US Supreme Court rejects challenges to increased ethanol use

I don't understand how the Supremes could put aside all the rational arguments against EPA's push for E15:

formatting link
Though newer car engines would not get damaged by it, but what about the millions of older cars on the road, not to mention what this will do to food prices.

Reply to
cameo
Loading thread data ...

cameo wrote in news:kqaef5$crf$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:

Then again, they also declined to reject Obamacare, so...

They're just a bunch of over-educated twits who are totally full of themselves.

Reply to
Tegger

formatting link
>

you don't understand it? that implies you don't understand:

  1. how the agribusiness lobby wouldn't get richer.
  2. how the politicians wouldn't benefit from the agribusiness vote
  3. how the auto industry wouldn't benefit from selling you a new car after the old one gets ruined.
  4. how the oil industry wouldn't benefit from selling you taxpayer subsidized fuel that gives lower mpg's and thus get to sell you more.
  5. how the court's appointees don't from time to time "get reminded" of how grateful they are to their political appointers.

all these interests balanced against those of the schlub on the sofa watching american idol, eating cheetos and scratching his ass? yeah, the supremes are all about looking after you on this one buddy.

Reply to
jim beam

Why do you care? You live in Canada.

Unlike any of the twits who post here.

Reply to
MM

Are you a twit?

Reply to
cameo

formatting link
>>

That's way too cynical even from you, Jim. ;-)

Reply to
cameo

MM wrote in news:kqcg1t$jb3$ snipped-for-privacy@solani.org:

I'm an UNDER-educated twit.

I, at least, am aware of my ignorance, unlke them.

Reply to
Tegger

formatting link
>>>

Agribusiness lobby will not get righer. Corn growers and processors probably will but, the season here (ND) was so late it maybe that all the folks with corn may not get a good crop--we put in beans.

Rick

Reply to
Pawalleye

formatting link
>>>>

when i say "agribusiness", i mean the traders. those guys own the market, and they make big bucks whatever way the market goes. and if they can sell high priced corn from a poor crop into the ethanol industry, which they also substantially own, with taxpayer subsidy, they get even richer.

bottom line, burning food is either an act of war where you want to starve your enemy, or it's a symptom of complete retardation. when grain reserves are at their lowest since ww2, and when it's done by government mandate, and when their actions are egged on by traders, most of whom are really smart people, you really have to wonder whether some kind of war isn't the actual objective. the british ruthlessly exploited the irish potato famine for example.

Reply to
jim beam

Increased alcohol use by SCOTUS justices would explain it nicely.

J.

Reply to
JRStern

More likely increased Koch

Reply to
News

formatting link
>>>>>

All the corn in this area is contracted so there is no middle man

Reply to
Pawalleye

formatting link
>>>>>

I should have added that there has never been a shortage of corn. In a good year there will be 2 billion bu. at the end of the year

Reply to
Pawalleye

formatting link
>>>>>>

contracted to whom?

Reply to
jim beam

formatting link
>>>>>>

yes, production has increased, but with the burning of food, so has consumption. last i read in the financial press, consumption has outstripped even increased production and grain reserves [the buffer between consumption and production which is supposed to see us through bad crop years] are at post-ww2 lows. low reserves increase price volatility [good for traders], but it's absolute freakin' insanity strategically.

Reply to
jim beam

formatting link
>>>>>>>

To the middle men, of course.

Reply to
cameo

My guess would be Alzheimer or senility. This idea of lifetime appointment virtually guarantees that some of them are serving in diminished mental capacity, with their staff making up the deficit. There should be a manadatory retirement age for government employees, just like for private business leaders.

Reply to
cameo

formatting link
>>>>>>>

we contract with the ethanol producer--that would be the normal rout. I works that way for most of the crops grown up here. So oilseed sunflower is contracted with Red River Commodities. Confectionery sunflowers the contract is with the company that markets the final product.

Reply to
Pawalleye

formatting link
>>>>>>>>

WrongO generally the contract is with the company that markets the final product.

Reply to
Pawalleye

That is a totally great idea mandatory retirement at 72

Reply to
Pawalleye

MotorsForum 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.