Shared publicly  - 
 
Pump Warning: Drivers urged to beware before using E15 gas mix.
8
5
Yong Wang's profile photoMz Lynn's profile photoKalon Reeves's profile photoanthony sammartano's profile photo
27 comments
 
The simplest approach would be to stop subsidizing corn.
 
This is a horrible scam. We should be drinking ethanol, not burning it in cars.

This is screwing with the world wide food supply.
 
William Carlson, we can just grow more corn, it's not like we cannot give some for world hunger also.
 
I didn't realize the myth that the President is standing between Americans and their god given oil and natural gas was still going.
 
Corn Ethanol is a complete scam to fleece subsidies out of us. It takes as much or more energy to produce as it provides.
There are much better biofuels out there that might actually be worth subsidies. At least temporarily until an industry can be built around them.
 
+Jeffrey Koontz We are. America is projected to be the world's leading oil producer by the end of the decade. The claim that Obama was trying to end domestic oil production was a campaign myth. Time to let it go.

And we have ethanol because we produce more corn than we can eat, turn into sugar to eat and drink, feed to our livestock which get diseased because they can't digest it, or export...but the central planners still think we need more...for some reason. And they can't give too much away, because that's socialism or something.
 
The use of ethonol is one of the reasons food prices have gone up- corn is tied to a new demand for fuel...
 
I disagree with most of these comments
 
I am really surprised Obama and Detroit haven't teamed up to mandate E-15. It means a whole new engine and new cars.
 
+Graden Guynn Higher octane has nothing to do with better mileage. Has everything to do with detonation due to higher compression ratios in engines. Are you referring to leaded vs unleaded fuel?
 
+Graden Guynn So, your argument is that the government uses tax dollars to encourage farmers to grow corn...so they can tax the corn? Why not just keep the tax money they originally collected?

And the government spent the last 3 decades providing subsidies to refiners that used ethanol, to the tune of billions of dollars per year. Talk about a long term investment. By your math, when will the government break even on this plan?
 
+Jeffrey Koontz Americans throw away 40% of their food every year. Like I said to you the first time, we have to keep coming up with new subsidized uses for corn because we have more than we can use.

Not to mention, most of what's grown and what's used for ethanol is field corn. You can try eating that if you want, but I'll pass. 
 
I'd like to see more research on biofuels made from switchgrass and algae, but nobody will even try until the corn subsidy ends. 
 
Again, we're not taking away from the 60% because again, it's field corn that's being used for fuel. You could argue that that when field corn is used as fuel, it can't be used to feed our livestock as it would normally be used, which could lead to less meat available...but again, we don't have food shortages on the supply side of the equation (which is where that 40% number and mass obesity come in). We have issues on the distribution side (i.e. you have to have money in order to get food and giving away food is TEH SOCIALISM).

As for your field corn response. Again and again, we have no food shortage in this country. We have too much food, enough to feed the world. There's no need to find a way to make field corn edible. If we needed more directly edible corn, we could just grow more sweet corn instead.

The reason these government subsidies exist is to artificially create a DEMAND in the marketplace so farmers (well, nowadays, massive multinational conglomerates) have something to sell because there's only so much natural demand for what they grow. The fact that these subsidies lead to catastrophic distortions in the global market that lead to skyrocketing food staple prices and starving children is apparently a price we're willing to pay.
 
Yes, we throw away food to prove a point about socialism. It is better that people starve than receive sustenance without having worked for it. Hungry? Get a job! The job you have doesn't pay enough to afford good food? Too bad - eat something else. The food you can afford is making you sick? Don't eat it. Or better, eat some corn. It's good for you. The government says so.
 
"If we have enough food to feed the world then why is it that we have starving people in this country and abroad."

Like I said, it's a distribution issue. One person is throwing away 40% of their food while someone down the street, or on the other side of the world, is starving to death. 

And no, I wouldn't want anyone to starve so my political ideology can win. It seems a lot of people disagree, though, including yourself, since you just argued that that wasted 40% is a noble symbol of the rewards of succeeding within the capitalist system.
 
+Jeffrey Koontz Everyone around you is using sarcasm a lot, but you're taking it all literally. This is creating a problem.

For example, +Jeremy Tregler just used sarcasm to argue against the idea that corn must be good for you if the government says so and against the idea that people who don't have jobs deserve to starve, but you think he just argued for those things. 

You're breaking the internet.
 
We're subsidizing the wrong things. If we're going to say, as a nation, healthy foods should be cheaper, we could start by removing the subsidies for corn and encouraging community farms and local production of food so that we don't need mega farms that require tons of pesticides and hormones and gallons of fuel for moving it around the world.
 
Wow...this isn't the root of the problem, why focus so hard on the 40% thrown out. This hunger problem is about dollars and someone has to spend it and if you think ur reps are going to put their money on the table haha think again. Politicians have a different agenda and that is how to put money in their pockets.
 
The 40% was only brought up to help show that there's more than enough food to feed everyone on the planet (enough for 9 billion, by recent estimates). People go hungry for other reasons.
 
+Political Punnery I saw where you were going with the argument. I couldn't understand why no one else wasn't wrapping their heads around it. They got stuck on the 40% because it was the only information they were grasping with no further thought on the subject. I work in agriculture so I got it fairly quick.
 
All that good liquer being burned up in cars. SAD.
Add a comment...