Holy **** ... Congress did something right for once.

Here's the Republicans voting to KEEP the subsidies:

Blunt (R-MO), Nay
Chambliss (R-GA), Nay
Coats (R-IN), Nay
Cochran (R-MS), Nay
Grassley (R-IA), Nay
Hoeven (R-ND), Nay
Johanns (R-NE), Nay
Lugar (R-IN), Nay
Moran (R-KS), Nay
Portman (R-OH), Nay
Roberts (R-KS), Nay
Thune (R-SD), Nay
Wicker (R-MS), Nay

Chambliss wins for the RINO furthest away from the corn states voting against.

I'll give the corn belt guys a pass on this one, but there's no excusing the 3-4 others.

(06-22-2011 10:08 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I'll give the corn belt guys a pass on this one, but there's no excusing the 3-4 others.

At least they would be seen as standing up for their constituents.

(06-22-2011 10:08 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I'll give the corn belt guys a pass on this one, but there's no excusing the 3-4 others.

Well Corn is already down 4% today... This might add some relief to food prices..

Woohoo ... this is impressive.

KS-NE-IA-SD-IN ... no brainers
OH-MS ... uh, maybe
GA? WTF?

(06-22-2011 11:27 AM)I45owl Wrote:  Woohoo ... this is impressive.

KS-NE-IA-SD-IN ... no brainers
OH-MS ... uh, maybe
GA? WTF?

Several ethanol plants (8?) opened in OH in the past few years. Big deal for Taft and Strickland.

saw this a few days ago. surprised there wasn't a post about it till now. Maybe now we can stop putting ridiculous tariffs on foreign sugar, allowing us to 1) lower food prices 2) create more jobs and 3) put an end to this high fructose corn syrup nonsense.

But the mandate to use EtOH blended fuel is still in place.

(06-22-2011 11:57 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  But the mandate to use EtOH blended fuel is still in place.

which is ridiculous. it's so inefficient and has such a negative two pronged effect

(06-22-2011 11:57 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  But the mandate to use EtOH blended fuel is still in place.

I suspected as much. So, this remains a fuel tax, but shifts places in the ledger so as not to pass through governmental hands.

Should the price implications become better known, I wonder if that mandate can be done away with in the near or medium term?

(06-22-2011 11:27 AM)I45owl Wrote:  Woohoo ... this is impressive.

KS-NE-IA-SD-IN ... no brainers
OH-MS ... uh, maybe
GA? WTF?

They grow a LOT of corn in South Georgia. I take this road when going to Mexico Beach, Fl. and Corn is all over the place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_State_Route_300

Do a Google Earth search of Camilla, Ga. and pan down SW to Bainbridge.

...but I wholeheartedly disagree with subsidies. If you can't make enough on corn, start raising cattle. Can't make it on cattle, build some ponds and start raising catfish. Can't make it on catfish, turn your land into a damn hunting preserve. Either way, it isn't MY damn concern.

(06-22-2011 12:49 PM)Rebel Wrote:  ...but I wholeheartedly disagree with subsidies. If you can't make enough on corn, start raising cattle. Can't make it on cattle, build some ponds and start raising catfish. Can't make it on catfish, turn your land into a damn hunting preserve. Either way, it isn't MY damn concern.

I would agree with that, except that the subsidies don't go to small farmers who might have to make those choices. Virtually all go to the big farming corporations. They just try to make you think ending subsidies are going to hurt small farmers.

(06-22-2011 10:08 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I'll give the corn belt guys a pass on this one, but there's no excusing the 3-4 others.

+1.... This was vote the fellas had enough and the corn belt guys were given a "hall pass" or the vote would have been unanimous.

(06-22-2011 01:07 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(06-22-2011 12:49 PM)Rebel Wrote:  ...but I wholeheartedly disagree with subsidies. If you can't make enough on corn, start raising cattle. Can't make it on cattle, build some ponds and start raising catfish. Can't make it on catfish, turn your land into a damn hunting preserve. Either way, it isn't MY damn concern.

I would agree with that, except that the subsidies don't go to small farmers who might have to make those choices. Virtually all go to the big farming corporations. They just try to make you think ending subsidies are going to hurt small farmers.

...then it really isn't my damn concern.

(06-22-2011 11:53 AM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  saw this a few days ago. surprised there wasn't a post about it till now. Maybe now we can stop putting ridiculous tariffs on foreign sugar, allowing us to 1) lower food prices 2) create more jobs and 3) put an end to this high fructose corn syrup nonsense.

(06-22-2011 11:57 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  But the mandate to use EtOH blended fuel is still in place.

I'll get the numbers wrong, but we pay 50 cents /lb for sugar that pays the foriegn growers something like 15 cents. If we converted demand for corn ethanol to demand for sugar ethanol and that pushed the price for foriegn growers to 30 cents, I'd bet we'd have a whole lot more supply... a whole lot fewer "poor" Carribean and Central/South American neighbors we have to subsidize through aid... consumers would pay less... Domestic growers would get 30 cents instead of 50, but they aren't getting that entire 50 anyway.

(06-22-2011 02:09 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-22-2011 11:53 AM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  saw this a few days ago. surprised there wasn't a post about it till now. Maybe now we can stop putting ridiculous tariffs on foreign sugar, allowing us to 1) lower food prices 2) create more jobs and 3) put an end to this high fructose corn syrup nonsense.

(06-22-2011 11:57 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  But the mandate to use EtOH blended fuel is still in place.

I'll get the numbers wrong, but we pay 50 cents /lb for sugar that pays the foriegn growers something like 15 cents. If we converted demand for corn ethanol to demand for sugar ethanol and that pushed the price for foriegn growers to 30 cents, I'd bet we'd have a whole lot more supply... a whole lot fewer "poor" Carribean and Central/South American neighbors we have to subsidize through aid... consumers would pay less... Domestic growers would get 30 cents instead of 50, but they aren't getting that entire 50 anyway.

regardless of the numbers, your logic is sound

Corn should be for eating, not for driving.

(06-22-2011 03:15 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Corn should be for eating, not for driving.

AMEN.