Did We Subsidize Ethanol?

[KissMy]

Did we subsidize ethanol because we taxed it 45 cents per gallon less than gasoline at the pump?

Yes or No?

 

[martybegan]

Did we subsidize ethanol because we taxed it 23 cents per gallon less than gasoline at the pump?

Yes or No?

Oooh! a new thread!

To me subsidizing involves a direct payment to a person, not a reduction in thier taxes. It would only be a "subsidy" if the money was the states to begin with, and through its generosity, it asked for less of its money back. To me money belongs to the person who earned it, and it is up to the government to show why it should have a portion of it via taxation.

Which leads to the conclusion that it cannot be a subsidy unless the government gives you money above and beyond that which was already yours.

 

[Mad Scientist]

What crop gets HUGE Gov't Subsidies? Corn.

What's Ethanol made of? Corn.

Are you saying you get that money back at the pump? How bout just not paying it in the first place?

 

[Toronado3800]

It is really splitting hairs on the definition but regardless the government has created an uneven playing field.

Not that I am in particular for or against it. I see both sides of this issue.

 

[Mr. H.]

Let's back up a bit... ethanol replaced methanol. There was no issue with methanol other than the fact that the Agriculture industry needed it out of the picture before they could institute their ethanol fraud.

Next, initial EPA testing revealed that ethanol blends exceeded then-existing limits. So, rather than adjust the blending or formula the EPA re-wrote emission standards to accomodate ethanol blended fuels.

Then came the blending mandate which guaranteed a market for the product.
Then it was exposed that ethanol plants spew a host of pollutants.
Then Agriculture fought for a mandated 20% blend rather than the current 10%.

Yadda yadda yadda. Is there no end to this bullshit?

 

[KissMy]

Let's back up a bit... ethanol replaced methanol. There was no issue with methanol other than the fact that the Agriculture industry needed it out of the picture before they could institute their ethanol fraud.

Next, initial EPA testing revealed that ethanol blends exceeded then-existing limits. So, rather than adjust the blending or formula the EPA re-wrote emission standards to accomodate ethanol blended fuels.

Then came the blending mandate which guaranteed a market for the product.
Then it was exposed that ethanol plants spew a host of pollutants.
Then Agriculture fought for a mandated 20% blend rather than the current 10%.

Yadda yadda yadda. Is there no end to this bullshit?

So is that a yes?

 

[Mr. H.]

Kimmers, you're obviously well-versed on the subject. Is this a set up?
Why don't you just spill the beans ya got.

 

[KissMy]

Im sorry , I saw your yes vote after I posted.

I would not set you up. I would have a beer with you.

 

[Mr. H.]

Oh ok LOL. I figured you were gonna stomp on us with facts and figs.

Like someone else mentioned, ag production is definitely subsidized and corn is the feedstock.

It's beyond me why the government doesn't throw its weight behind natural gas vehicles in the same fashion that they fast-tracked ethanol production.

Years ago I applied for a vanity license plate that said NO ETOH.

It was denied LOL.

 

[Mr. H.]

Oh- that Yes vote, well honestly I'm not sure. I figured you'd shed some light on it.

 

[KissMy]

Oh ok LOL. I figured you were gonna stomp on us with facts and figs.

Like someone else mentioned, ag production is definitely subsidized and corn is the feedstock.

Martybegan the first post in this thread told me it was not a subsidy. So I just had to take a poll on that to see if it was true. Then I was going to tell you about it.

 

[Mr. H.]

The poll w/just give you a take on everyone's opinions.
A friend that works at a co-op owned refinery tried to explain it to me. Went over my head.
Although I am very critical of the program for various reasons.