Patterico's Pontifications

Although didn’t Palin tout ethanol in Iowa as the VP candidate?

Patterico (abb445) — 5/30/2011 @ 11:39 am

You know who this helps most, don’t you?

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/30/2011 @ 11:41 am

Um patterico Mccain flipflopped on ethanol so no she would be against it.

DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/30/2011 @ 11:45 am

A politician being one …. shocka!!!!!!

Sponge Bob Square Pants (fccc6f) — 5/30/2011 @ 11:55 am

Potomac fever gets to the best. He had all the tools to be Reagan-lite.

Wasn’t this the guy who eschewed campaigning in Iowa altogether four years ago?

Ed from SFV (52d4be) — 5/30/2011 @ 12:22 pm

Sponge Bob Square Pants being obsessed with me and filling out contact forms to make me get random emails … shocka!!!

Patterico (abb445) — 5/30/2011 @ 12:24 pm

Desperately seeking Iowa.

Arizona Bob (aa856e) — 5/30/2011 @ 12:29 pm

I am not a big fan of subsidies, but they have been around for decades. Ethanol subsidies were around when corn was $1.85 a bushel..and the corn is still used for feed even if it is used for ethanol because the by product is mash, cows love the stuff.

I used to have a dairy farm. I worked 7 days a week for years and by the time I was 40 I had enough of it.

So ethanol subsidies are not a big deal to me..if they get rid of them that is okay. It won’t mean cheap corn, if anything it could lead to cuts in production.

Right now the crappy weather is a bigger problem than ethanol subsidies. Here in Indiana farmers are way behind their normal schedules. That means they will probably be growing more soy beans and less corn.

I honestly don’t think most care about this..they care about jobs..and the price of gas.

Terrye (2e6779) — 5/30/2011 @ 1:26 pm

subsidies should be used to expand feedstock away from corn

corn ethanol is gay

happyfeet (3c92a1) — 5/30/2011 @ 1:28 pm

Sorry Ethanol is wrong but that is just me.

DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/30/2011 @ 1:35 pm

ethanol makes sense to nurture as a technoogy, as long as the goal is to make the roi vastly vastly better than it is today – America is so enfeebled and cowardly with respect to developing its own oil and gas resources that ethanol and other alternative fuels become important alternatives should a significant percentage of the oils what the brave foreigners are kind enough to sell us ever become unavailable

happyfeet (3c92a1) — 5/30/2011 @ 1:39 pm

I’ve heard the same as Terrye. Corn planting this year is way behind schedule…

Xmas (a133ba) — 5/30/2011 @ 1:49 pm

*technology* I mean

happyfeet (3c92a1) — 5/30/2011 @ 2:02 pm

Dummy Carter will be outdone by Maobama in terms of vileness and divisiveness Honestly When will Baracky
and Jimmeh hang out with Ahmadinejad[Who is far-left]

DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/30/2011 @ 2:07 pm

I like ethanol subsidies too — I call it “happy hour”.

Oh, you mean that kind of ethanol subsidy. The kind that goes straight into Dwayne Andreas’s pocket. Forget it. ADM is perhaps the most corrupting entity in the last half century of USA politics.

And no, I don’t believe Palin has ever campaigned in Iowa, so even if she were inclined to pander on this issue (which I don’t believe), she’s had no opportunity to do so.

Milhouse (ea66e3) — 5/30/2011 @ 2:09 pm

here is a very practical first step what can be done immediately to both kick the fascist EPA in its fascist balls and help make a more better gasoline distribution system at the same time – this is what is called a “win-win” I believe

Currently, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requires individual cities and states to use different blends of gasoline to satisfy federal air quality standards, resulting in gas price spikes whenever a disruption occurs in the supply chain. The Gas Accessibility and Stabilization Act (GAS Act) would alleviate the possibility of price hikes by giving states the flexibility to use other fuel blends in times of temporary shortage.

happyfeet (3c92a1) — 5/30/2011 @ 2:29 pm

15)http://www.flickr.com/photos/iowapolitics/2972946342/

ian cormac (72470d) — 5/30/2011 @ 2:44 pm

I don’t believe Palin has ever campaigned in Iowa

In Iowa today she said she supported ethanol.

Now, for anybody who knows about McCain’s opinions on ethanol subsidies, this is a BIG no no. In fact, he’s so famously against ethanol subsidies that he never even bothered running in Iowa this election cycle and instead focused on New Hampshire. And I think we’re all well aware that without subsidies, the ethanol industry would, for all intents and purposes, cease to exist as a viable fuel alternative.

In any event… here’s the clip…

“John and I will adopt the all-of-the-above approach to meet America’s great energy challenges,” she told the crowd in Des Moines. “Yes… That means harnessing alternative energy sources, like the wind and the solar and the biomass and the geothermal — and the ethanol!“

happyfeet (3c92a1) — 5/30/2011 @ 2:47 pm

CORN! Nothing better than corn.

Mitt Romney (705127) — 5/30/2011 @ 2:55 pm

I think we should both subsidize corn and give it tax breaks. Because I likes me some corn!

Mitt Romney (705127) — 5/30/2011 @ 2:57 pm

Waitaminnit, that’s your case?! Where did she say anything about subsidies? She said she supports getting energy from wherever it’s available, lumping ethanol in with all the other fringe sources that might add a percent or two to the total supply. But she didn’t say anything about subsidising it. Who doesn’t support using ethanol, if it can make it in the market place? Is there something wrong with it?

Milhouse (ea66e3) — 5/30/2011 @ 2:58 pm

I want to take your tax dollars and give them to people in the corn business.

Mitt Romney (705127) — 5/30/2011 @ 2:58 pm

If it’s not about corn, I don’t want to hear about it.

Mitt Romney (705127) — 5/30/2011 @ 2:59 pm

Who’s the sock puppet?

Milhouse (ea66e3) — 5/30/2011 @ 2:59 pm

Did someone say CORN!?

Mitt Romney (705127) — 5/30/2011 @ 3:05 pm

My price to vote Romney will be 5 figures. Got needs.

gary gulrud (790d43) — 5/30/2011 @ 3:05 pm

it’s not my fault she’s a dirty dirty ethanol strumpet Mr. Milhouse – I was as shocked as you were when I found out

happyfeet (3c92a1) — 5/30/2011 @ 3:14 pm

Milhouse:

Well just what does that mean? I got the impression she supports ethanol subsidies..but who knows.

The subsidies do not exist to support farmers anyway, they exist to maintain a steady supply of food. And when prices are high in the market, the deficiency payments are not a problem..because those payments are the difference between market and cost of production.

If we get rid of all subsidies, then farmers should have the right to control their production the same way oil producers do. They should not have the government telling them what to plant and where to plant it and under what circumstances to plant it..and if prices go up…they go up. That is what the market is.

Those farmers have to use a lot of petroleum products and as those oil prices go up..their costs of production go up too.

Too many people want it both ways. They want the government to take care of the consumer, but to hell with the producer. That won’t work in real markets.

Terrye (7c855d) — 5/30/2011 @ 3:23 pm

And to be honest, the socalled ethanol subsidies are actually tax credits…a lot like the socalled oil subsidies.

Terrye (7c855d) — 5/30/2011 @ 3:24 pm

If Palin said she supports ‘ethanol’ but doesn’t say she opposes subsidies, then it’s just politics to say ‘it’s not proven she supports subsidies’.

I wouldn’t bet she does support subsidized ethanol, but she will have to clarify specifically, thanks entirely to Tim Pawlenty’s bravery on this point.

So far, he’s done the best job as a candidate, just for sticking his neck out on a few sacred issues. Anyone who doesn’t give clear answers on these things will look evasive (and for good reason).

Dustin (c16eca) — 5/30/2011 @ 3:29 pm

Here’s a picture of me from my latest hootenanny.

Mitt Romney (705127) — 5/30/2011 @ 3:57 pm

what she said in October 08 was whatever McLame’s morons told her to say…

somebody ask her what she thinks about them now.

redc1c4 (fb8750) — 5/30/2011 @ 3:59 pm

Dustin,

…“as a candidate”…. Except Palin isn’t. Yet. If and when that time comes, she’ll have to be straight up about it.

Dana (4eca6e) — 5/30/2011 @ 4:01 pm

If Palin said she supports ‘ethanol’ but doesn’t say she opposes subsidies, then it’s just politics to say ‘it’s not proven she supports subsidies’.

On the contrary, without a word from her to suggest she supports subsidies, there’s no foundation for the claim. It’s not even as if she went to Iowa and called a press conference to say “I support ethanol”; she merely included it in a list of energy sources — do you think that means she wants to subsidise all of them?!

Milhouse (ea66e3) — 5/30/2011 @ 4:19 pm

I got the impression she supports ethanol subsidies.

How did you get that impression? From her words, or from some Democrat trying to create a conflict between her and McCain?

Milhouse (ea66e3) — 5/30/2011 @ 4:21 pm

What’s intriguing is how Mitt, guided of course, by Mike ‘Iceberg’ Murphy, makes the same mistakes over
and over again,

ian cormac (72470d) — 5/30/2011 @ 4:23 pm

In fact, he’s so famously against ethanol subsidies that he … said “I support ethanol and I think it is a vital, a vital alternative energy source not only because of our dependency on foreign oil but its greenhouse gas reduction effects,” in an August speech in Grinnell, Iowa.

Technically, at least from the quotes given in this thread, neither McCain or Palin mentioned subsidies.

Vatar (3899d0) — 5/30/2011 @ 4:40 pm

Ethanol and coke is a good drink. The taste is kind of strong. Why on earth would you use it in a car? You get about half the milage with Alcohol. It goes a lot further when you drink it.

Zelsdorf Ragshaft III (ab0e21) — 5/30/2011 @ 5:24 pm

Milhouse: It’s my understanding that if there were no subsidies, ethanol would be too expensive to produce vis a vis oil and other energy sources, so to support ethanol at this point is (unless you throw in a qualifier to show you don’t) to imply that you support, or at least don’t mind, the subsidies. So, unless she explicitly said no subsidies, it would be fair to infer that she was, at least, trying to sound like she supports subsidies. Or at least glide around the subject and leave people to think she was on their side of the question, no matter which side of the question they were on.

Of course, given she’s from a big oil-producing state, those people would accuse her of pandering to the Iowa farmers by supporting ethanol (with or without subsidies) would probably claim that she was pandering to the oil companies if she explicitly came out in opposition to the subsidies.

Oh, and completely off topic: a book I think you might enjoy, and Daley and Aaron and probably most others here: Edward Kritzler, Jewish Pirates of the Caribbean. The title was probably trying to cash in on a certain movie franchise, and the narrative covers the Med, Holland, England, Brazil,Iberia, and Africa as much as it does the Caribbean (in fact, real Caribbean pirates don’t really show up until the last fifty or so pages, and the Barbary pirates are just as important to the narrative) but it’s non-fiction and apparently well researched, and concludes with a legendary lost gold mine (Columbus’s, no less). Full of the sort of interesting facts that you never need to use outside of Trivial Pursuit, and a quick read.

kishnevi (60aae7) — 5/30/2011 @ 5:41 pm

It’s my understanding that if there were no subsidies, ethanol would be too expensive to produce vis a vis oil and other energy sources,

Depends what you’re making it from. But the same is true, by and large, about all those fringe energy sources she lumped ethanol in with; they’re viable in a small number of locations, or at a very small scale, and are unlikely ever to provide more than a small share of the USA’s energy, but the more the merrier. Her whole point was that she was for exploiting all sources of energy, however insignificant they end up being. So unless you think she’s for subsidising every item she listed, you can’t say she’s for subsidising just this one item.

Milhouse (ea66e3) — 5/30/2011 @ 5:49 pm

Ethanol is twice as good. That’s why you pay for it twice!

Mitt Romney (705127) — 5/30/2011 @ 5:56 pm

Somebody needs to sock that puppet ^^^

Icy Texan (5238a0) — 5/30/2011 @ 6:02 pm

…“as a candidate”…. Except Palin isn’t. Yet. If and when that time comes, she’ll have to be straight up about it.

Comment by Dana

True. I am confident she’s running, and I also think she’ll probably win. She’s not my preference, but it’s interesting how she dominates so many discussions, such as Mitt Romney’s position on ethanol.

She’ll have to answer on this and many other issues, like all the rest of the candidates, and I’m really thankful to Pawlenty for making these issues impossible to avoid. But at this time, I think it’s fair to say Palin hasn’t answered yet, and it’s not really a problem that she hasn’t yet.

Dustin (c16eca) — 5/30/2011 @ 6:18 pm

she merely included it in a list of energy sources — do you think that means she wants to subsidise all of them?!

The ones that are very unlikely to exist without subsidy, yes. Of course I do. It’s politics to boast about the benefits of a program while trying to avoid taking a stand on the tougher costs of something.

Anyone who claims they support the space shuttle is claiming they support government subsidized space travel. I admit, it’s possible they don’t mean that, but it’s a safe assumption.

But I take your point. She was listing a lot of options, rather than firmly taking a stand.

Dustin (c16eca) — 5/30/2011 @ 6:21 pm

Breaking news:

Palin is announcing a hypothetical situation where if a “strong woman” was running for president that “this strong woman” would have to look into the buying of legislators who regulate “big corn ~~leases~~ subsidies” and stand up to them –

1st by dodging important issues by talking about “options” instead of specifics

2nd by hurtling groundless accusations of vague corruption by those who oppose her(ie dont buy her books) and ask Jeffersonian like inquiries into ideals she personally has never embraced as a governor

3rd smile and dodge the media’s questions with questions of her own

4th Board bus – go onto another “engagement”

EricPWJohnson (fe2c66) — 5/30/2011 @ 8:02 pm

SEEK HELP IMBECILE

JD (318f81) — 5/30/2011 @ 8:03 pm

JD

So is imposing a windfall profits tax on corn growers going to lead to less government spending?

EricPWJohnson (fe2c66) — 5/30/2011 @ 8:15 pm

I truly do feel sorry for you. Step away from the hookah.

JD (318f81) — 5/30/2011 @ 8:25 pm

Please you said Scuzzymissilefatwa is a conservative no one takes you seriously.

DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/30/2011 @ 8:28 pm

Dohbiden

Explain again how does raising taxes lower govt psending?

EricPWJohnson (fe2c66) — 5/30/2011 @ 8:33 pm

I made a real effort to be nice to EPWJ after he went off the rails calling me a moby and lying about my comments.

I apologize.

EPWJ will take every single thread he enters and lie. I can’t think of a single one he hasn’t.

EPWJ is dishonest.

Dustin (c16eca) — 5/30/2011 @ 8:33 pm

Dustin,

Okay, here is another dishonest question:

If a politician raising taxes – alot – explain how does that lower the size of government and reduces spending and reduces costs to taxpayers and voters?

EricPWJohnson (fe2c66) — 5/30/2011 @ 8:37 pm

Dohbiden

Explain again how does raising taxes lower govt psending?

Comment by EricPWJohnson — 5/30/2011 @ 8:33 pm

Coming from someone that supported the Working Families Party candidate, that is rich.

SEEK HELP, step away from the arak.

JD (318f81) — 5/30/2011 @ 8:39 pm

I don’t have to answer your questions, but your question is quite dishonest.

And everyone can see that.

Remember when you had a hissy fit and demanded I shut up and stop commenting? When everyone is aware you’re a liar, and all you’re doing is changing the topic (hint: Mitt Romney’s position on ethanol, not Sarah Palin’s position on oil company corruption), why don’t you take your own advice?

But that won’t do, will it? You don’t give a shit about what the topic is, or if your comments are not appreciated. You’ll whine if someone says something you don’t want them to, you’ll whine if someone comments at a blog you don’t approve of, but you don’t hold yourself to any standard at all.

You’re some kind of petty form of sociopath, I guess.

Dustin (c16eca) — 5/30/2011 @ 8:41 pm

JD

Okay, so how does raising government taxes for the “people” = less government?

EricPWJohnson (fe2c66) — 5/30/2011 @ 8:45 pm

How does raising to a top rate of 93% (Oil and Gas Financial Journal Nov 2010) – lead to lowering gas prices to consumers, creat a positive investment atmosphere for job creation?

How JD?

EricPWJohnson (fe2c66) — 5/30/2011 @ 8:47 pm

Oh yeah, I can’t cuss or it winds up in the filter.

EPWJ is right that his question was dishonest.

Dustin (c16eca) — 5/30/2011 @ 8:47 pm

Isn’t there someone in our life that will look after yu, to make sure you take your anti-psychotics?

JD (318f81) — 5/30/2011 @ 8:49 pm

How does raising to a top rate of 93% (Oil and Gas Financial Journal Nov 2010) – lead to lowering gas prices to consumers, creat a positive investment atmosphere for job creation?

How does 100 pounds make a tuna fish taste like aluminum?

How? How?

See? I’m right because I made up a question implying someone is wrong, even though they didn’t offer an opinion on the topic, and I’m actually just making up the topic and lying every step of the way.

Why? Because I can’t beat Palin on the facts. You know EPWJ would make honest points about Palin if he had one. Sadly, EPWJ is just about the best argument in her favor I’ve ever seen.

Dustin (c16eca) — 5/30/2011 @ 8:49 pm

Typical epwj – the moon is less than 4. Wheat Thins multiplied by paperclips equals niblick with spicy hot mustard sauce.

JD (318f81) — 5/30/2011 @ 8:53 pm

Dustin

Raising taxes to a rate of 93% (Oil and Gas Financial Journal) = less government?

93% tax rates = positive investment climate for job growth?

Raising spending from 7 Billion to 12 billion on 27 months = less government?

EricPWJohnson (fe2c66) — 5/30/2011 @ 9:03 pm

Dustin – a large mouth bass squared plus a daffodil divided by a chocolate shake minus a 9-iron is greater than or equal to Burberry’s.

JD (318f81) — 5/30/2011 @ 9:06 pm

I think its interesting that for a blog, some experienced blogging “people” surely dont want to talk about the issues – whew!

EricPWJohnson (fe2c66) — 5/30/2011 @ 9:14 pm

Dustin – a large mouth bass squared plus a daffodil divided by a chocolate shake minus a 9-iron is greater than or equal to Burberry’s.

How? How, JD?

How?

Proof!

—

EPWJ, we get it. You’ll spam all thread with the same lies about Palin. You have nothing to say about Romney’s position on ethanol. You know we can’t bother to debunk your claims 500 times, and you are clearly insane enough to just wage hour long wars in every thread you come across.

Everyone who isn’t familiar: we had this argument, and EPWJ lost, badly. Embarrassingly. Enough that it showed me that he’s an idiot. Once he loses an argument, he starts making stuff up. The only reason we aren’t taking his Palin crap seriously is because he lost this argument many times and we’re tired of it.

Dustin (c16eca) — 5/30/2011 @ 9:16 pm

A blog plus a missing village idiot plus a non-compliant patient yields gibberish.

JD (318f81) — 5/30/2011 @ 9:17 pm

I know crackheads that are more lucid than EricPW.

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/30/2011 @ 9:22 pm

Dustin,

So why does raising taxes – lead to less government?

EricPWJohnson (fe2c66) — 5/30/2011 @ 9:23 pm

So why does raising taxes – lead to less government?

Comment by EricPWJohnson —

Is this supposed to be clever?

You lost the argument weeks ago. Your question does not reflect anything I’ve ever said. You were exposed telling many lies, and you’re the one who supports the big tax and spenders, not me.

Dustin (c16eca) — 5/30/2011 @ 9:24 pm

Can someone point me in the direction of that filter that eats comments from trolls?

I wanted to talk about ethanol, not EPWJ’s debunked lies.

Dustin (c16eca) — 5/30/2011 @ 9:26 pm

We are talking about taxes ethanol subsidies are a use of tax money correct?

So how would raising taxes on energy – lower spending?

Dustin, maybe you would like to present your proof that Raising taxes – lowered spending?

EricPWJohnson (fe2c66) — 5/30/2011 @ 9:28 pm

Sunrise leads to clocks, clocks lead to spiders, spiders are transported on bananas, bananas are used in smoothies, and smoothies are consumed.

JD (318f81) — 5/30/2011 @ 9:28 pm

Dede Sluzzyfatwa was a RINO fascist supported by te working families party.

DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/30/2011 @ 9:28 pm

Dustin, maybe you would like to present your proof that Raising taxes – lowered spending?

Comment by EricPWJohnson

It’s really funny how you ignored my saying I never said that, and how it’s irrelevant, and just asked it again, stubbornly.

In other words, your claim that I said this is a lie, and when it’s shown, yet again, that EPWJ is a liar, EPWJ just repeats the lie several more times and ignores the real responses he got, pretending no one is ‘brave’ enough to respond to him. Except that one time where I just kept doing it until you demanded I leave the blog altogether.

No, you lost the argument, EPWJ, when you failed to use points that are truthful. That’s how you’ve lost many other arguments. The Breitbart indictment, the FBI investigation, the border shooting, … I can’t even remember 90% of the lies anymore.

Each time, you just repeat the lie again.

I get it. You want us to know that you don’t care if you’re caught lying. Your intention is not to have a discussion, but rather to punish us with your dumb behavior. That’s so sad. This is the best thing you can find to do with your time?

Dustin (c16eca) — 5/30/2011 @ 9:34 pm

Fap Fap Fap Fap

EricPW – Is it hard to get Jergens over there?

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/30/2011 @ 9:37 pm

Dustin

How will Palin handle ethanol subsidies?

Will she raise taxes on “big corn?”

EricPWJohnson (fe2c66) — 5/30/2011 @ 9:39 pm

Daley – apparently it is hard to keep the sand out of the Jergens.

JD (318f81) — 5/30/2011 @ 9:39 pm

How long before Eric accuses Sarah Palin of being responsible for dictatorships all over the world.

DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/30/2011 @ 9:39 pm

How much money do we spend subsidizing ethanol?

Dustin (c16eca) — 5/30/2011 @ 9:40 pm

Daley

You were a avid explainer of Palins raising energy taxes wasnt really raising taxes correct?

You also stipulated that her increaased spending wasn’t really increasing spending correct?

Ethanol subsidies is one of the many insiduous “expenses” that one side uses as an excuse to tax people more.

Why hasnt the Facebook Gov written anything firm about this issue?

Is it because she is still entertaining running in Iowa?

Or is it another “scheduling” issue for the last 3 years?

EricPWJohnson (fe2c66) — 5/30/2011 @ 9:42 pm

_____________________________________________

corn ethanol is gay
Comment by happyfeet — 5/30/2011 @ 1:28 pm

See, happyfeet. Even you have to admit there’s something freaky and laughable — and mockable — about “gay.” Not such a big leap from that to feeling the same way about the idea of two dudes getting married.

Mark (3e3a7c) — 5/30/2011 @ 9:59 pm

Gad! Is there nothing that will make that boy shut the f*** up?!

Icy Texan (5238a0) — 5/30/2011 @ 10:10 pm

“You were a avid explainer of Palins raising energy taxes wasnt really raising taxes correct?

You also stipulated that her increaased spending wasn’t really increasing spending correct?”

EricPW – I stipulated you are an avid liar as above.

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/30/2011 @ 10:15 pm

daleyrocks didn’t say the nonsense EPWJ is claiming he said.

There’s discussion about the tax issue, but EPWJ lost that argument ages ago. I think what he’s hoping to do is conflate that with all kinds of other obviously ridiculous claims (you said spending isn’t spending) so when someone denies that, he can say they denied the aspect EPWJ already lost an argument on.

He lied about DRJ, Daleyrocks, JD, and myself. I believe he’s lied many more times about people who aren’t in these threads.

Dustin (c16eca) — 5/30/2011 @ 10:21 pm

_____________________________________

“I support the subsidy of ethanol,” [Mitt Romney] told an Iowa voter. “I believe ethanol is an important part of our energy solution for this country.”

Is Romney so out of touch — so foolish — that he hasn’t researched what an idiotic idea ethanol is? That it requires more energy to produce that fuel than what it returns in the form of running autos? Not to mention the way that ethanol propped up by subsidies helps distort the global supply of and demand for corn as food.

Romney definitely has some squishy, liberal biases in the recesses of his brain. So a lack of common sense may rear its ugly head at any given moment. Of course, that’s true of many people out there, Ronald Reagan (going to Iran and trading arms for hostages) and Bush I (“read my lips…”) and Bush II (“compassionate conservatism”) included. Not to mention that Herbert Hoover ratcheted up income taxes back in the 1930s to such a huge degree, he helped make the Great Depression truly great.

When it comes to the little liberal biases embedded in various portions of the brains of most people, they should rarely be trusted.

Mark (3e3a7c) — 5/30/2011 @ 10:24 pm

Dustin

Explain how then to everyone how

Raising taxes with a 93% threshold (Oil and Gas Financial Journal) on Oil – led to less spending in Alaska?

You should have volumes of easy to reach material

Then explain it?

Why not – I would want to do it to debunk someone – other than just saying stuff

EricPWJohnson (fe2c66) — 5/30/2011 @ 10:28 pm

Seriously dustin

Here on a blog conservatives read

Explain how you proved that Palin didnt raise taxes and her tax raising wasnt for spending

If that is what you are stipulating?

Exactly how did I “lose” the debate?

EricPWJohnson (fe2c66) — 5/30/2011 @ 10:30 pm

Is Romney so out of touch — so foolish —

He knows he’ll get a lot of Iowa support that Pawlenty just lost. It’s as simple as that, IMO. It will be interesting seeing just how far this goes. Will he come out in favor of doing nothing about entitlements? Perhaps take it to that Gingrich ‘I think some reforms are a radical scary thing to do!!!’ level?

I don’t want to put words in his mouth. But this is politics. I think Romney is smart enough to see that Palin overshadows a lot of the conservatives. He’d rather Pawlenty be positioned there too, where they all split the vote, bash each other a la Daniels, and he’ll take the Mccain path to nomination.

Dustin (c16eca) — 5/30/2011 @ 10:31 pm

EPWJ, why don’t you resume your discussion in a thread about Palin?

Oh yeah, because you lost the argument there and fled, and want to pretend that never happened over and over and over and over, and if I don’t reply to you every single freaking time, you pretend you have no idea how you lose the argument you lost at least ten times.

You know I’m right. That’s clear from how you openly lie. Everyone else knows you’re wrong. The debate is over, buddy.

Dustin (c16eca) — 5/30/2011 @ 10:35 pm

Can someone point me in the direction of that filter that eats comments from trolls?

I wanted to talk about ethanol, not EPWJ’s debunked lies.

Comment by Dustin — 5/30/2011 @ 9:26 pm | (Ignore this user)

It runs off of greasemonkey in firefox

http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/37488

John Hitchcock (9e8ad9) — 5/30/2011 @ 10:43 pm

dustin

So you didnt win the argument then?

so are you saying you dont want to post it even though you’ve said it as a fact sevefal times in this thread?

So, after confronting “big oil” how would Sarah confront “big corn”

Explain for everyone how Palin’s raising taxes in Alaska = lowered government spendng

And extrapolate that to her “lower” 48 strategy of taxing and spending?

Ethanol and subsidies are a use of tax money – how will a governor with a record of raising taxes on oil compnaies handle ethanol?

EricPWJohnson (fe2c66) — 5/30/2011 @ 10:47 pm

It takes as much petroleum to create the ethanol as it does to just skip that step.
It costs more to drive on ethanol than on gasoline.
The CO2 output of driving on ethanol is double that of driving on gasoline.

“Producing enough ethanol to replace America’s imported oil alone would require putting nearly 900 million acres under cultivation—or roughly 95 percent of the active farmland in the country.”

Self link covering the research.

John Hitchcock (9e8ad9) — 5/30/2011 @ 11:00 pm

Its interesting John that people who say they have won the argument, and have proved someone to be a liar, and worse

wont post the information that Palin, didnt raise taxes and even if she did, it lowered spending, or even if it didnt lower spending, more government spending created a positive job growh environment or a positive future investment climate

Oh well…

EricPWJohnson (fe2c66) — 5/30/2011 @ 11:22 pm

Don’t have enough time to read all 68 comments so if no one else has said it I just want to say that I am all in favor of corn based ethanol, but it should be a rich smokey color, have mellow notes of vanilla and oak and be sold in 750 ml (or 1500 ml) bottles.

Have Blue (854a6e) — 5/30/2011 @ 11:26 pm

Oh sorry, didn’t notice that the lying douchnozzle epwj had shown up so the topic of conversation is no longer ethanol but his deranged fantasies about Sarah Palin.

Have Blue (854a6e) — 5/30/2011 @ 11:29 pm

Have Blue

Deranged fantasies?

Raising Taxes is deranged fantasies –

Do me a favor – Please write the Oil and Gas Financial Journal, The Cato Institute and the WSJ

Because they must be suffering from the same problem

Also the Tea Party Candidates that were Elected in 2010 in the Alaska state House – they voted immediately to overturn Palin’s 93% tax rate to (I think its 40%)

I was just wondering what Palin would do to “big Corn”

EricPWJohnson (fe2c66) — 5/30/2011 @ 11:32 pm

Thanks, John Hitchcock.

Dustin (c16eca) — 5/30/2011 @ 11:48 pm

Yup, Dustin, I can’t see epwj’s comments. Works like a charm.

John Hitchcock (9e8ad9) — 5/31/2011 @ 12:22 am

So here we have it

We hav e a gov who raised taxes – and the defense of her here to is:

defame

Distract

Distort

but no defense

EricPWJohnson (fe2c66) — 5/31/2011 @ 1:33 am

Dustin, the GreaseMonkey script you’re looking for is here. You’re welcome.

Milhouse (ea66e3) — 5/31/2011 @ 2:35 am

PS: I also have a version for Beldar; mostly so I can ignore CH.

Milhouse (ea66e3) — 5/31/2011 @ 2:37 am

Milhouse

Its interesting to see how some people respond to simple questions

We have someone going around now, who raised taxes and spending, and people dont want to discuss it

Figures

EricPWJohnson (fe2c66) — 5/31/2011 @ 4:31 am

Epwj must have put arak in his hookah.

JD (306f5d) — 5/31/2011 @ 5:15 am

Arack in a hookah? I don’t think that would work very well. Putting it in a hooker is a different story.

Milhouse (ea66e3) — 5/31/2011 @ 5:25 am

“We have someone going around now, who raised taxes and spending, and people dont want to discuss it”

EricPW – You lie. You and I have discussed the subject many times and each time I bring up the details of Palin’s spending you flee the thread.

Nobody wants to discuss your current dishonest formulation of a question which is a strawman created in your twisted mind.

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/31/2011 @ 6:48 am

Amen people don’t want to discuss Dede the shark jumping RINO who was endorsed by far-left tax and spenders in NY.

DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/31/2011 @ 7:03 am

> I like ethanol subsidies too — I call it “happy hour”.

Ha! California has this “happy hour ethanol” subsidy too, in the form of Redevelopment Agencies. They skim off a large percentage of property taxes and use that for eminent domain abuse and random development crap. In the Legislature, the Republicans unanimously seek to keep these communist entities, where the Democrats want to eliminate them.

One example of the Republican “happy hour ethanol” subsidy is the Redevelopment Agency subsidizing development of Dive Bar in Sacramento. Women dressed in mermaid costumes swim in a huge tank behind the bar. Seriously, Republicans are fighting for government paying for this crap.

http://divebarsacramento.com/

Wesson (914281) — 5/31/2011 @ 7:30 am

Look palin isn’t perfect[I disagree with her interview with Katie Couric] but come on it takes a lot of irony for some Scozzaflava worshipper to accuse Palin of never being a conservative.

DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/31/2011 @ 7:39 am

yes Mr. Wesson is correct at the end of the day California Republicans lurv them some command economy there’s really no reason to vote for the California Team R whores if they’re going to stand against property rights and for a government-led economy

…and even Tom McClintock whorishly failed to vote against the redevelopment slush funds

it’s very very deeply pitiful

happyfeet (3c92a1) — 5/31/2011 @ 7:50 am

Dustin, the GreaseMonkey script you’re looking for is here. You’re welcome.

Comment by Milhouse —

Ah, thanks very much for making this, Milhouse!

Dustin (c16eca) — 5/31/2011 @ 9:27 am

Down go the Palin haters!

“Asked Tuesday whether she supports the federal subsidy of ethanol, an always critical issue in the presidential nominating cycle, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin went one step further and called for the elimination of all energy subsidies.”

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/31/2011 @ 10:37 am

Clearly that is a liberal tax and spend big government position for Palin to take according to EricPW logic.

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/31/2011 @ 10:38 am

Source: News story

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/31/2011 @ 10:39 am

Good catch, Daleyrocks. Hot Air has a link.

I think she’s right. We just can’t afford it.

Actually, I do think we need nuclear energy, and if that requires some level of subsidy, I can accept that because it’s a high investment that should lead to cheap, clean energy in the long run.

But things never seem to work out that way when the government is involved.

Dustin (c16eca) — 5/31/2011 @ 10:43 am

She’s such a pandering moron – subsidies are one way to offset the cost of America’s onerous regulations – simple as that – taking all energy subsidies out of the toolbox while leaving in place a fascist EPA, a cowardly and dithering congress, and an America-hating National Soros Radio-style media is a recipe for expensiveness

Energy policy simply doesn’t resolve well into sound bites from failed quitty attention-whore trollops.

happyfeet (a55ba0) — 5/31/2011 @ 10:58 am

the idea is to get rid of them, too, who gave us the EPA, Richard Nixon, one of those respectable
Republicans, who was hung from his loafers,

ian cormac (72470d) — 5/31/2011 @ 11:03 am

Well at least she is pandering to people who think we have run out of money, instead of special interests like corn farmers, happyfeet.

Yes, it’s still politics. But while Sarah Palin is a politician, she seems a lot better than Romney to me. And let’s not put this ‘leaving fascist EPA in place’ idea on her agenda unless she actually has it there.

Palin ran Alaska pretty well. Not perfectly, but well. I suspect if she is powerful enough to eliminate all subsidies, she will also be able to eliminate CPB and much of EPA’s nonsense too. They kinda go together.

At some point, some leaders have to actually go for major reforms. Palin’s ‘I want it all cut’ would inevitably be compromised down to something closer to the middle.

And, frankly, we’re out of money anyway.

Dustin (c16eca) — 5/31/2011 @ 11:06 am

oh. Then she should have said that I think Mr. cormac. I also worry about the marginally-producing well situation, and I think it’s very possible that special tax treatment may be warranted to avoid shutting down those wells.

The other thing ditzy is ignoring is the entire concept of energy security. A certain level of subsidy may be warranted to prevent increasing dependence on foreign energy sources… an America with some optimal amount of (subsidized) ethanol infrastructure in place is in better shape than an America without, no? We should at least discuss this I think.

Mr. Dustin Romney is a sillyhead, but ethanol subsidies aren’t a litmus test for me. I feel much better about subsidies what go towards E-10 than I do about subsidies what go towards E-85.

We need some production of ethanol as an oxygenate for so we don’t make an inordinate number of carbon monoxide molecules. Whether or not that production needs to be subsidized I have no idea. I think the goal should be to produce the ethanol we need and what we should subsidize is the infrastructure of plants such that they are rapidly scalable to increased production for strategical purposes.

happyfeet (a55ba0) — 5/31/2011 @ 11:17 am

Why don’t you just speak english not happyfeetonese.

DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/31/2011 @ 11:21 am

Mr. Dustin Romney is a sillyhead, but ethanol subsidies aren’t a litmus test for me. I feel much better about subsidies what go towards E-10 than I do about subsidies what go towards E-85.

I can see why you wouldn’t think this is the biggest issue.

In one sense, it isn’t.

In the other sense, I want to know that politicians are finally going to stand up against special interests. T Paw going to Florida to talk about Medicare? Or Iowa to talk about ethanol?

That’s pure gold. And yeah, I am sure there is a cynical element, but that is gold too. Politicians think that being a fiscal conservative, even on special interest issues, is a winning bet, because of grassroots support for ending spending as much as we can.

So it’s more than just a litmus test on ethanol (Which is stupid to subsidize). It’s a litmus test on basic leadership.

Whether or not that production needs to be subsidized I have no idea.

I really don’t think it needs subsidy. This is corn. It grows in my garden on a volunteer basis. Making alcohol out of it is something I can do with a vacuum pump and some bottles. It’s the huge scale for out cars that takes it to the subsidy level.

Dustin (c16eca) — 5/31/2011 @ 11:36 am

“Then she should have said that I think Mr. cormac.”

Mr. Feets – You said the equivalent yesterday. There is no pleasing some people. In your mind she needs to give an hour long answer to a question to foresee all the possible ramifications to what she says. Grow up hater.

In your world if someone says they are in favor of sex they must be a criminal.

That is because they have not qualified their statement by excluding sex with minors, relatives, animals and the like. You argue like a progressive when it suits you Mr. Feets. It is not a pretty sight.

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/31/2011 @ 11:44 am

I think a lot of it Mr. daley is I just don’t like her a whole lot, and I respect her even less than I like her.

happyfeet (a55ba0) — 5/31/2011 @ 11:48 am

Also I have no idea why she’s flitting about the country yammering about ethanol.

She can be so terribly random at times.

happyfeet (a55ba0) — 5/31/2011 @ 11:51 am

Tax breaks are not the same as subsidies.

DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/31/2011 @ 11:57 am

I think a lot of it Mr. daley is I just don’t like her a whole lot, and I respect her even less than I like her.

At some point you’re going to have to reevaluate her.

Just my opinion. We don’t have a whole lot of options. She’s not perfect. She is more moderate than some of her supporters believe (not that EPWJ’s characterization is sane, but it’s true she wasn’t a hard liner).

She has a shtick that you don’t like, which is counter-elite. It seems more than a shtick, and actually sincere. She likes t-shirts and went to state schools, and is actually not elite. Her kid joined the military, not for political reasons, but because he’s like other guys who join the military because that’s what they really want to do.

She has a weird family that is unable to navigate public opinion the way Kennedys or Bidens manage to (not without scandal, but with good media management).

You think the presidency requires some serious special background. It’s something to aspire towards, that is so serious we should select only people who actually are elite. I think you’re right. But we’re short on options.

Palin has some experience with leadership. Not much, but what she’s got is good. She’s ethical. She might play some of the same cynical games with how she phrases this or that opinion, and isn’t above a pander, but so are the rest of our options.

Palin would be a conservative president with a smart foreign policy, who fought for reforms on spending.

I think it’s time for you to realize she’s one of the good guys, and worthy of some level of respect.

She’s not presidential, IMO, without being reelected as a Governor, or serious leadership success. She’s not electable in purple states either. I’m not saying you should vote for her, if someone better is available (Pawlenty? Perry? Daniels was my guy too).

But there’s a reason a lot of smart people respect Palin. It seems like you find her persona annoying, but really, that doesn’t matter much.

Think of it this way: Palin and T Paw have both taken on some sacred cows. It’s going to be a better GOP primary for that. Ideally, Palin would have ten years of experience as governor, but that doesn’t mean she doesn’t deserve some respect.

Dustin (c16eca) — 5/31/2011 @ 11:58 am

Also I have no idea why she’s flitting about the country yammering about ethanol.

She can be so terribly random at times.

Comment by happyfeet

Oh come on.

Iowa brings up the issue of pandering for their votes via ethanol subsidy support. T Paw bravely has taken on that issue, and Romney has lamely taken the pander route. Now, every politician either answers this question or looks like a weasel.

Dustin (c16eca) — 5/31/2011 @ 11:59 am

A little context on Palin’s ethanol views: Ethanol is not economically feasible.

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/05/31/palin-end-all-federal-energy-subsidies/

A tad firmer than Timmy Plenty but not quite reality–government instantiated fraud.

Corn farmers in MN do not run Flex fuel vehicles because they are not economic. Ethanol is simply burnable filler. I get 35 mpg on the highway in a 4 cylinder Camry with 300,000 burning premium, barely 30 running 10% Ethanol. Been that way for the duration.

Einstein seems random to those as dizzy as a clubbed Neanderthal frau, e.g., happyfeet.

gary gulrud (790d43) — 5/31/2011 @ 12:12 pm

A tad firmer than Timmy Plenty but not quite reality–government instantiated fraud.

But he gets credit for the leadership aspect. He led the way on this issue coming up at all. And he was very direct in how many issues require hard choices that are politically unpopular. Now that he’s done so, politicians have no choice but to take a side. It’s good that Palin took the correct side, but Pawlenty led the way. I don’t really trust Pawlenty at this point, but he’s using his candidacy in a great way. I’m very surprised his and Palin’s roles aren’t reversed, with her taking the bright line stances first and daring others to follow. Of course, we’ve got a year and a half to go. Sigh.

I agree with you that ethanol is almost like filler. I get much worse mileage with it.

Dustin (c16eca) — 5/31/2011 @ 12:17 pm

here is a good summary of the tax credits ethanol gets

happyfeet (a55ba0) — 5/31/2011 @ 12:23 pm

you need to have *some* ethanol Mr. Dustin or some other such chemical to oxygenate the gas when it’s burned so you get more pleasanter emissions – ethanol took the place of MTBE that was banned because it was decided that MTBE was bad for America

happyfeet (a55ba0) — 5/31/2011 @ 12:26 pm

my suspicion is that these guys are on the right track

Celanese Corp. (CE) said its technology to make ethanol from coal is more profitable than producing the gasoline additive from plants, and is a “game-changer” for the U.S. chemicals company.

If corn can’t compete it can’t compete.

Done and done.

happyfeet (a55ba0) — 5/31/2011 @ 12:32 pm

you need to have *some* ethanol Mr. Dustin

Well, you need some chemical to serve this function. My point is that the subsidy isn’t needed for that purpose, since the subsidy really just helps with the ridiculous scale for using ethanol for more than just that purpose.

But hey, if it’s needed for a purpose, it’s worth a price, and as you say, if it can’t compete, it can’t compete. Simple as that.

I don’t mind subsidies for some energy, if it’s really expensive at first with a long term payoff. Hoover dam type projects, like nuclear power. Ethanol? It’s a recurring thing, and the subsidy is just passing the price along forever, rather than the government making something happen because it makes the country better, and this can’t happen without government.

Dustin (c16eca) — 5/31/2011 @ 12:37 pm

so we should drop the subsidy and the tariff … but then won’t we just end up using the far-cheaper Brazilian ethanol?

That makes sense to me, but then Palin continues her pandering bibble babble thusly…

Before, though, we even start arguing about some of these domestic subsidies that need to be eliminated — should be — we need to look at ending subsidies and loans to foreign countries and their energy production that we’re relying on, like Brazil.”

So how does poor sarah’s ethanol policy not increase our dependence on foreign energy?

I don’t think she’s given much for reals deep thought to any of this.

happyfeet (a55ba0) — 5/31/2011 @ 12:48 pm

but then won’t we just end up using the far-cheaper Brazilian ethanol?

Not if we end all subsidies, since as you note, that means we aren’t subsidizing brazil anymore.

You take evidence Palin has a more well rounded opinion of this and assert a contradiction that isn’t really there.

You assume she must be an idiot, so her complex opinion must be a result of confusion rather than the informed opinion it appears to be at first glance.

Anyway, you would also have to deal with the substantial tariff we impost on Brazilian ethanol.

And I’m just not seeing the contradiction? When Sarah Palin talks about not being dependent on oil from the middle east, that doesn’t really mean ethanol from Brazil is also a bad thing.

Yeah, we should try to be more energy independent, but if Brazil is selling cheap fuel, that’s a much better solution than buying oil from Libyans, right?

The world is complex, and Palin’s views reflect that unless you just insist she’s an idiot, so her lack of an absolute universal opinion must prove she can’t remember what she said last time.

Actually, I’d think she was dumber if her opinion was more absolute.

Dustin (c16eca) — 5/31/2011 @ 12:54 pm

we don’t subsidize production of Brazilian ethanol Mr. Dustin – Brazil plain and simply kicks American farmer ass in the business of producing ethanol efficiently – this is why we have a tariff on the import of ethanol – we penalize the efficient Brazilians to reward the lazy fat American farmers that Sarah Palin is quite properly so eager to punish

happyfeet (a55ba0) — 5/31/2011 @ 1:02 pm

we don’t subsidize production of Brazilian ethanol Mr. Dustin –

Yes, of course I know this. In fact, I just noted the large tariff we impose on that product (close to a dollar? I can’t recall).

So why are you saying that Palin’s opposition to subisidies is a problem?

we penalize the efficient Brazilians to reward the lazy fat American farmers that Sarah Palin is quite properly so eager to punish

Sarah Palin is not punishing them. They are not entitled to my tax dollars. Why spin it that way? You wouldn’t do that if Daniels said the exact thing Palin did.

Palin isn’t punishing the Brazilians either. She didn’t impose the tariff. I think there is a good argument on both sides of that issue, and it’s a little more complicated. You take a statement about how we should be more independent on energy and insist that proves Palin is an idiot because of a tariff on Brazilian ethanol. Energy independence is a long term goal, and the main problem is oil and the middle east, not Brazil.

You’re conflating issues for no good reason. I would rather have energy independence than rely on Brazil, though. That’s not to say we should use tariffs to make that work, but it’s not a black and white issue.

Dustin (c16eca) — 5/31/2011 @ 1:09 pm

“I think a lot of it Mr. daley is I just don’t like her a whole lot, and I respect her even less than I like her.”

Mr. Feets – A lot of what? You make no sense. You sound like EricPW.

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/31/2011 @ 1:10 pm

You sound like EricPW.

At least happyfeet is honest. He’ll come right out and say he doesn’t like her, and then try to discuss the implications of her views on the actual topic (ethanol) instead of trying to filibuster any discussion with debunked lie after lie that is totally off topic (EPWJ style).

EPWJ pretends to be a knight purifying the party of moderate republicans like Palin, and his repetition in the face of proof he’s wrong shows he’s trying to bully the discussion rather than persuade it. Happyfeet isn’t like that.

I think Happyfeet is wrong, but he’s billions of times better than that a-hole EPWJ.

Dustin (c16eca) — 5/31/2011 @ 1:13 pm

Energy independence and unsubsidized energy are conflicting policy goals.

happyfeet (a55ba0) — 5/31/2011 @ 1:13 pm

You wouldn’t do that if Daniels said the exact thing Palin did.

That’s cause I like Mr. Daniels. He’s a lot unlikely to oppose ethanol subsidies given that Indiana is in the top 5 ethanol-producing states. Minnesota is rather high on the list as well I think.

I think Texas has moved into the top 10 recently as well. Have we heard from Mr. Perry yet?

happyfeet (a55ba0) — 5/31/2011 @ 1:17 pm

Energy independence and unsubsidized energy are conflicting policy goals.

Comment by happyfeet

I think this is possibly true. But you’re trying to hard to prove the contradiction in this case. If Palin wants to end subsidies and let the free market find all kinds of energy solutions, from gas to nuke to whatever, that’s a real prospect. Just because in the interim, Brazil could sell us a lot of alcohol/beets/whatever for a cheap price doesn’t really mean the goal of independent and low government intruded upon energy is impossible.

It’s vision. And it’s vision in a complex political world. Palin has to ask for more than she hopes to get. That’s how she ran Alaska. That’s realism. I wish Boehner understood as much.

Dustin (c16eca) — 5/31/2011 @ 1:17 pm

“At least happyfeet is honest.”

Dustin – Half the time he acts as a griefer, not honest in my opinion, and he admits his wild exaggeration if you push him hard enough.

Explain what the first line of #120 means if you can decipher it.

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/31/2011 @ 1:17 pm

I think Texas has moved into the top 10 recently as well. Have we heard from Mr. Perry yet?

Comment by happyfeet

If he hopes to get my vote (and if he’s running at all) then he had better come out opposed to subsidies. If he wants to realistically quibble about some subsidies, he had better do an excellent job convincing me he isn’t with Romney on this, pandering to Iowa.

And I don’t think Perry minds so much if he ticks off some Texan farmers. I know that’s a major voting bloc that likes him, but he’s not a reliable panderer.

Minnesota is rather high on the list as well I think.

This is a good point, but let’s not oversimplify Pawlenty’s position. We can’t afford the way government works right now, but the way it works right now has impacts that lead to states asking for FEMA’s help, or stimulus for bridges, or farmers taking advantage of programs, or kids buying GM Volts.

It’s brave that Pawlenty is trying to right that sinking ship despite the fact he too hails from a place that eats pork.

Dustin (c16eca) — 5/31/2011 @ 1:21 pm

Isn’t brazil lead by a marxist flip-flopper Dina Rousseff?

DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/31/2011 @ 1:22 pm

you can’t even grow corns in Alaska the penguins would eat it all up!

happyfeet (a55ba0) — 5/31/2011 @ 1:22 pm

Ethanol is cannibalizing our food supply, along with QE 2, setting the middle east, and much of
the third world on fire, have you been missing that pikachu

ian cormac (72470d) — 5/31/2011 @ 1:23 pm

Half the time he acts as a griefer,

Granted, but at least he’s funny.

He meant, in 121, that he’s not fair to her. I think everyone has a problem being fair to everyone. I have to admit I can’t be fair to Romney. It’s just the truth.

But someone is going to bash Palin. At least Happyfeet is able to do so with some ideas and in a way that is falsifiable.

EPWJ is just stupid and boring, repeating the same garbage 500 times in every thread he enters because he doesn’t care if he convinces us. There’s the real griefer.

I think if you look at Happyfeet’s comments, sure, they are totally unfair to Palin, but you can react to them in a way that is a decent discussion. That’s not so bad for Palin.

Dustin (c16eca) — 5/31/2011 @ 1:23 pm

126. I agree, my former guv is at least a competent politician, with some courage on the social con side, e.g., our carry law.

127. Ethanol’s insidiousness merely begins with subsidies. Adding ethanol to gas reduces the octane so 93 test seldom has alcohol, 91 test varies with urban/rural locale.

Premium seems to sell in MN and WI for about 20 cents more(at $2 or 4$, no matter) while prices are rising, 30 when they’re falling.

So you buy 10% more fuel and pay a surtax on the difference. Ethanol is more expensive by volume.

40% of corn goes to fuel, though the spent mash can be used for cheap feed(farmer’s know the caloric value). So tacos and meat are more expensive–up 29% over last 24 months.

Ethanol is extraordinarily wasteful of water. The Ogalala aquifer is spent. So the source of most of our corn acreage and Ethanol plants is wasted simply to prop up corn prices.

North Texas and OK are experiencing the driest weather since the Dust Bowl and with the PDO & AMO both negative for another decade look for worse.

Corn acreage takes soy, wheat and rice out of the fields, raising their prices.

All because the farmers had a rough couple of decades. The cumulative cost is accounted in Trillions.

gary gulrud (790d43) — 5/31/2011 @ 1:25 pm

143. Penguins range from the Equator south.

gary gulrud (790d43) — 5/31/2011 @ 1:33 pm

128. MBTE was added to cheaply raise the octane, Ethanol lowers the octane.

You are confused, and on this topic specifically.

gary gulrud (790d43) — 5/31/2011 @ 1:35 pm

You’d think ‘happyfeet’ would know more about penguins.

Dustin (c16eca) — 5/31/2011 @ 1:38 pm

One nifty effect of Ethanol is to produce aldehydes on evaporation. Thermal inversion in LA now sees unhealthful levels of formaldehyde, an embalming cocktail.

gary gulrud (790d43) — 5/31/2011 @ 1:49 pm

Crappyfeet and common sense are usually but not always conflicting things.

DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/31/2011 @ 2:01 pm

This is a general response to several people mixed together:

She’s such a pandering moron – subsidies are one way to offset the cost of America’s onerous regulations – simple as that –

Examples, please. Which subsidies offset which regulations? It was my understanding that there are no onerous regulations on corn ethanol, for example; rather, the regulations require people to use more of it than they would otherwise do, i.e. they are themselves a subsidy. What other forms of energy are subsidised, and what regulations affect them, which would justify those subsidies? (I’m not looking for a comprehensive treatise, of course; just a few illustrative examples to disabuse me of my notion that subsidies and excessive regulations generally work in concert rather than against each other.)

I also worry about the marginally-producing well situation, and I think it’s very possible that special tax treatment may be warranted to avoid shutting down those wells.

I wouldn’t call that a subsidy at all; it’s merely not trying to squeeze blood from stones. There isn’t any tax revenue to be had from such wells; refraining from a futile attempt to get it is common sense, not a subsidy. The public fisc is not a penny poorer from such a policy; rather it’s richer since good money isn’t being thrown after bad.

Tax breaks are not the same as subsidies.

That too. Except that they can be something like subsidies, so the above explanation was warranted.

She has a shtick that you don’t like, which is counter-elite. It seems more than a shtick, and actually sincere.

It’s sad that it appears like a shtick; the correct word is “normal”, but some people seem to have forgotten what that is.

She has a weird family

What’s weird about it? On the contrary, what distinguishes her family from the Kennedys and Bidens is its normality. This is what ordinary wholesome American families look like.

You think the presidency requires some serious special background. It’s something to aspire towards, that is so serious we should select only people who actually are elite.

Didn’t we have a discussion just a while ago about monarchy and hereditary nobility and all that? There’s nothing actually elite about aping the Kennedys and Gores, or the Bushes and Romneys, any more than there is in aping European bluebloods. A Yale education isn’t actually all that much better than a University of Idaho one, it just sounds better and attracts more money and respect.

I’m very surprised his and Palin’s roles aren’t reversed, with her taking the bright line stances first and daring others to follow

Um, perhaps it has something to do with him being a declared candidate, and therefore having to say something about it, while nobody thought to ask her until just now. (In 2008 she didn’t address the question of subsidies, because she wasn’t in the primary. She spoke about energy in general, and said she was for it. That’s good. We should be for energy, in all forms, but we shouldn’t be picking winners and losers among them; those that work will work, and those that fail will fail.)

ethanol took the place of MTBE that was banned because it was decided that MTBE was bad for America

Who decided that, Mr Feets, and how much did they get from ADM? Do you think that decision might have gone differently if MTBE grew in Iowa?

I don’t mind subsidies for some energy, if it’s really expensive at first with a long term payoff. Hoover dam type projects, like nuclear power.

If it’s worth doing the private sector can finance it; if it needs a subsidy then the market has already decided that it will never make a profit. The market might be mistaken in that assessment, but what are the odds that the government will be smarter? What makes bureaucrats more qualified than businessmen to make such a decision? Subsides — actual subsidies — are almost always a waste, and nowadays it’s a waste of money we have to borrow from China and pay interest on. I thought Feets was against that. Even nuclear shouldn’t need subsidies; all it needs is regulation that aims to help it rather than destroy it. But things like backup catastrophe insurance, that are unlikely ever to cost the taxpayer a penny, aren’t subsidies, no matter how much the greenies and commies call them that.

Milhouse (ea66e3) — 6/1/2011 @ 8:08 am

You assume she must be an idiot, so her complex opinion must be a result of confusion rather than the informed opinion it appears to be at first glance.

Exactly. And that sounds like something EPWJ would do, or Dan Rather.

Milhouse (ea66e3) — 6/1/2011 @ 8:10 am

Energy independence and unsubsidized energy are conflicting policy goals.

Fine. In that case I’ll take door number two, Mr Hall. But I don’t believe you’re correct. Oh, and nobody but you ever suggested we’re subsidising Brazilian ethanol. What we are subsidising, and should stop, is Brazilian oil.

Milhouse (ea66e3) — 6/1/2011 @ 8:15 am

Even nuclear shouldn’t need subsidies; all it needs is regulation that aims to help it rather than destroy it.

well that’s the point – much of loser-ass American policy is geared towards making energy more expensive and less plentiful – it’s rash to suggest that we can’t use subsidies to overcome some of that

the goal should be cheap plentiful energy, and that’s a goal what shouldn’t be sacrificed to satisfy the pandering grunts of a dogmatic twit like Palin

attacking energy subsidies is a cheap triangulation on Palin’s part – to abolish subsidies without addressing the market distortions what gave rise to those subsidies is just the exact sort of simple-mindedness Sarah Palin can be relied upon to bring to this sort of policy discussion I think

happyfeet (3c92a1) — 6/1/2011 @ 8:18 am

if Americans are too weak and cowardly to drill their own oil, and there is much evidence that this is so, all the more reason to secure a Brazilian supply I think

happyfeet (3c92a1) — 6/1/2011 @ 8:20 am

well that’s the point – much of loser-ass American policy is geared towards making energy more expensive and less plentiful – it’s rash to suggest that we can’t use subsidies to overcome some of that

No, it’s sensible. Using subsidies from one hand of the government to overcome hostile regulation by the other hand is as sensible as using “affirmative action” to overcome Jim Crow laws.

Milhouse (ea66e3) — 6/1/2011 @ 1:23 pm

I agree but we are where we are

happyfeet (a55ba0) — 6/1/2011 @ 1:24 pm

Good points, Milhouse, except:

Didn’t we have a discussion just a while ago about monarchy and hereditary nobility and all that?

Those people are trash. They are not elite. Nobility is dishonorable.

Elitism is being summa cum laude of the most prestigious school, or doubling your investment because you invented a microchip, or bringing a company from the brink of disaster by innovating and administering it to health.

Something where one rises above because they really are better leaders, and aspire to lead the United States.

That’s what I think Happyfeet wants. While Palin’s great, IMO, I don’t think she’s shown an elite leadership ability. You’re right that her family’s weirdness is really just the kinda of drama most families encounter. You’re right that her normal persona is sincere rather than an act (like Bush 43’s may have been upon occasion).

But I think there is something to this idea that you should be a damn amazing leader to be considered of presidential caliber. Something Obama simply isn’t. Something I’d say Romney isn’t in virtue of his governorship, but others would claim he is because of his success with the olympics and Bain.

The fact is that we do not have many presidential caliber options right now. We have no elites. No Navy SEALs of government administration. We have to choose from the B Team.

Dustin (c16eca) — 6/1/2011 @ 1:31 pm

“Who is a hero? He who conquers his inclination, as it is written: ‘Better one who is slow to anger than a hero; and he who rules his own spirit than he who captures a city’.
— Avoth 4:1, quoting Proverbs 16:32

When Palin found out about Trig’s chromosomal abnormality, the thought crossed her mind that she could have a secret abortion and nobody need ever know about it. She was out of town, nobody at the clinic would recognise her, she could have totally got away with it. But she chose not to. I can’t think of greater bravery. So was resisting the temptation to keep quiet when she began to harbour doubts about her political patrons’ honesty; no doubt she could have approached them quietly, and been cut in on the action, and nobody would ever be the wiser. But she did the right thing; that’s heroism. That’s leadership ability.

Milhouse (ea66e3) — 6/1/2011 @ 2:20 pm

I can’t think of greater bravery.

I think it’s wonderful. That must have been challenging, and it speaks well of her.

That’s leadership ability.

Not to diminish what she chose to do, when many lesser people would have (And sadly routinely do) fall short, but this isn’t the kind of leadership that is presidential.

It doesn’t show a skill with handling the BS of administration. The internal politics of multiple brilliant subordinates. The challenge of the bully pulpit. The stones to handle Chinese aggression or Iranian butchery. The willpower to stand up for what’s right, even if the UN insists on what’s wrong.

Democrats demagogueing. Crisis after crisis. The nearly impossible task of righting the ultimate broken mess that is our federal debt and obligations.

She loves her family, but can she succeed as our president really must succeed?

The best you can offer in her defense is that no one else seems to be that amazing leader either. We have very few candidates who successfully turned around a severely unsustainable state or company, and persisted for years making things work.

Perry didn’t do that. Texas wasn’t so bad. W managed to change the tone in Austin in a bipartisan way, but even that wasn’t enough to fix DC (thanks to the Bush v Gore Florida debacle poisoning any bipartisan well, IMO). Alaska wasn’t really far gone. Palin improved the state, but the scale of the problems just doesn’t compare to the job of the US President.

That’s why people like Chris Christie, after all. That’s the kind of leadership we need, however, Christie also hasn’t been doing it for long enough.

This isn’t Palin’s fault. The GOP is eating alive practically any candidate with any defect. It’s apparently very difficult to be a long term governor without having a blemish that makes one a radioactive RINO. Palin would be in office today, succeeding, but for the evil done to her and her state by lawfare.

My point simply is that the kind of leadership we really want to see is in very short supply. I hope Happyfeet can reevaluate, with the hard truth in mind that we’re out of perfect options.

Whoever we pick is going to be a bit unproven. I understand why you might pick Palin, then. Though electability is also worth some worry.

Dustin (c16eca) — 6/1/2011 @ 2:30 pm

“attacking energy subsidies is a cheap triangulation on Palin’s part”

Mr. Feets – WTF? Who is on the sides of the freaking triangle you imagine?

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/1/2011 @ 2:35 pm

the socialists want to get rid of the oil and gas subsidies and Palin knows she has to say she’s against ethanol subsidies, so the populist pandering wench says hey let’s just make a blanket condemnation of all energy subsidies and be the most bestest populist one

it’s very very clever, in her mind

but it’s not the same as a policy

happyfeet (a55ba0) — 6/1/2011 @ 2:41 pm

if Chris Christie ever asked me to take a helicopter ride with him I’d have to give it some thought I think

happyfeet (a55ba0) — 6/1/2011 @ 2:42 pm

that was a fat joke

happyfeet (a55ba0) — 6/1/2011 @ 2:42 pm

the socialists want to get rid of the oil and gas subsidies

Huh? Which socialists would those be? All the socialists I know of want everything that isn’t banned to be mandatory, taxed, and subsidised, so that everyone is dependent on the government.

Milhouse (ea66e3) — 6/1/2011 @ 5:20 pm

5/30/2011

Mitt Favors Ethanol Subsidies

167 Responses to “Mitt Favors Ethanol Subsidies”

Favorite Sites

Links

Patterico Sells Out