thank God

I can only assume that this is a coincidence.

7.5 years in office, and NOW he does something right?

I can only say this:



Your time. Is almost. Up.

I'm remembering some old saying about a broken clock. I can't quite recall what it is.

That said, the corn ethanol program needs to go. Not only is it leading to problems with the food supply, corn is by far the worst product to use to make biofuels.

suckerpunch_sally: 7.5 years in office, and NOW he does something right?

Yes, he's also vetoing an increase in foodstamps on this one, so well done there.

jake_lex: That said, the corn ethanol program needs to go. Not only is it leading to problems with the food supply, corn is by far the worst product to use to make biofuels.

Seconded.

It took a while but I think he might be getting a handle of this job.
On the other hand what is up with congress sending him this shiat?

jake_lex: I'm remembering some old saying about a broken clock. I can't quite recall what it is.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: suckerpunch_sally: 7.5 years in office, and NOW he does something right?

Yes, he's also vetoing an increase in foodstamps on this one, so well done there.

If only there were this thing that could be passed in Congress, that allowed presidents to do ...something... with these things I think they call "line items..."

...although the article doesn't mention anything about foodstamps in this bill (that I saw), so I suspect you're talking about a separate bill, in which case, as I add even more to this lengthy run-on sentence, I agree that Bush screwed the pooch on THAT one.

I'm incoherent now. Lunch!!!

suckerpunch_sally: 7.5 years in office, and NOW he does something right?

Can you believe it? I almost want to hurt myself just for agreeing with him.

This is amazing. Bush is just full of win this week.

Yesterday: vowed to veto dumbass foreclosure bailout. Today: vowed to veto corn farming subsidy.

Did the president just grow a brain?

Ethanol is a good idea that should not be in the market yet. We need Cellulosic to work before it starts getting made en masse.

/Use the corn stalks, not the corn

Holy crap ... he's actually vetoing something worth vetoing.

I figured that, for him, the millions in handouts to corporations who own farms (you know, NOT farmers) would be a feature, not a bug.

Glad to know I was wrong on this one.

Wait, what?

From TFA:

The bill also reduces the tax credit ethanol blenders receive from 51 cents to 45 cents a gallon..

It does reduce the corn ethanol subsidy from the demand side. Bush doesn't like it because it increases subsidides for lower income farmers and reduces subsidies for high income farmers.

for the second day in a row.
/off to go scrub myself clean now

wolvernova: This is amazing. Bush is just full of win this week.

Yesterday: vowed to veto dumbass foreclosure bailout. Today: vowed to veto corn farming subsidy.

Did the president just grow a brain?

No, it's not an idea, it's saying no to a bad idea.

Definite positive step though.

jake_lex: corn is by far the worst product to use to make biofuels

I don't know about worst. Radishes or broccoli might be worse.

Nice spin subby but that's not what the article says:

The bill also reduces the tax credit ethanol blenders receive from 51 cents to 45 cents a gallon.

The president is not vetoing it for that he is vetoing it because:

The bill limits payments to wealthy farmers, boosts domestic food aid by more than $1 billion a year and provides additional money for international humanitarian relief programs. Still, it does little to change subsidies to growers of corn, sugar, cotton and other crops, which Bush had called for and which the World Trade Organization says distort global commerce.

Bush is for the ethanol credits not against them. Congress IS trying to reduce them.

But just make crap up.

darkhorse23: jake_lex: That said, the corn ethanol program needs to go. Not only is it leading to problems with the food supply, corn is by far the worst product to use to make biofuels.

Seconded.

Agreed.

I've heard that sugarcane is a much more efficient source of ethanol, and Brazil has a growing portion of ethanol-fueled cars. Only parts of the US than can grow cane are small portions of the deep South, and not in large enough quantities to make a dent in our consumption. I think if we could just get some big money injected into biofuel, it would be a very successful, very cheap alternative fuel.

Unholy Moses: Holy crap ... he's actually vetoing something worth vetoing.

Did you read the article?

Cause he Bush is vetoing it because he wants more subsidies not less.

And this bill reduced the ethanol credit.

Go Bush!

So when is Bush going to veto the Iraq bailout bill?

Corvus: Still, it does little to change subsidies to growers of corn, sugar, cotton and other crops, which Bush had called for

Are you sure he's not for CHANGES to the subsidies?

Wolvernova


The foreclosure bailout was intended to shore up the crumbling housing market. So long as Americans are paying taxes so that Bear Stearns can receive corporate welfare, an equal sized propping up of Main street would be a good thing.

Dare we hope for a trifecta?

Even a blind squirrel is right twice a day.

Good. How about we get rid of the stupid tariff on imported sugar and ban high fructose corn syrup while we're at it.

wolvernova: This is amazing. Bush is just full of win this week.

Did you actually read the article?

The article says the opposite. He is vetoing a bill that would REDUCE the credit for ethanol.

xanadian: If only there were this thing that could be passed in Congress, that allowed presidents to do ...something... with these things I think they call "line items..."

Congress tried that. The Supreme Court (rightfully) said no. There is only one way it can happen and it won't be easy to accomplish.

Corvus fails at the reading comprehension.

Corvus: Did you actually read the article?

The article says the opposite. He is vetoing a bill that would REDUCE the credit for ethanol.

From the article:

``At a time of record farm income, Congress decided to further increase subsidy rates, qualify more people for taxpayer support and move programs toward more government control,' Schafer told reporters today. ``The president will veto this bill.'

What are you reading?

jake_lex: That said, the corn ethanol program needs to go. Not only is it leading to problems with the food supply, corn is by far the worst product to use to make biofuels.

I hate to break it to you, but ethanol is probably one of the lesser causes of problems with the global food supply. Probably the biggest problem? We turn tons of corn into "corn syrup" (read: artificial sugar) for the purpose of fattening the masses. Corn is hardly nutritious in the first place, but spending gobs of energy and real food, turning corn into brown goo, probably doesn't help things much.

PowerSlacker: Corvus fails at the reading comprehension.

I quoted the damn article itself.

Bush wants to veto a bill that would reduce the credits for ethanol.

That's what the article says.

Corvus: Bush wants to veto a bill that would reduce the credits for ethanol.

But he's vetoing it not for that, but rather because it increases subsidies for other things.

elchip

Congress decided to further increase subsidy rates, qualify more people for taxpayer support and move programs toward more government control,' Schafer told reporters today

Because if theres anyone you can trust to characterize the congress accurately, its the Bush white house.

jake_lex: That said, the corn ethanol program needs to go. Not only is it leading to problems with the food supply, corn is by far the worst product to use to make biofuels.

There's tons of soy around here (Iowa/Nebraska) and I don't see why there couldn't be more. Soy can make diesel just fine and is way lower impact than corn. I need to ask farmer family members about this, because I really don't see why corn has such a stranglehold. It's not like farmers are emotionally attached to the crop -- they'll produce whatever they have the equipment for and can sell the best.

My only thought, beyond a mysterious corn cabel holding back soy, is the following:
Biofuels started local and are still largely contained within the midwest
Cars that use corn gas are going to be used far more locally than trucks using soy diesel
Switching between biofuels and standard fuels can muck things up
Therefore, corn gas sells better than soy diesel would

I confess that I don't know if the problems of switching between biofuel and regular gas are just an urban myth.

elchip: ``At a time of record farm income, Congress decided to further increase subsidy rates, qualify more people for taxpayer support and move programs toward more government control,' Schafer told reporters today. ``The president will veto this bill.'

That's what the PRESIDENT SPOKESMAN SAID YOU IDIOT.

the article says the opposite. and he is not talking about the ETHANOL subsidy.


You guys really make up your own reality don't you?

Corvus: wolvernova: This is amazing. Bush is just full of win this week.

Did you actually read the article?

The article says the opposite. He is vetoing a bill that would REDUCE the credit for ethanol.

He is vetoing a terrible $300b bill for the second day in a row. That is full of win for me.

elchip: But he's vetoing it not for that, but rather because it increases subsidies for other things.

Right which is 100% the opposite of the fark headline. It's a lie.

wolvernova: He is vetoing a terrible $300b bill for the second day in a row. That is full of win for me.

Which would reduce the ethanol credit.

If you think reducing the ethanol credit, and subsidizing rich farmers is a good thing that is fine. But that is what the article says.

Corvus: If you think NOT reducing the ethanol credit, and subsidizing rich farmers is a good thing that is fine. But that is what the article says.

that's what I meant.

Bush is vetoing the bill because it doesn't make enough cuts to the farm subsidies.

Here's a variety of links for you that might be helpful:
sfgate (new window)
chicagotribune (new window)
washingtonpost (new window)

I agree with the masses here that Corn Ethanol should not be subsidized because (from what I read) it is essentially taking food off of the plates of poor people and shoveling it into American SUV's.

However, the elephant in the room, is and always will be Iraq.

$296 million is what?.....roughly 26 hours in Iraq?

Until we have a comprehensive overhaul of our energy policy and a renewed focus on funding R & D for cellulose based Ethanol and other energy sources, then this problem will not go away.

So far our little Baghdad adventure is nothing more than what economists would define as a $1-3 Trillion "opportunity cost".

It's not even the single dumbest and most destructive program this week.

Hi, Myanmar. Talking to you.

Corvus: That's what the PRESIDENT SPOKESMAN SAID YOU IDIOT.

the article says the opposite. and he is not talking about the ETHANOL subsidy.

You guys really make up your own reality don't you?

From another article:

Bush, however, immediately vowed to veto it, with Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer saying the $296 billion bill is overstocked with subsidies for farmers who are doing well.

The compromise bill announced Thursday would cut the adjusted-gross-income level at which farmers qualify for farm subsidies to $750,000 annually from $2.5 million.

Those with non-farm incomes of more than $500,000 a year also would be ineligible for subsidies. That provision is an effort to keep subsidies from landowners who are not directly involved in farming.

The Bush administration had been pushing for an income cap of $200,000, noting that average farm income is above $80,000.

Another article.

Schafer said, "Americans appreciate our farmers and ranchers and understand the uncertainties and risks that farming presents. However, they do not understand why their taxes should be used to provide payments to individuals with adjusted gross incomes of $500,000 and higher, some of the wealthiest people in America."

And another:

Rep. Collin Peterson, D-Minn., who chairs the House Agriculture Committee, said the bill will significantly reform the farm subsidy program. The new legislation says farmers who make over $750,000 a year will not qualify for subsidies. For non-farmers, the cap is $500,000. But those caps are still higher than the president wants.

They are cutting subsidies. Bush wants them to cut subsidies MORE, and since he's incapable of compromise he'll whip out the veto crayon for anything that does not march lockstep with his agenda.

F*ck farm subsidies, and f*ck corn ethanol. That's one of the few issues where Hillary Clinton has a better view than Obama.

OneBrightMonkey: I agree with the masses here that Corn Ethanol should not be subsidized because (from what I read) it is essentially taking food off of the plates of poor people and shoveling it into American SUV's.

However, the elephant in the room, is and always will be Iraq.

$296 million is what?.....roughly 26 hours in Iraq?

Until we have a comprehensive overhaul of our energy policy and a renewed focus on funding R & D for cellulose based Ethanol and other energy sources, then this problem will not go away.

So far our little Baghdad adventure is nothing more than what economists would define as a $1-3 Trillion "opportunity cost".

Fail on my part - That was $296 Billion not million, so ignore the "26 hour" equation.

My point still stands though about Iraq.

Paedophile_Deluxe: F*ck farm subsidies, and f*ck corn ethanol. That's one of the few issues where Hillary Clinton has a better view than Obama.

You have any idea how much agricultural equipment costs? The end of farm subsidies would kill small farming.

(Your opinion on whether that's good or bad is up to you.)

TMBGfreak: Ethanol is a good idea that should not be in the market yet. We need Cellulosic to work before it starts getting made en masse.

/Use the corn stalks, not the corn

Try sugar. If the Brazillians can do it, so can we.

OneBrightMonkey: Until we have a comprehensive overhaul of our energy policy and a renewed focus on funding R & D for cellulose based Ethanol and other energy sources, then this problem will not go away.

Just for the record, there is a strong focus at both the state and federal levels for cellulosic conversion research.