[JerryLove]

http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyl...514_058678.htm

[bravesfan007]

I read a lot about this earlier and it makes me wonder why it was put forth as an alternative from the very beginning. One of the main things I heard was from a gentleman who repairs lawnmowers. He said that the ethanol in the unleaded gasoline messed up the engine to where you had to get a new mower instead of fixing the old one.

[tlj009]

I read a lot about this earlier and it makes me wonder why it was put forth as an alternative from the very beginning. One of the main things I heard was from a gentleman who repairs lawnmowers. He said that the ethanol in the unleaded gasoline messed up the engine to where you had to get a new mower instead of fixing the old one.

Ethanol reacts with certain plastics. And I think that it also reacts with certain metals. That is why vehicles have to be specifically designed as "flex" fuel vehicles. I don't think that there is much danger with a mixture of 10% or less but then again, that mixture sometimes runs a good bit higher.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by bravesfan007

I read a lot about this earlier and it makes me wonder why it was put forth as an alternative from the very beginning.

Because people who make money from selling it bribe the government into mandating it and subsidizing it with tax dollars.

[nolidad]

Originally Posted by bravesfan007

I read a lot about this earlier and it makes me wonder why it was put forth as an alternative from the very beginning. One of the main things I heard was from a gentleman who repairs lawnmowers. He said that the ethanol in the unleaded gasoline messed up the engine to where you had to get a new mower instead of fixing the old one.

Because it was going to be a wondeful "magic" sol.ution to reducing oil use, smog and a cure for the common cold (the last I'm kidding)

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc...08-Ethanol.pdf

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by nolidad

Because it was going to be a wondeful "magic" sol.ution to reducing oil use, smog and a cure for the common cold (the last I'm kidding)

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc...08-Ethanol.pdf

That's the pitch but it's never been true.

The corporations own the politicians. That's why they tell us that tobacco and alcohol are OK but marijuana isn't.

That's why we were told that the banks would be better without regulation (how did that turn out?), and that higher gas-mileage requirements would ruin the economy (seems to me low MPG killed the economy at $4 gas), and we were told that deregulation of utilities would lower costs (when California tried it prices went up 4x - 10x), and prisons (massive abuse) and healthcare; even though the margins are so much higher in private companies.

In fact, we passed a law to make it illegal for the government to bargain for better medication prices.

We also passed a law making it illegal for states to pass laws regulating pollution within their borders.

We (the government) also sued the one beef company in the US that was testing all its beef for mad-cow.

Laws are not made in the best interest of the people. They are often very detrimental to the people. They are made to help the people who get the politicians rich.

[jthomas1600]

Not trying to hijack the thread, but I'm in Brazil and have been amazed at the number of gas stations that sell natural gas. Almost every one. The first car I rode in down here was natural gas. The U S has lots of natural gas (some offshore, so I could keep my job) so why are we not pursuing this?

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by jthomas1600

Not trying to hijack the thread, but I'm in Brazil and have been amazed at the number of gas stations that sell natural gas. Almost every one. The first car I rode in down here was natural gas. The U S has lots of natural gas (some offshore, so I could keep my job) so why are we not pursuing this?

Cause you can't add ethanol to it?

[TunerSteve]

Originally Posted by jthomas1600

Not trying to hijack the thread, but I'm in Brazil and have been amazed at the number of gas stations that sell natural gas. Almost every one. The first car I rode in down here was natural gas. The U S has lots of natural gas (some offshore, so I could keep my job) so why are we not pursuing this?

That's a big part of the PickensPlan, put forth by T. Boone Pickens. While he owns substancial holdings in natural gas in the midwest, I also believe that his plan has some good merits, and his efforts are not only about making him more money.

[nolidad]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

That's the pitch but it's never been true.

The corporations own the politicians. That's why they tell us that tobacco and alcohol are OK but marijuana isn't.

That's why we were told that the banks would be better without regulation (how did that turn out?), and that higher gas-mileage requirements would ruin the economy (seems to me low MPG killed the economy at $4 gas), and we were told that deregulation of utilities would lower costs (when California tried it prices went up 4x - 10x), and prisons (massive abuse) and healthcare; even though the margins are so much higher in private companies.

In fact, we passed a law to make it illegal for the government to bargain for better medication prices.

We also passed a law making it illegal for states to pass laws regulating pollution within their borders.

We (the government) also sued the one beef company in the US that was testing all its beef for mad-cow.

Laws are not made in the best interest of the people. They are often very detrimental to the people. They are made to help the people who get the politicians rich.

Well this is youyr opinion which you are entitled to but could you back it up with facts?

Seems to me the oil companiesd would prefer to keep corn out and natural gas in --seeing they own the natural gas.

Also the ethanol industry isn't bribing the govt. it is the other way around. The ethanol industry is very heavily taxpayer subsidized. Otherwise it wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by nolidad

Well this is youyr opinion which you are entitled to but could you back it up with facts?

An awful lot of the claims of legislation are easily found on grocklaw or google. Look up the authors.

Seems to me the oil companiesd would prefer to keep corn out and natural gas in --seeing they own the natural gas.

I was joking about natural gas. I don't know why it's not more popular as a fuel.

Also the ethanol industry isn't bribing the govt. it is the other way around. The ethanol industry is very heavily taxpayer subsidized. Otherwise it wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

So your argument is that people receiving huge amounts of money from the government cannot be bribing (sorry: funding) politicians. That makes no sense.

To start:
http://www.google.com/search?q=ethan...ient=firefox-a

Look at who sponsored those incentives and where their campaign money comes from.http://www.opensecrets.org/capital_e...ide.php?ID=164

[nolidad]

So your argument is that people receiving huge amounts of money from the government cannot be bribing (sorry: funding) politicians. That makes no sense.

To start:
http://www.google.com/search?q=ethan...ient=firefox-a

Look at who sponsored those incentives and where their campaign money comes from.http://www.opensecrets.org/capital_e...ide.php?ID=164[/QUOTE]

No that is not my argument, that is a faulty conclusion on your part sorry to say.

I looked up your two links. Seems that the first spent a bulk of time on one state lawmaker who was bribed to speed up the licensing process for a plant to be built. Not a bribe to mandate ethanol and then subsidize it.

Second link had nothing to do with ethanol but with MBTE.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by nolidad

Also the ethanol industry isn't bribing the govt. it is the other way around. The ethanol industry is very heavily taxpayer subsidized. Otherwise it wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

So your argument is that people receiving huge amounts of money from the government cannot be bribing (sorry: funding) politicians. That makes no sense.

No that is not my argument, that is a faulty conclusion on your part sorry to say.

It isn't? My mistake. I'm sure you will now clear up what you actually meant. I mean it would be silly to continue hacking a straw man.

I looked up your two links.

Why would you do that? They are relevent to what you've said you didn't say. I can't imagine the point discussing them.

Seems that the first spent a bulk of time on one state lawmaker who was bribed to speed up the licensing process for a plant to be built. Not a bribe to mandate ethanol and then subsidize it.

Second link had nothing to do with ethanol but with MBTE.

You lost me. You aren't discussing my point (and let me do what you did not and clarify it: I assert that people can pay bribes to receive subsidies); and you've already said its not your point... so what's the point of this comment?

And while we're at it; what were you trying to say that you said I misinterpreted. You don't seem to have clarified your position at all.

[nolidad]

You lost me. You aren't discussing my point (and let me do what you did not and clarify it: I assert that people can pay bribes to receive subsidies); and you've already said its not your point... so what's the point of this comment?

I am asking you to support this claim you made:

Because people who make money from selling it bribe the government into mandating it and subsidizing it with tax dollars.

You rtwo websites you gave links to ☺☺☺☺☺☺ to do so. So you still haven't made any proof of this claim-- your claim is a grievous federal offense. No indictments have been handed out yet as fae as I know that ethanol manufacturers have been charged with bribing officials to subsidize and mandate it nationally.

So your argument is that people receiving huge amounts of money from the government cannot be bribing (sorry: funding) politicians. That makes no sense.

So is it your contention that all donations by corporations are in actually bribery? Can you give me some evidence to conclude this? Why hasn't there been more indictments than the 0 that have occured thus far?

But back to the point--ethanol is a terriberl; alternative to regular gas. On a science channel show this year they discussed how it takes 3 quarts of fossil fuel to make a gallon of ehtanol-- it actually worsens the p[roblems they say they will solve.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by nolidad

I am asking you to support this claim you made:

You should have just said so.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, [ADM]'s political action committee and employees have made more than $2.1 million in federal campaign contributions since 2001, with 63 percent of that total going to Republican candidates. - http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news0...t_ethanol.html

There's a good chunk at http://medialab.blogs.com/our_ethano...ccess_of_.html as well... though a google search will find all of this. The lobbying adn donations to politics of ethanol companies is a matter of public record.

No indictments have been handed out yet as fae as I know that ethanol manufacturers have been charged with bribing officials to subsidize and mandate it nationally.

Bribing lawmakers isn't illegal.

So is it your contention that all donations by corporations are in actually bribery? Can you give me some evidence to conclude this?

Not all. Some are supporting a candidate that already has their interests at heart. Most however, yes.

Why hasn't there been more indictments than the 0 that have occured thus far?

Because it's not illegal.

You question rather answers itself. It's common sense that certainly in the history of the country someone has been bribed (given money to vote one way or another). Do you really think it's never happened ever at any point?

It's illegal to give money in exchange for appropriations (such as giving a lawmaker a seat on the board if they give an over-priced no-contract bid to Haliburton or Bektel); but not to vote. Unless it's from an "illegal donor" or you ☺☺☺☺ to report it on your income tax.

But back to the point--ethanol is a terriberl; alternative to regular gas. On a science channel show this year they discussed how it takes 3 quarts of fossil fuel to make a gallon of ehtanol-- it actually worsens the p[roblems they say they will solve.

Yep. And the government has concluded that three times in the past 100 years when they shut ethanol down. Makes you wonder why it's back neh?

Not only is it back: but taxpayer dollars subsidize its creation and private businesses are forced by law to use it.

I'm amazed you can do anything other than assume this is because it makes someone money.