Rick Scott makes the right call. Even dems have to agree with this one.

Fla. asks feds to drop ethanol requirement for gas
October 19, 2012 07:04 GMT



TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) -- Florida Gov. Rick Scott wants the federal government to drop a requirement for corn-based ethanol in gasoline.

Scott made that request in a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency because he wants to help Florida's cattle industry.

The governor writes in the letter dated Tuesday that a short supply of corn due to drought this year has spiked cattle feed prices.

That in turn has cut the market price of Florida feeder calves shipped to the Midwest where they fatten up on corn.

Scott writes it has cost Florida cattlemen $80 million this year.

He noted several other governors also have asked to temporarily set aside the ethanol requirement designed to improve the nation's energy independence.

Scott, though, says it should be waived to save jobs and protect consumers.

I have always thought ethanol was the biggest waste of money ever. Takes more energy to convert the stuff per gallon than is returned in energy. Only a heavily subsidized corn farmer and ethanol refiners would disagree with this "it's about time" push by Scott. He ought to just sign an executive order like BHO does and do away with it.

ghandi wrote:Fla. asks feds to drop ethanol requirement for gas
October 19, 2012 07:04 GMT



TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) -- Florida Gov. Rick Scott wants the federal government to drop a requirement for corn-based ethanol in gasoline.

Scott made that request in a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency because he wants to help Florida's cattle industry.

The governor writes in the letter dated Tuesday that a short supply of corn due to drought this year has spiked cattle feed prices.

That in turn has cut the market price of Florida feeder calves shipped to the Midwest where they fatten up on corn.

Scott writes it has cost Florida cattlemen $80 million this year.

He noted several other governors also have asked to temporarily set aside the ethanol requirement designed to improve the nation's energy independence.

Scott, though, says it should be waived to save jobs and protect consumers.

Therein lies the difference between a politician and a businessman.

Oh, of COURSE. By all means, let's take a step that negatively affects our potential for energy independence. Then, let's blast President Obama for working for energy independence in the first place - what a silly notion!

Next, let's all elect Romney, who claims he is going to provide energy independence in four years.

PBulldog2 wrote:Oh, of COURSE. By all means, let's take a step that negatively affects our potential for energy independence. Then, let's blast President Obama for working for energy independence in the first place - what a silly notion!

Next, let's all elect Romney, who claims he is going to provide energy independence in four years.

Until the government starts approving more nuclear power plants, refineries, natural gas recovery and infrastructure expansion, and exploring less intrusive green energy projects like ocean hydropower, energy independence is just an expensive fantasy. Modernization of the electrical grid would also be a great place to invest money.

Apparently, ethanol byproducts can be used as cattle feed. I agree that ethanol is not the ideal gasoline additive or alternative. I wonder whatever happened to methane from animal waste, or garbage as fuel. The Republicans seem hell-bent in this election to hand over every subsidy and economic advantage to big oil, including the Keystone Pipeline, which would be an environmental disaster in the making and is being actively protested in Texas by landowners, who don't seem to want their water polluted...go figure.

http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/news/columns/dairy-focus/dairy-focus-ethanol-production-byproducts-nutritious-animal-feed/

In other news, it seems that Hurricane Isaac washed up a whole new batch of oil from the Deepwater Horizon disaster of 2010, and it's probably that the well was not completely sealed and is still leaking oil into the Gulf.

nochain wrote:

PBulldog2 wrote:Oh, of COURSE. By all means, let's take a step that negatively affects our potential for energy independence. Then, let's blast President Obama for working for energy independence in the first place - what a silly notion!

Next, let's all elect Romney, who claims he is going to provide energy independence in four years.

Until the government starts approving more nuclear power plants, refineries, natural gas recovery and infrastructure expansion, and exploring less intrusive green energy projects like ocean hydropower, energy independence is just an expensive fantasy. Modernization of the electrical grid would also be a great place to invest money.

Refining capacity is intentionally kept at a low level to keep the price of gas high at the pump. This isn't government; this is the oil companies themselves. Ocean hydropower is a great option; makes me wonder why Gulf Power isn't using it here, with the GE plant that manufactures wind turbines...and it is my understanding that hydrogen is a byproduct of ocean windpower. Nuclear plants, on the other hand, generate radioactive waste that has to be disposed of somehow, and there are maintenance issues in older nuclear plants that have to be addressed before they become critical.
Energy independence would not be "an expensive fantasy" if the country had pursued these alternatives in any meaningful way back in the 60's and 70's, but the oil giants and energy companies only want to preserve the status quo and keep those profits for themselves, so they squelched innovation.

Big "duh" on updating our electric power grid...we're way behind schedule on that.

Rick Scott is trying to fix a car which will not start by rotating the tires. Yes, rotating the tires is needed maintenance on a car, but the car will not start. The first thing you need to do is lower farm subsidies. We have a friend who owns 300 acres of his grade A corn land, and recently inherited 200 acres of his parents 200 acre farm. He was getting 40k of direct farm subsidies each year since the early 90s. He inherited his parents 2 million dollar farm without one dime being paid in taxes. In 1980, the government would have collected about 400k after standard exemptions and special exemptions for the family farm. Now when our friends die and their children inherit prime grade A midwest corn soils they will inherit a 5 million dollar farm which produces 70k bushels of corn which brings in about 500k a year with a tax free transfer. Now you take ADM who used to sponsor meet the press, and give them a multi billion dollar ethanol subsidy......and you have the problem. You do not solve the problem by taking the ethanol requirement, rather you solve the problem by addressing taxes and subsidy.

America is in trouble because special interests created the ethanol subsidy, farm subsidies, and exemptions from estate taxes.......we begin to fix things by returning to sane revenue policy, and not falling for the theatrics of short term solutions. We need to be giving tax credits in manufacturing, not on a 500 acre farm where multi millionaires are making over 300k a year. It is time for sanity.

2seaoat wrote:Rick Scott is trying to fix a car which will not start by rotating the tires. Yes, rotating the tires is needed maintenance on a car, but the car will not start. The first thing you need to do is lower farm subsidies. We have a friend who owns 300 acres of his grade A corn land, and recently inherited 200 acres of his parents 200 acre farm. He was getting 40k of direct farm subsidies each year since the early 90s. He inherited his parents 2 million dollar farm without one dime being paid in taxes. In 1980, the government would have collected about 400k after standard exemptions and special exemptions for the family farm. Now when our friends die and their children inherit prime grade A midwest corn soils they will inherit a 5 million dollar farm which produces 70k bushels of corn which brings in about 500k a year with a tax free transfer. Now you take ADM who used to sponsor meet the press, and give them a multi billion dollar ethanol subsidy......and you have the problem. You do not solve the problem by taking the ethanol requirement, rather you solve the problem by addressing taxes and subsidy.

America is in trouble because special interests created the ethanol subsidy, farm subsidies, and exemptions from estate taxes.......we begin to fix things by returning to sane revenue policy, and not falling for the theatrics of short term solutions. We need to be giving tax credits in manufacturing, not on a 500 acre farm where multi millionaires are making over 300k a year. It is time for sanity.

You act like that farm that was already bought and paid for (taxes paid) should be taxed twice. You also seem to think that a farm produces its own crops with no work from the owners. Try farming for a week and you'll be singing a different tune.

Gunz wrote:

2seaoat wrote:Rick Scott is trying to fix a car which will not start by rotating the tires. Yes, rotating the tires is needed maintenance on a car, but the car will not start. The first thing you need to do is lower farm subsidies. We have a friend who owns 300 acres of his grade A corn land, and recently inherited 200 acres of his parents 200 acre farm. He was getting 40k of direct farm subsidies each year since the early 90s. He inherited his parents 2 million dollar farm without one dime being paid in taxes. In 1980, the government would have collected about 400k after standard exemptions and special exemptions for the family farm. Now when our friends die and their children inherit prime grade A midwest corn soils they will inherit a 5 million dollar farm which produces 70k bushels of corn which brings in about 500k a year with a tax free transfer. Now you take ADM who used to sponsor meet the press, and give them a multi billion dollar ethanol subsidy......and you have the problem. You do not solve the problem by taking the ethanol requirement, rather you solve the problem by addressing taxes and subsidy.

America is in trouble because special interests created the ethanol subsidy, farm subsidies, and exemptions from estate taxes.......we begin to fix things by returning to sane revenue policy, and not falling for the theatrics of short term solutions. We need to be giving tax credits in manufacturing, not on a 500 acre farm where multi millionaires are making over 300k a year. It is time for sanity.

You act like that farm that was already bought and paid for (taxes paid) should be taxed twice. You also seem to think that a farm produces its own crops with no work from the owners. Try farming for a week and you'll be singing a different tune.

Seaoat isn't talking about small family farms; it's the big farms owned by passive investors that get subsidized.

http://climateandcapitalism.com/2011/06/30/who-gets-the-big-u-s-farm-subsidies-not-farmers/

Who gets the big U.S. farm subsidies? Not farmers


60% of U.S. farmers get no aid, while government programs subsidize the wealthiest agri-businesses and absentee land owners

by Sara Sciammacco
Environmental Working Group – Agriculture, June 23, 2011

"Remember the last time you were smack in the middle of downtown Chicago or walking down a bustling street of Manhattan? Did you notice the sweeping farm vistas, the rich fields of corn and wheat?

Oh, wait a minute. There are none within the city limits of the Windy City or the Big Apple.

So why is the U.S. government sending hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars (did you know this?) in farm subsidy payments to people who live in some of America’s wealthiest and decidedly urban neighborhoods?

The fact is, you can be a city slicker in Miami Beach or Beverly Hills and collect farm subsidy payments. All you have to do is have an ownership interest in some Iowa farmland. While 60 percent of American farmers must get along without a dime in federal subsidies, the so-called farm “safety net” benefits a narrow band of the wealthiest agri-businesses and absentee land owners and the lobbyists who ensure that the subsidies keep flowing.

The last farm bill, passed in 2008, was supposed to prevent people who weren’t actively engaged in farming from getting farm payments. It is clear those reforms didn’t work.

According to the Environmental Working Group’s updated 2011 Farm Subsidy Database, the government sent $394 million in farm subsidy payments in 2010 to residents of U.S. cities with populations of 100,000 or more.
•In bucolic Chicago, 734 farm subsidy recipients pulled in a total of $2,173,344.
•In pastoral New York City, 290 residents got $800,887 in subsidy checks.
•In agrarian Miami, 203 individuals collected $2,472,071 in farm payments.
•In Phoenix, 486 residents banked $3,216,958 in subsidies.
•In rustic Los Angeles, 199 locals received $421,717 in all.
•In the pastures of Washington D.C., 195 residents cashed $475,214 in farm payment checks.
•In the fruited plains of Denver, 1,146 people collected $3,394,550 in subsidy payments.
•In Seattle, 564 individuals got $2,275,300.
•In Spokane, 1,224 residents took home a whopping $10,580,181 in farm payments.
•And amid San Francisco’s amber waves of grain, 179 folk got $1,094,172.

Denizens of more than 350 cities with populations of 100,000 or more cashed subsidy checks in 2010.

The issue of city dwellers cashing in on farm payments isn’t new. EWG has been calling attention to this abuse since 1995, when it produced its “City Slickers” report. Back then, EWG’s researchers reported that 1.6 million subsidy checks worth more than $1.3 billion had been paid out to urban residents over a ten-year period.

“City Slickers” underscored the fundamental problem with America’s farm programs, and it still exists today: They mostly reward those who own the land, not those who farm it, or are most in need, or grow the healthiest food, or do the best job of protecting soil, water and wildlife habitat."

Floridatexan wrote:

Gunz wrote:

2seaoat wrote:Rick Scott is trying to fix a car which will not start by rotating the tires. Yes, rotating the tires is needed maintenance on a car, but the car will not start. The first thing you need to do is lower farm subsidies. We have a friend who owns 300 acres of his grade A corn land, and recently inherited 200 acres of his parents 200 acre farm. He was getting 40k of direct farm subsidies each year since the early 90s. He inherited his parents 2 million dollar farm without one dime being paid in taxes. In 1980, the government would have collected about 400k after standard exemptions and special exemptions for the family farm. Now when our friends die and their children inherit prime grade A midwest corn soils they will inherit a 5 million dollar farm which produces 70k bushels of corn which brings in about 500k a year with a tax free transfer. Now you take ADM who used to sponsor meet the press, and give them a multi billion dollar ethanol subsidy......and you have the problem. You do not solve the problem by taking the ethanol requirement, rather you solve the problem by addressing taxes and subsidy.

America is in trouble because special interests created the ethanol subsidy, farm subsidies, and exemptions from estate taxes.......we begin to fix things by returning to sane revenue policy, and not falling for the theatrics of short term solutions. We need to be giving tax credits in manufacturing, not on a 500 acre farm where multi millionaires are making over 300k a year. It is time for sanity.

You act like that farm that was already bought and paid for (taxes paid) should be taxed twice. You also seem to think that a farm produces its own crops with no work from the owners. Try farming for a week and you'll be singing a different tune.

Seaoat isn't talking about small family farms; it's the big farms owned by passive investors that get subsidized.

http://climateandcapitalism.com/2011/06/30/who-gets-the-big-u-s-farm-subsidies-not-farmers/

Who gets the big U.S. farm subsidies? Not farmers


60% of U.S. farmers get no aid, while government programs subsidize the wealthiest agri-businesses and absentee land owners

by Sara Sciammacco
Environmental Working Group – Agriculture, June 23, 2011

"Remember the last time you were smack in the middle of downtown Chicago or walking down a bustling street of Manhattan? Did you notice the sweeping farm vistas, the rich fields of corn and wheat?

Oh, wait a minute. There are none within the city limits of the Windy City or the Big Apple.

So why is the U.S. government sending hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars (did you know this?) in farm subsidy payments to people who live in some of America’s wealthiest and decidedly urban neighborhoods?

The fact is, you can be a city slicker in Miami Beach or Beverly Hills and collect farm subsidy payments. All you have to do is have an ownership interest in some Iowa farmland. While 60 percent of American farmers must get along without a dime in federal subsidies, the so-called farm “safety net” benefits a narrow band of the wealthiest agri-businesses and absentee land owners and the lobbyists who ensure that the subsidies keep flowing.

The last farm bill, passed in 2008, was supposed to prevent people who weren’t actively engaged in farming from getting farm payments. It is clear those reforms didn’t work.

According to the Environmental Working Group’s updated 2011 Farm Subsidy Database, the government sent $394 million in farm subsidy payments in 2010 to residents of U.S. cities with populations of 100,000 or more.
•In bucolic Chicago, 734 farm subsidy recipients pulled in a total of $2,173,344.
•In pastoral New York City, 290 residents got $800,887 in subsidy checks.
•In agrarian Miami, 203 individuals collected $2,472,071 in farm payments.
•In Phoenix, 486 residents banked $3,216,958 in subsidies.
•In rustic Los Angeles, 199 locals received $421,717 in all.
•In the pastures of Washington D.C., 195 residents cashed $475,214 in farm payment checks.
•In the fruited plains of Denver, 1,146 people collected $3,394,550 in subsidy payments.
•In Seattle, 564 individuals got $2,275,300.
•In Spokane, 1,224 residents took home a whopping $10,580,181 in farm payments.
•And amid San Francisco’s amber waves of grain, 179 folk got $1,094,172.

Denizens of more than 350 cities with populations of 100,000 or more cashed subsidy checks in 2010.

The issue of city dwellers cashing in on farm payments isn’t new. EWG has been calling attention to this abuse since 1995, when it produced its “City Slickers” report. Back then, EWG’s researchers reported that 1.6 million subsidy checks worth more than $1.3 billion had been paid out to urban residents over a ten-year period.

“City Slickers” underscored the fundamental problem with America’s farm programs, and it still exists today: They mostly reward those who own the land, not those who farm it, or are most in need, or grow the healthiest food, or do the best job of protecting soil, water and wildlife habitat."

"We have a friend who owns 300 acres of his grade A corn land, and recently inherited 200 acres of his parents 200 acre farm. He was getting 40k of direct farm subsidies each year since the early 90s. He inherited his parents 2 million dollar farm without one dime being paid in taxes."
-Seaoat


That is what he discussed idiot! If you think that that is a large corporate farm then you , as usual, are trying to blow smoke up somebody's ass.

I have tried farming 20 acres....I failed. The Racoons and deer got all my sweet corn, and I did not place beehives for proper pollination of my pumpkins. However, what I am talking about is 32 row cultivators where I can get a four row with no problem. The daughter of my friend is married into a family where her husband, his brother, and his father farm 5,000 acres of grade A midwest corn land. That is around five million dollars of gross receipts for three people. They have given up on purchasing their equipment and lease everything for three years, and yes they are using 32 row equipment with GPS......do you understand that the family farm of 300 acres is being consumed by big corporate money as this has become big business. 90% of Americans worked in Agriculture at our Revolution but today, the idea of the hard working farmer has been replaced by a different model on the majority of farms in America......I work like a SOB on 20 acres tilling the same and seeding, and working on my older equipment putting new bearings in drive assemblies and getting older and now sick....it is hard..........It is not hard to sit in a 400k leased combine which has a computer feed on the corn being harvested on a three foot interval and plotting of productivity of the soil which allows for GPS applications of fertilizer in the spring.

Sorry, the Ethanol subsidy is simply the tip of the iceberg, and farm subsidy must be addressed because there is huge demand for our farm products, but fewer and fewer people are controlling the family farms, and the poor soils, and couple hundred acre marginal farms are not what I am talking about. We need a lower estate tax exemption. I believe one million per person is sufficient. At 13k a year exemption where a couple uses gifting protocols in 20 years folks can gift to children and grandchildren and never worry about the tax......but the folks who argue that the American family farm is the same....sorry.....no way.

[quote=\"stormwatch89\"][quote=\"ghandi\"]Fla. asks feds to drop ethanol requirement for gas
October 19, 2012 07:04 GMT



TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) -- Florida Gov. Rick Scott wants the federal government to drop a requirement for corn-based ethanol in gasoline.

Scott made that request in a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency because he wants to help Florida\'s cattle industry.

The governor writes in the letter dated Tuesday that a short supply of corn due to drought this year has spiked cattle feed prices.

That in turn has cut the market price of Florida feeder calves shipped to the Midwest where they fatten up on corn.

Scott writes it has cost Florida cattlemen $80 million this year.

He noted several other governors also have asked to temporarily set aside the ethanol requirement designed to improve the nation\'s energy independence.

Scott, though, says it should be waived to save jobs and protect consumers.

[/quote]


Therein lies the difference between a politician and a businessman.[/quote]

Right on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!