OT: Flex fuel vs regular

Historically, Republicans claim to be fiscal tightwads, but in fact they blow up the US budget, usually on defense spending. That forces the citizens to vote in Democrats who are then harangued by the supposed fiscal conservatives that supported the free spending to rein it in. The Democrats eventually do this - usually by hacking away at domestic spending - and the the Republicans get voted back into office, get some military action going again, and once again drive up the deficit.

You think I'm making that up? Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama. Who had the record setting deficits? The Republican administrations. Who brought spending under control? The Democrats. Who always get blamed for the deficit? The Democrats.

By the way, the Democrats have annually introduced a bill to raise taxes to pay for the Mideast wars the Republicans insisted on having and not paying for. The bill never makes it out of session because the Republicans never believe in responsible spending and taxation.

Next time all you patriot boys want another war, tell your congresspeople you want your taxes raised to pay for it, too. Your grandchildren will appreciate not being stuck with your bills.

Reply to
Moe DeLoughan
Loading thread data ...

I'm also ignorant. Would you please check the dates of the tax and give away known as stimulus. Also the dates of the money supply inflation known as quantitative easing. I think the first couple were under GWB, and most of the inflation was (is) under B. Hussein Obama.

. Christ> Per snipped-for-privacy@attt.bizz:

Reply to
Stormin Mormon

Yep. The thing that most people point to as the thing that made it all possible, repeal of Glass Stegall Act, took place in the last days of the Clinton Administration and, at least as importantly from my viewpoint, by very large bipartisan majorities (the no votes in the House were less than 20 and it passed the Senate by voice vote). The large majorities were also seen in other Congressional Acts that others point to as contributory. It is hard for the Dems to put all of the problems on the GOP since they so enthusiastically went along with it.

Reply to
Kurt Ullman

This is pretty much BS. Looking at the year over year increases in spending, they are remarkably stable no matter who is in office or control of the government. There was a 3-4 year time when the GOP first took over, where the year over year increase averaging a full percentage point less than the previous 5 years, but then the GOP found out how much fun it was to spend other people's money and they returned to roughly the growth the Dems had averaged during their range. This has always been the major variable since they, unlike taxes which are very much dependent on the comings and goings of the general economy, are largely controlled by Congress.

Reagan came in and finally broke the stagflation, that was a legacy from LBJ, Nixon, and Carter (bipartisan screw ups). Clinton was the recipient of a one time overheated economy related to Greenspan's easy money and Bill Gates (as proxy for the stunning increases in productivity brought about by computers). The surplus was gone before Bush II's first budget. Bush II I'll have to give you, although I would like to point out that around 30% of every so called Iraq war payment bill was for domestic earmarks not remotely related to the war (except as a way to buy off Congresscritters from both parties. Obama's deficit has risen much faster than even Bush II's and probably would have been even more if not Congressional inability to get a budget through resulting in continuing resolutions that kept spending lower and the sequester.

Yet they haven't gotten it out of the Senate which they control. THis is their reply to the idiocy that is the GOP's constant voting to defund healthcare reform. Just something to feed the more hungry for blood constituents.

From the actions of both parties.

Reply to
Kurt Ullman

Exactly. And that is the kind of massive subsidy that are different between what's going on with alternative fuels and the oil and gas industries. The "subsidies" the loons allege are being given to the oil companies are pretty much similar to the tax deductions any other companies, including the alternative fuel producers get. It's that to make alternative fuels viable at all, they have to be given special subsidies that have a large impact on the price at the pump, without which those fuels would be unviable. The loons also use the tactic of lumping every tax break, no matter how remotely connected to oil and gas together, and then adding it all up for what is a huge industry. Then they use that number as a shock value.

Reply to
trader4

Nonsense.

Reply to
dpb

Per Stormin Mormon:

OK, but what about the question: did the recent financial meltdown occur on Obama's or Bush's watch.

Reply to
(PeteCresswell)

Per Kurt Ullman:

But it *did* happen under the Republicans, right?

I'm not disagreeing with what you said - only trying to get some substantiation for the "Obama depression" allegation.

As you correctly point out, both parties are in this up to their necks.... but "Obama depression", aside from being incorrect on it's face, seems to me to reflect the thinking that one party is "good" and the other is "bad"....

Reply to
(PeteCresswell)

Both.

Reply to
Kurt Ullman

More specifically, by US Census data definitions there are roughly 2 million farms in US. Of those, 87% are owned and operated by individuals or families as sole proprietorships or in similar organization.

Following that, 8% are are partnerships, a high fraction of which are family partnerships altho precise data on that sub-fraction of which are all family-member partners vis a vis some partners that may be landowner or other relationship than related isn't readily available.

"Corporate" farms account for only 4% of U.S. farms and 1 percent are owned by other--cooperative, estates or trusts etc.

The term "family farm" does not necessarily equate with "small farm"; nor does a "corporate farm" necessarily mean a large-scale operation owned and operated by a multi-national corporation. Many of the larger agricultural enterprises are wholly family owned/operated but may have be techically organized as a C-corp or LLC for legal and accounting purposes, no different than any other small business.

Farm production expenses _average_ almost $110K per year per farm. Many farms that meet the U.S. Census' definition cannot produce sufficient income to meet farm family living expenses. In fact, fewer than 1 in 4 of the farms in this country produce gross revenues in excess of $50,000 including subsidies.

There is no way required production for current population levels could be met at anything close to affordable costs with a return to 80A single-owner/operator farm operations exclusively or even predominantly. The loss of scale in labor costs owing to the unaffordability of large equipment on such a scale would simply be prohibitive in the current economics--it's difficult enough w/ moderate-sized operations at present.

Reply to
dpb

Please don't confuse liberals with facts.

. Christ>

Reply to
Stormin Mormon

On 9/2/2013 5:22 PM, Kurt Ullman wrote: ...

NO!!! NEVER DID! The tax benefit went to the _BLENDERS_, namely the oil companies to compensate (supposedly) for their cost in putting in the equipment to handle it and to provide incentive to use it. The producers never saw that credit except indirectly in helping stabilize demand while the fledgling industry gained some foothold. What help they currently get is related to the EPA emissions reqm'ts and the renewable fuel standards that creates some stable minimum demand. The blenders (again, "big oil") were using far more than the minimum to meet the RFS levels up to the time of the expiration of the credit banking those credits while available.

And, the credit expired and was _NOT_ renewed.

Commonly referred to as the "blender?s credit", the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC) was created in 2004 to provide oil companies with an economic incentive to blend ethanol with gasoline. As of January 1, 2009, the original tax credit totaling 51 cents per gallon on pure ethanol (5.1 cents per gallon for E10, and 42 cents per gallon on E85) was reduced to 45 cents per gallon. The tax credit is passed on to motorists in the form of more cost-effective fuel at the pump. VEETC was initially authorized through December 31, 2010, was extended one additional year through December 31, 2011, and went away and has stayed gone since January 1, 2012--18 months now or so.

Since stabilization of the markets again after the transition, ethanol has been basically steady around the 2.25/gal w/ swings of 10 cents or so. Recently futures market has jumped to near 2.45-2.50 range -- I'm not sure why. But, it's a third cheaper w/o the VEETC and the producers are profitable w/ current corn prices (altho during the spike from last year's serious drought-lowered production it was not profitable w/ $8+ corn).

It's a useful stabilizing tool for corn markets for producers that mitigates at least some of the boom-bust cycles of good/bad production years that when any given farmer has a good crop and thereby a chance to make a little it's highly likely all the corn belt is going to be good and so there's a drain on prices so actually he doesn't make much after all. OTOH, when prices are high it's generally because production was low owing to drought or other weather causes and so it's highly likely the producer despite the high price has little product to sell so again may not do him any good.

The same scenario holds for all ag commodities that are bulk commodities such as beans, corn, wheat, cotton, etc., etc., ... It almost always is so that that there's a boom-bust cycle going on.

Reply to
dpb

On 9/4/2013 2:44 PM, dpb wrote: ...

...

Reply to
dpb

You are correct and I stand suitably chastised.

Reply to
Kurt Ullman

OH, and one additional side note on the "subsidies" issue -- of the overall USDA authorization bill ~80% nutrition programs and

Reply to
dpb

And, the oil companies are now engaged in heavy lobbying to repeal the RFS and have been adamant in digging in against installing blender pumps or the infrastructure to support E85. They've also been the monies behind the challenges to the EPA approval of E85.

I'm not that adamant one w/ or t'other on ethanol as general proposition but it does have benefit to the ag markets that struggled for so long with high production costs and low market prices that weren't helped by misguided government intervention to place export embargoes in place to try to achieve political gains (Ford/Carter most egregious altho there've been later lesser ones) that devastated wheat exports for a while particularly. While that went on the Brazilians, Australians, Canadians and to lesser extent even the rest of Euro markets seized the opportunity and the penetration in those markets has yet to fully recover.

Ag didn't get to the position it's in overnight and there's much to be said for the level of production and availability of safe and inexpensive food and fiber supply that has ensued over the years since the disaster years of the Depression and Dust Bowl with a few periods of real disaster such as the '80s when large numbers went bust owing in no small part to the above embargoes combined w/ the high interest rates and the period just preceding the embargoes when the same administration urged higher production and exports before pulling the rug out from under producers. (As you can tell, we've not forgotten that out here yet... :) )

Reply to
dpb

Per Stormin Mormon:

It you are calling me a "liberal" you must stand corrected.

Fiscally, I'm a conservative bordering on reactionary and have been all my life.

Reply to
(PeteCresswell)

They can't let the facts get in the way of their notion of saving the environment. Talking to my granddaughter, I'm disturbed with these types teaching our kids.

Reply to
Frank

Just where do you think the gvt gets the money to pay for those credits?? It's from OUR TAXES. Pretend all you want that the users aren't paying for this but the USERS pay for EVERYTHING the gvt hands out. We got higher gas prices thanks to ethanol and lower gas mileage based on the FICTION that it lowered emissions. It does NOT lower emissions in anything produced since the 1980's. It's a classic scam intended to move money from MY pocket to the pockets of special interests. It's also cost US more for everything that uses the "corn" products and byproducts thanks to the "stabilizing" of prices at three times the prior levels.

Reply to
Ashton Crusher

Yeah, right. My sister is one of those "farmers". All it means is that they keep a big chunk of their land listed on the tax rolls as "farmland" so the taxes stay low. They lease it out to some other guy for pennies who "farms" it, i.e. they grow hay and sell it, just so they can get a lease document to met the tax law requirements. It's all one big scam. Next you'll be lobbying for buggywhip subsides because we need to keep the family buggywhip producers in business. It's all a shell game and the guys with the best lobbyists know where the pea is. They rest of us get the short end of the stick.

Reply to
Ashton Crusher

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.