More misguided intervention in favor of alt energy

More misguided intervention in favor of alt energy (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Phydeaux -> More misguided intervention in favor of alt energy (9/15/2013 10:28:54 PM)
And guess what.. dimocrat contributors (big banks) benefit... http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/15/business/wall-st-exploits-ethanol-credits-and-prices-spike.html?hp&_r=1&

DomKen -> RE: More misguided intervention in favor of alt energy (9/15/2013 10:44:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux And guess what.. dimocrat contributors (big banks) benefit... http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/15/business/wall-st-exploits-ethanol-credits-and-prices-spike.html?hp&_r=1& True enough. The real environmentalists hated this thing from the day W and his GOP controlled Congress passed it. It was designed to have this outcome. Previous cap and trade type setups kept the market strictly limited to only the industries involved with no third party speculators allowed.

Phydeaux -> RE: More misguided intervention in favor of alt energy (9/16/2013 12:18:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux And guess what.. dimocrat contributors (big banks) benefit... http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/15/business/wall-st-exploits-ethanol-credits-and-prices-spike.html?hp&_r=1& True enough. The real environmentalists hated this thing from the day W and his GOP controlled Congress passed it. It was designed to have this outcome. Previous cap and trade type setups kept the market strictly limited to only the industries involved with no third party speculators allowed. damn, man. We agreed. You feelin' ok? There is plenty of blame to go around here. The EPA's policies on this have been utterly ludicrous as well.

DomKen -> RE: More misguided intervention in favor of alt energy (9/16/2013 2:47:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux And guess what.. dimocrat contributors (big banks) benefit... http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/15/business/wall-st-exploits-ethanol-credits-and-prices-spike.html?hp&_r=1& True enough. The real environmentalists hated this thing from the day W and his GOP controlled Congress passed it. It was designed to have this outcome. Previous cap and trade type setups kept the market strictly limited to only the industries involved with no third party speculators allowed. damn, man. We agreed. You feelin' ok? There is plenty of blame to go around here. The EPA's policies on this have been utterly ludicrous as well. Ethanol policy in the US has always been a boondoggle and there are very few well informed environmentalists who support it. It is mostly an artifact of the fact that Iowa has the first caucus of the Presidential campaign season. As to the EPA in this matter they are simply following the law. If they did not the sleazes profiting from this scam would sue. The blame rests entirely on W and his cronies who wrote the 2005 energy bill this exchange came out of.

Phydeaux -> RE: More misguided intervention in favor of alt energy (9/16/2013 10:26:23 AM)
Simply not true. The EPA mandates for the amount of fuel to be purchased was originally set by Congress - but this is something the EPA has the ability to modify, and has chosen not to. For example, this year/last year drought reduced corn harvests. The EPA had the ability to waive the ethanol requiredments - but chose not to. So as a result something like 40% of the harvest at that time was directed to ethanol production. It is, frankly, nuts. The constitution requires the president, and by extension his administration to faithfully execute the laws of the United States. This means adjusting policy when called for. The administration sought (and won) that ability to regulate CO2 as a pollutant - evidence that under Jackson they have an extreme bent toward "renewable energy" and, in fact the stats of ethanol production are still bruited on the doe website, the epa website and the dnc website. Since the democrats are claiming as policy it on their website As the article I quoted indicated - the EPA quota for ethanol (or rather the quota the epa decided not to issue waivers for ) is more than can be blended into gas. So the refiners are a). Buying the waivers and eating the cost. b). Making tax payer subsidized gasoline and exporting it to europe. Its just crazy. The facts are plain that the O administration has had 5 years to cut the ethanol subsidy, cut the ethanol requirements, or reduce to the subsidies to farmers. But even when they had control of both houses of congress they made no (serious) effort to do so. I again, think there is plenty of room for blame here.

mnottertail -> RE: More misguided intervention in favor of alt energy (9/16/2013 10:35:09 AM)
Simply not true. They can waiver IFF certain conditions are met in the requirements of the law, and they weren't. http://www.epa.gov/otaq/fuels/renewablefuels/documents/420f12075.pdf

popeye1250 -> RE: More misguided intervention in favor of alt energy (9/17/2013 2:28:16 AM)
Lol, what a bunch of crap! "I have a 1980 Chevrolet with 200,000 miles on it for $100,000." "Any takers?"

leonine -> RE: More misguided intervention in favor of alt energy (9/18/2013 3:36:59 PM)
Bioethanol was never about the environment, because it's about the most inefficient way invented of making gasoline. (It makes fracking look cost-effective.) It's another way to subsidise the agro-corporations while creating a food shortage so they can put up prices. In a word, pork. I run my car on biodiesel, but it's made from recycled cooking oil. No food crops consumed.

thompsonx -> RE: More misguided intervention in favor of alt energy (9/18/2013 4:00:48 PM)
quote: I again, think there is plenty of room for blame here. Why is it then, that the only ones named seem to be the ones without the r by their name?

Phydeaux -> RE: More misguided intervention in favor of alt energy (9/18/2013 4:51:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: I again, think there is plenty of room for blame here. Why is it then, that the only ones named seem to be the ones without the r by their name? Because I point out the articles and issues that are of interest to me, which mostly revolve around challenging the religious beliefs prevalent around here. I believe that small government prevents such boondoggles and our present Banking system. I believe that small government prevents Monsanto from being able to bribe its way to patenting seeds. I believe that small government limits huge mistakes like the EPA's crusade to regulate coal. I believe ethanol is a disaster. Solar panels are, for the most part, a ridiculous, expensive joke. It actually has very little to do with R / D to me. When democrats drop the big government, mandate how big cokes can be, stop interfering in religion, stop trying to promote big banks, and big lawyers.. etc.. I will happily vote for them.

Phydeaux -> RE: More misguided intervention in favor of alt energy (9/18/2013 4:53:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Simply not true. They can waiver IFF certain conditions are met in the requirements of the law, and they weren't. http://www.epa.gov/otaq/fuels/renewablefuels/documents/420f12075.pdf Oh, you mean like how they can't waive provisions of Obama care, but they did anyway?

Politesub53 -> RE: More misguided intervention in favor of alt energy (9/18/2013 4:56:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux And guess what.. dimocrat contributors (big banks) benefit... http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/15/business/wall-st-exploits-ethanol-credits-and-prices-spike.html?hp&_r=1& Are you seriously suggesting banks didnt donate to the Republicans, either when the bill was passed in 2006, or now ? laughable stuff.

DomKen -> RE: More misguided intervention in favor of alt energy (9/18/2013 5:20:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: I again, think there is plenty of room for blame here. Why is it then, that the only ones named seem to be the ones without the r by their name? Because I point out the articles and issues that are of interest to me, which mostly revolve around challenging the religious beliefs prevalent around here. I believe that small government prevents such boondoggles and our present Banking system. I believe that small government prevents Monsanto from being able to bribe its way to patenting seeds. I believe that small government limits huge mistakes like the EPA's crusade to regulate coal. I believe ethanol is a disaster. Solar panels are, for the most part, a ridiculous, expensive joke. It actually has very little to do with R / D to me. When democrats drop the big government, mandate how big cokes can be, stop interfering in religion, stop trying to promote big banks, and big lawyers.. etc.. I will happily vote for them. Small government enabled the Gilded Age which was far worse for most people than anything going on today. The EPA should regulate coal. If not acid rain would be rampant and soot and smog would be worse than it was in the early 70's. Solar panels have increased in output and decreased in cost quite dramatically over the last 10 years. And Democrats are the only voices resisting the big banks. Republicans fought tooth and nail to prevent the CFPB from functioning and it has directly benefited the average consumer and hurt the banks. There is no louder and more knowledgeable voice on fixing the financial industry than Elizabeth Warren.

Phydeaux -> RE: More misguided intervention in favor of alt energy (9/18/2013 8:36:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux And guess what.. dimocrat contributors (big banks) benefit... http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/15/business/wall-st-exploits-ethanol-credits-and-prices-spike.html?hp&_r=1& Are you seriously suggesting banks didnt donate to the Republicans, either when the bill was passed in 2006, or now ? laughable stuff. Why don't you look up the donation records of wall street, and the hedge funds (you know, wall street) and then post them here. Say, since 2009 since thats when the economy crashed. Lets see who the big banks bought. Why don't you post the 10 top recipients of Wallstreet's largesse.

Phydeaux -> RE: More misguided intervention in favor of alt energy (9/18/2013 8:42:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: I again, think there is plenty of room for blame here. Why is it then, that the only ones named seem to be the ones without the r by their name? Because I point out the articles and issues that are of interest to me, which mostly revolve around challenging the religious beliefs prevalent around here. I believe that small government prevents such boondoggles and our present Banking system. I believe that small government prevents Monsanto from being able to bribe its way to patenting seeds. I believe that small government limits huge mistakes like the EPA's crusade to regulate coal. I believe ethanol is a disaster. Solar panels are, for the most part, a ridiculous, expensive joke. It actually has very little to do with R / D to me. When democrats drop the big government, mandate how big cokes can be, stop interfering in religion, stop trying to promote big banks, and big lawyers.. etc.. I will happily vote for them. Small government enabled the Gilded Age which was far worse for most people than anything going on today. The EPA should regulate coal. If not acid rain would be rampant and soot and smog would be worse than it was in the early 70's. Solar panels have increased in output and decreased in cost quite dramatically over the last 10 years. And Democrats are the only voices resisting the big banks. Republicans fought tooth and nail to prevent the CFPB from functioning and it has directly benefited the average consumer and hurt the banks. There is no louder and more knowledgeable voice on fixing the financial industry than Elizabeth Warren. yeah.. the BlarneyFrank fix fixed a lot. The banks are bigger than ever, record profits and no one went to jail. Uhhuh. Maybe O just needs another term in office to get around to fixing that banking problem. Actually, the acid rain program was a pretty good example of a sensible regulation. The current regulations tonnes co2 per MWh are not. Solar panels prices have crashed because China has solar panel manufacturers in more than 600 cities in china and prices are below the price to produce. This is why china in the last 2 weeks moved to limit direct investment into solar panels and limit production increases.

DomKen -> RE: More misguided intervention in favor of alt energy (9/18/2013 10:00:58 PM)
Even without china prices of panels is way down and efficiency is way up. You attacked the EPA's regulation of coal. Which obviously is all of it and the fact is it has all been a success or is just being implemented. Making power plants become more efficient or sequester the CO2 produced is necessary if our society is to survive. Actually Barney Frank proposed a lot of good banking and finance regulations. Unfortunately the GOP controlled congress when the mortgage bubble was being created ignored all of it to line their pockets with donations from those banks and investment houses.

DomKen -> RE: More misguided intervention in favor of alt energy (9/18/2013 10:06:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux And guess what.. dimocrat contributors (big banks) benefit... http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/15/business/wall-st-exploits-ethanol-credits-and-prices-spike.html?hp&_r=1& Are you seriously suggesting banks didnt donate to the Republicans, either when the bill was passed in 2006, or now ? laughable stuff. Why don't you look up the donation records of wall street, and the hedge funds (you know, wall street) and then post them here. Say, since 2009 since thats when the economy crashed. Lets see who the big banks bought. Why don't you post the 10 top recipients of Wallstreet's largesse. Since 2009? Mitt Romney raised almost $20 million http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2012/10/wall-street-funds-down-from-obamas.html Scott Brown got about $3.5 million in 2012 http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2012/10/wall-street-funds-down-from-obamas.html and almost $2 million for his special election http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/industries.php?cycle=2010&cid=N00031174&type=I

Politesub53 -> RE: More misguided intervention in favor of alt energy (9/19/2013 4:57:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Why don't you look up the donation records of wall street, and the hedge funds (you know, wall street) and then post them here. Say, since 2009 since thats when the economy crashed. Lets see who the big banks bought. Why don't you post the 10 top recipients of Wallstreet's largesse. Why dont you, and not cherrypicking your years but going back to 2001 Big Business donates to both parties, always more to the party in power, or likely to win the next election....... How the fuck do you think lobbyists operate ?

Phydeaux -> RE: More misguided intervention in favor of alt energy (9/19/2013 6:03:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux And guess what.. dimocrat contributors (big banks) benefit... http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/15/business/wall-st-exploits-ethanol-credits-and-prices-spike.html?hp&_r=1& Are you seriously suggesting banks didnt donate to the Republicans, either when the bill was passed in 2006, or now ? laughable stuff. Why don't you look up the donation records of wall street, and the hedge funds (you know, wall street) and then post them here. Say, since 2009 since thats when the economy crashed. Lets see who the big banks bought. Why don't you post the 10 top recipients of Wallstreet's largesse. Since 2009? Mitt Romney raised almost $20 million http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2012/10/wall-street-funds-down-from-obamas.html Scott Brown got about $3.5 million in 2012 http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2012/10/wall-street-funds-down-from-obamas.html and almost $2 million for his special election http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/industries.php?cycle=2010&cid=N00031174&type=I True but cherry picking in a year that saw Obama donations exceed Romneys almost 2-1. This from the guy turned down federal campaign matching funds claiming Romney would outraise him.

DomKen -> RE: More misguided intervention in favor of alt energy (9/19/2013 6:43:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux And guess what.. dimocrat contributors (big banks) benefit... http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/15/business/wall-st-exploits-ethanol-credits-and-prices-spike.html?hp&_r=1& Are you seriously suggesting banks didnt donate to the Republicans, either when the bill was passed in 2006, or now ? laughable stuff. Why don't you look up the donation records of wall street, and the hedge funds (you know, wall street) and then post them here. Say, since 2009 since thats when the economy crashed. Lets see who the big banks bought. Why don't you post the 10 top recipients of Wallstreet's largesse. Since 2009? Mitt Romney raised almost $20 million http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2012/10/wall-street-funds-down-from-obamas.html Scott Brown got about $3.5 million in 2012 http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2012/10/wall-street-funds-down-from-obamas.html and almost $2 million for his special election http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/industries.php?cycle=2010&cid=N00031174&type=I True but cherry picking in a year that saw Obama donations exceed Romneys almost 2-1. This from the guy turned down federal campaign matching funds claiming Romney would outraise him. Wrong! From http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2012/10/wall-street-funds-down-from-obamas.html quote: Wall Street has been less generous to Obama this time around. According to Center for Responsive Politics data, the industry has contributed only $5.5 million (the figure doesn't include the first three months of the cycle's first year, unlike the 2008 number). Republican challenger Mitt Romney, on the other hand, has received more than three times that amount, at $18.3 million. The securities and investment industry is second to only retired persons -- which is No. 1 for both the nominees -- in donating to Romney. Romney got almost 3 times as much money from Wall Street.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125