Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
SacramentoE-85

Conservative Support of Ethanol? Bachmann?

Recommended Posts

Posted previously on Re:  Election Time...Who Supports Ethanol/E85 (reposted here by SacE85 as it was permanently deleted by the moderator):

 

http://e85vehicles.com/e85/index.php/topic,4047.msg27566/topicseen.html#new

 

SacramentoE-85

• Sr. Member

•    

• Join Date: Aug 2008

• Posts: 1226

o

o

 

Re: Election Time..Who Supports Ethanol/E85

« Reply #3 on: Today at 06:15:59 PM »

• Quote

• Modify

I couldn't find anything in a Google search about Bachmann being negative toward corn ethanol, but did find this information which tends to indicate she would be supportive:

 

"According to the organization’s records, Bachmann’s family farm received $251,973 in federal subsidies between 1995 and 2006. The farm had been managed by Bachmann’s recently deceased father-in-law and took in roughly $20,000 in 2006 and $28,000 in 2005, with the bulk of the subsidies going to dairy and corn."

 

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/michelle_bachman_welfare_queen_20091221/

 

It is quite likely that many conservatives are silent about corn ethanol support, as many I talk with are supportive.  However, the politicians don't want to upset the base of what they feel are anti-corn ethanol folks.  Silence usually means support, since most politicians will tell us what they are against, but too often don't risk saying what they support.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This topic has been censored so as that no politician who voted "Nay" to the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 cannot be considered to be supportive of ethanol.  This must be some kind of litmus test.

 

However...

 

http://aboutpolitics.com/politicians/Minnesota-MN/Bachmann/Energy%20Issues

 

Bachmann voted Yes for:

 

(2008) HR 2638 Continuing Appropriations

 

Outcome: Concurrence Vote Passed (370/58)

 

Summary: -Appropriates funds necessary to continue until March 6, 2009 projects or activities that were conducted in fiscal year 2008 and for which funds or other authority were made available in divisions A, B, C, D, F, G, H, J, and K of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008 (HR 2764) at the same rate for operations provided in those divisions of that Act, with the exception of some minor changes (Div. A, Sec. 101). -Appropriates $22.88 billion for disaster relief and recovery, $480.25 billion for the Department of Defense, $43.48 billion for the Department of Homeland Security, and $119.92 billion for military construction and veterans affairs (Divs. B-E). -Specifies that the funds appropriated in this act are not subject to a prohibition on use for offshore oil and natural gas preleasing and leasing (Div. A, Sec. 152). -Maintains funding levels at $7.51 billion for 2009 to fund loans of up to $25 billion in total principal for automobile manufacturers and component suppliers to pay for up to 30 percent of the cost of equipping themselves to produce vehicles or components which meet specified emissions and fuel economy standards (Div. A, Sec. 129). -Appropriates $5.1 billion for low-income home energy assistance instead of the previous amount of $2.6 billion (Div. A, Sec. 155).

 

(2008) HR 6074 Prohibiting Foreign States or Associations from Forming a Group to Control Oil

 

Outcome: Bill Passed (324/84)

 

Summary: -Amends the Sherman Act to make it illegal for foreign states to enter into agreements with any group or person that would limit the production, set prices, or restrict the trade of oil, natural gas, or any other petroleum product (Sec. 102). -Declares that any foreign state violating this act is not immune under the doctrine of sovereign immunity from being tried or convicted in a US court of law (Sec. 102, 103). -Establishes a Petroleum Industry Antitrust Task Force within the Department of Justice to investigate and enforce petroleum industry issues such as price gouging, restricting refinery capacity, anticompetitive market control, and unilateral actions to withhold the supply of petroleum products to inflate prices (Sec. 201).

 

 

(2007) HR 2264 Preventing the Organization of Petroleum Export Groups

 

Outcome: Bill Passed (345/72)

 

Summary: -Amends the Sherman Act to make it illegal for foreign states to enter into agreements with any group or person that would limit the production, set prices, or restrict the trade of oil, natural gas, or any other petroleum product. -Declares that any foreign state violating this act is not immune under the doctrine of sovereign immunity from being tried or convicted in a US court of law.

 

 

These issues are far too complicated to simply say that one vote one way or the other makes someone supportive or not supportive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything I write on this subject gets taken down, so I don't have a clue what we're supposed to put up.  I woud bet on Grassley in the Senate, and Petersen in the House, and that's it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Morning Sac

 

The issue is pretty simple 

 

ALL BILLS have many components in it..  The simple fact is Bachman has never voted for any Bill with Ethanol mandates or subsidies.  So where is her "support" as a member of Congress for Ethanol?

 

 

She evens says..

 

"in the waning days of the 2007 Congress, Bachmann also voted against a key piece of Democratic energy legislation that Bush signed, boosting automotive fuel efficiency standards and ethanol production.

 

To Bachmann, the bill failed to provide much in the way of "new energy," despite its sixfold increase in ethanol use by 2022, a boon for Minnesota farmers.

 

"Ethanol is something that has had mixed reviews," she said

 

She Voted against the energy and Security Act of 2007 as well as te revision in 2010..

 

She does NOT support ethanol

 

 

Thats does not mean she wont ACCEPT subsidy payments on her Families Farm.. that's how two faced she is..sshe wont VOTE for the subsidy but she will accept them ;D

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SacramentoE-85

• Sr. Member

•    

• Join Date: Aug 2008

• Posts: 1226

o

o

 

Re: Election Time..Who Supports Ethanol/E85

« Reply #3 on: Today at 06:15:59 PM »

• Quote

• Modify

I couldn't find anything in a Google search about Bachmann being negative toward corn ethanol, but did find this information which tends to indicate she would be supportive:

 

"According to the organization’s records, Bachmann’s family farm received $251,973 in federal subsidies between 1995 and 2006. The farm had been managed by Bachmann’s recently deceased father-in-law and took in roughly $20,000 in 2006 and $28,000 in 2005, with the bulk of the subsidies going to dairy and corn."

 

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/michelle_bachman_welfare_queen_20091221/

 

It is quite likely that many conservatives are silent about corn ethanol support, as many I talk with are supportive.  However, the politicians don't want to upset the base of what they feel are anti-corn ethanol folks.  Silence usually means support, since most politicians will tell us what they are against, but too often don't risk saying what they support.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By picking one piece of legislation that was very Partisan, one can make the case that someone is anti-something (when really it was just that almost everyone in one party voted against it, for various reasons).

 

The EISA 2007 legislation was a Democrat bill, and the Republicans voted against it.  What's new?

 

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2007-40&sort=party

 

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2007-226&sort=party

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By picking one piece of legislation that was very Partisan, one can make the case that someone is anti-something (when really it was just that almost everyone in one party voted against it, for various reasons).

 

The EISA 2007 legislation was a Democrat bill, and the Republicans voted against it.  What's new?

 

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2007-40&sort=party

 

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2007-226&sort=party

 

Nonsense.. it was SIGNED by Republican George W Bush

 

It is the basis for why Ethanol was allowed 36 Bilion Gallons of ethanol..so more than half republicans voted against it...does that make itr not valid.lol.. 

 

 

This is why comments are not allowed in the otehr thread...Reality means nothing.

 

The simple FACT is Bacmann has never supported ethnaol .has never voted for anything ethnaol  related..you wnat to support her for other issues ..great..but when it comes to ethanol she votes against it

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dan, you ask us to keep Politics out of the normal topics...but then you start a topic that directly addresses it.  Then when those who have less of a liberal bias as your own post over there, you permanently delete them (even though they're not misinformation or threatening).  Then you send a "Warning," which is laughable.  :P

 

What gives?

 

I believe that you should remove both of these topics altogether.  All this topic does is serve to split the supporters.  Or keep yours up if your point is to "beef up" the liberal politicians as much as possible--they will need it in November (though it's really not going to get more than a handful more votes...).  ;D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...