/31/2016 4:41:25 PM PST by CA Conservative (Texan by birth, Californian by circumstance)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-86 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson