Regulation: hinderence, necessary evil, or political rhetoric?

[Dittohead not!]

Anyone here been to Syracuse, NY lately?
I spent a winter there back in '66 '67. There was a lake, Onondaga Lake, that was so polluted there was a foul smell all around it. You could smell it just driving by.

I've heard that lake is no longer so smelly, but don't know if that is true or not.

There is something to be said for regulations prohibiting dumping raw sewage in the nearest body of water.

 

[mak2]

It seems we question it about every year. You know who is really against it? Liquor stores.

I suspect that's a historic law that couldn't be addressed without the politicians in question being condemned as anti-Christian (a death sentence for a US political career).

 

[head of joaquin]

This isn't particularly specific but many libertarians would argue that certain forms of licensing requirements (if not all) are a way to restrict competition.

Since the licensing requirement usually comes with education/training requirement (and often continuing education) as well as setting up funds to pay consumers victimized by incompetent or fraudulent practitioners, there is an obvious benefit to licensing. The issue then shift to whether the benefits outweigh the burdens. Seem obvious to me they do, but if libertarians want to make a fact based argument to the contrary, they need to pony up.

 

[sangha]

Recent? This has gone on for 4 years. This adds to the problem, and here's why. In a drought, ranchers run out of pasture, or natural grass for the cattle to eat. So, they are faced with one of two choices, feed them (which costs lots of money), or sell them to feedlots (get rid of them).

Very few ranchers can afford to feed cattle year round, so the majority of them got rid of them, or "thinned their herds".

This furthers my argument that Obama's corn regulation should of been repealed. Now that more and more cattle are offloaded to feeders, more corn is needed to feed them out, but the regulation mandates that 40% of all domestic production go towards corn ethanol production, not for human consumption.

The drought exacerbated the problem, but even before the height of the drought, corn prices doubled in a year. That wasn't because of the drought. Ranchers aren't getting twice what they were 4 years ago for their cattle at market, but beef prices are up 300%, which also proves it's not about what you are suggesting. Feeder cattle are running about $1.31/lb, and futures are in the $1.51 range by year's end, despite the midwest coming out of the drought. Corn isn't in the ground yet either, another reason for future prices going higher for now. I suspect this wont last, because the midwest is getting rain, and it looks like if it continues, the corn will make this year.

In 2010, 70% of the midwest's corn crop was harvested for SILAGE, not even for the grain. Do you know what that means? But did the government suspend the ethanol mandated regulation? Nope. Thus, food prices surged again.

Pay attention. It's not all ONE THING, like a regulation or a drought. Here's the difference though, we can't control the weather and when it rains, but we can damn sure control government regulations.

Corn is heavily subsidized. If it weren't for govt regulations, corn would cost far more, and so would beef.

The "exorbitant" cost of corn is a poor argument to make in support of how govt intervention raises the prices of goods and services

 

[vash1012]

Corn is heavily subsidized. If it weren't for govt regulations, corn would cost far more, and so would beef.

The "exorbitant" cost of corn is a poor argument to make in support of how govt intervention raises the prices of goods and services

Maybe not, but it is still an example of the unintended effects of govt. intervention. Corn is made unnaturally cheaper by subsidies. Corn sugar (high fructose corn syrup) is now cheaper than sugar and readily available. Raw sugar market is hurt. HFCS is now used to sweeten everything with likely negative health effects (I don't mean because of it being HFCS, just because we are over-sweetening things now). Also, corn is now used to feed cows because its cheaper than other food alternatives. Corn negatively affects the cow's health and the health of their meet, including lower levels of Omega-3 and Omega-6 fatty acids and increased levels of E. Coli in their gut which contributes to recalls. In response to this, antibiotics are given to cows to prevent infection of meat, which promotes antibiotic resistance. Fast forward down the chain of events, your grandmother is dying the hospital of an aspiration pneumonia caused by E. Coli that is now resistant to first line antibiotics. We have to use less favorable antibiotics to treat her which cause her kidneys to fail and she DIES. Obviously this last part is meant to be tongue in cheek... but you get my drift.

 

[vash1012]

Since the licensing requirement usually comes with education/training requirement (and often continuing education) as well as setting up funds to pay consumers victimized by incompetent or fraudulent practitioners, there is an obvious benefit to licensing. The issue then shift to whether the benefits outweigh the burdens. Seem obvious to me they do, but if libertarians want to make a fact based argument to the contrary, they need to pony up.

We would have to go over these on a case by case basis. In my experience, the licenses I have are all probably, as you say, worth more than their meager costs, but I'd like to hear from a business owner or a developer on this subject.

 

[sangha]

Maybe not, but it is still an example of the unintended effects of govt. intervention.

There's no maybe about it. It's heavily subsidized and the intention is to make corn (and products that depend on corn) cheaper. And that's what has happened.

So much for unintended purposes! :lol:

Corn is made unnaturally cheaper by subsidies. Corn sugar (high fructose corn syrup) is now cheaper than sugar and readily available. Raw sugar market is hurt.

LOL! Cane sugar is also heavily protected by the govt!! :lamo

In that case, our govt limit imports to protect american sugar producers. This increases the costs of cane sugar and that increases the profits for the sugar producers *and* helps the corn growers compete against cane sugar. It's a win-win!!

HFCS is now used to sweeten everything with likely negative health effects (I don't mean because of it being HFCS, just because we are over-sweetening things now). Also, corn is now used to feed cows because its cheaper than other food alternatives. Corn negatively affects the cow's health and the health of their meet, including lower levels of Omega-3 and Omega-6 fatty acids and increased levels of E. Coli in their gut which contributes to recalls. In response to this, antibiotics are given to cows to prevent infection of meat, which promotes antibiotic resistance. Fast forward down the chain of events, your grandmother is dying the hospital of an aspiration pneumonia caused by E. Coli that is now resistant to first line antibiotics. We have to use less favorable antibiotics to treat her which cause her kidneys to fail and she DIES. Obviously this last part is meant to be tongue in cheek... but you get my drift.

Yes, I do. And I agree about the near sighted nature of our agricultural subsidies. However, the subject isn't about the health effects of food subsidies. It's about how govt regulations interfere with business, not health.

 

[sangha]

We would have to go over these on a case by case basis. In my experience, the licenses I have are all probably, as you say, worth more than their meager costs, but I'd like to hear from a business owner or a developer on this subject.

As a business owner, I've never met a rule that has caused any significant pain, and nearly all of them helped my business even if it cost me money.

One business I was involved in was an ice cream factory. Did you know that under govt regulations, spilled milk is not only something to cry over, it's an official "hazardous material"? If you spill some, there's an entire protocol you have to go through in order to ensure against bacterial infection. And of course, it has to be documented. Or else you're left in the position of telling the inspector "We never spill milk here" when he asks to see your reports. Not a good place to be.

However, in the long run, it protects my business. After all, the costs associated with cleaning up the spill and filling out a report is nothing compared to what it would cost if my product was contaminated and people got sick and sued me.

A business I'm currently involved in imports a food product from Europe. Until recently, we bought it in 50-gal barrels, opened them up, and used a pump to pump the product into smaller, ready-to-sell, packages with our label on it.

Since 9/11, food security has become an issue our govt is interested in, and as a result they passed some laws called HAACP. In order to protect the nations food supply, the govt has issued a host of new rules regulating a wide range of food products. Because of HAACP, my business had to invest tens of thousands of dollars to buy equipment that can transfer the product from barrels directly into my containers without coming into contact with the air (amongst other things)

However, now that we're HAACP-certified, our business can now sell to buyers in a number of nations without having to go through a bureaucratic nightmare. A number of other nations have also accepted HAACP's standards and agreed to allow HAACP-certified products to be imported into their country without that nation doing their own inspection of certification. This expands our potential markets exponentially. We already have some buyers, and we may very well double our business as a result.

 

[beerftw]

I hear on a daily basis how regulation is "keeping me from expanding", or how "regulation is costing me money". Yet when pressed for clear cut examples, it always comes back to the Affordable Care Act or Dodd Frank.

But back in reality, what kinds of regulation are actually hurting business? I will provide a regulation that is a burden on business, while providing NO protection to society. Hopefully, we as a forum can put together a list of regulations that serve no purpose other than to politically appease a specific demographic.

In the state of Florida, it is legal for any restaurant/bar or tavern to change the prices of their liquor and food throughout the day. Patrons refer to this as "happy hour". In the state of Indiana, it is illegal to offer happy hour in any establishment that serves alcohol. Even ladies night is illegal.

WHY??? Who the **** knows. It is also illegal to sell retail alcoholic beverages on Sunday or religious holidays in the state of Indiana.

Can anyone else provide examples of regulations that need to die? Please, no ACA or DF.

i got to talk to a guy from the usda today.

he pretty much explained the usda did absolutely nothing to ensure safe produce,but rather focused its entire muscle to prevent competition.he had reported over and over again about employees sleeping on the job,about supervisors allowing bad meat to be sold as fresh etc,only to fall on deaf ears,but they actively persue small farms yet blindly ignore what large corporate farms do.

he basically summed up how regulatios hurt growth,and how his job to ensure safe food was nothing more than to ensure that competitors be harrassed while allowing major producers to do basically anythingthey want,no matter how much the inpectors complain.

 

[HonestJoe]

I think our fundamental difference is you seem to trust government far more than I do, or perhaps you simply think they are the "best" vehicle for common sense regulation. Their track record doesn't support that though.

Government is just a group of people. Why would I automatically trust government more or less than any other group of people (e.g. bar staff)? And at least our governments can be voted out of power.

The advantage of regulation over "do whatever you think is best" is obviously consistency and the ability to adjust it in the face of evidence and circumstance. Of course, regulation doesn't need to come from government alone. Industry and independent experts should be involved in putting it together.

For instance, if happy hours promote the use of alcohol in a bad way, wouldn't making it easier to get on welfare promote poverty in a bad way? Yet progressives deploy the logic in one case, and eliminate it for another.

That's hardly comparing like with like. Drinking is a (generally) pleasant recreational choice. Poverty is an unpleasant consequence of circumstances. The same is true of your comparison on happy hour and abortion later on.

On that point, please don't the mistake of presuming what my opinion is on topics not relevant to this discussion and please don't lump me in with some amorphous grouping of people whose opinions you don't like.

This proves political bends and motivations, which is why government ISN'T the best vehicle for "reasonably balanced" regulation. If a tavern owner can't see that it's better for his business to regulate how much alcohol he serves to a single patron, he won't be in business long.

Happy Hours and other discount drinking promotions are good for business - that's the only reason they would become so popular. Bar owners are in business (and a difficult one at that) so anything that makes more money is good for them. The problem is that most of the negative consequences of binge drinking don't have a direct impact on the bar owners. They kick the drunks on to the streets for the police and paramedics (or wife and children!) to deal with. Everyone has ulterior motives here.

If a bartender doesn't see that it's in his best interest to not overserve a drunk, knowing he could be jailed and fined for doing so, he'll either conform to the law, or get caught sooner or later.

So you approve of that government regulation? Who is picking and choosing now?

This is what I'm talking about. They pick and choose, because they are narcicistic to the core, and they believe THEY know what's best for society.

Nothing like what your doing here at all then?

 

[Masada]

Corn is heavily subsidized. If it weren't for govt regulations, corn would cost far more, and so would beef.

The "exorbitant" cost of corn is a poor argument to make in support of how govt intervention raises the prices of goods and services

Wait, let me correct you, because 5 years ago, you would be right. But under Obama, and the latest Farm Bill that was passed, corn producers lose subsidies when selling corn being used for food consumption, and still get subsidized if the farmer sells to an ethanol plant.

Where I live, there are 2 very large ethanol plants with which I conduct business with (not related to what they do, I handle benefits for their employees), but I have had several lengthy discussions with them about their business simply because it interests me. Corn for ethanol production is still heavily subsidized, because without it, it would fold up like a dirty shirt, plants and all. Corn based ethanol, and it's production, would collapse without government subsidizing it. But under Obama administration, they have reduced corn subsidies on producers selling corn for food. This is a fact.

The regulation has nothing to do with subsidies. There is only so much corn harvested in this country every year, and less corn harvested in drought years. But the regulation mandates that 40% of all domestic production be set aside and sold for the production of ethanol. Imagine taking 40% of your income and not being able to use it for what you need it most for. For commodities, this drives prices up, which we see. It also means there is 40% less corn to produce food products or feed cattle, which is why food prices have gone up, and beef has gone up almost 300% in 4 years.

These types of regulations effect the middle class disproportionately. My cousin in law is also a commodities trader. He buys and sells commodities. He tells me that the regulation has a severe impact on corn prices. Now, it's good for the farmers, because the prices are so high. It's good for the ethanol producers because they're highly subsidized. But it hurts consumers. This isn't the ONLY reason corn is $6.50.

Add in the COST of raising corn as well. Yes, costs go up, but alot of that COST has to do with other regulations as well. Emission regulations, permitting, crop insurance regulations, the cost of farm fuel and new taxes imposed on farm grade diesel, etc, all play a role. So, if it's more expensive for the farmer to raise corn, you can guess how that effects the price as well. Mix in a drought, and all of a sudden there's a shortage in corn supply, higher prices still.

My point is, lots of things effect the prices of commodities, and some of those things we cant control. We can't control when it rains or how much or how little it rains. But we CAN control regulations that effect the prices of commodities that end up hurting the middle class.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Wait, let me correct you, because 5 years ago, you would be right. But under Obama, and the latest Farm Bill that was passed, corn producers lose subsidies when selling corn being used for food consumption, and still get subsidized if the farmer sells to an ethanol plant.

Where I live, there are 2 very large ethanol plants with which I conduct business with (not related to what they do, I handle benefits for their employees), but I have had several lengthy discussions with them about their business simply because it interests me. Corn for ethanol production is still heavily subsidized, because without it, it would fold up like a dirty shirt, plants and all. Corn based ethanol, and it's production, would collapse without government subsidizing it. But under Obama administration, they have reduced corn subsidies on producers selling corn for food. This is a fact.

The regulation has nothing to do with subsidies. There is only so much corn harvested in this country every year, and less corn harvested in drought years. But the regulation mandates that 40% of all domestic production be set aside and sold for the production of ethanol. Imagine taking 40% of your income and not being able to use it for what you need it most for. For commodities, this drives prices up, which we see. It also means there is 40% less corn to produce food products or feed cattle, which is why food prices have gone up, and beef has gone up almost 300% in 4 years.

These types of regulations effect the middle class disproportionately. My cousin in law is also a commodities trader. He buys and sells commodities. He tells me that the regulation has a severe impact on corn prices. Now, it's good for the farmers, because the prices are so high. It's good for the ethanol producers because they're highly subsidized. But it hurts consumers. This isn't the ONLY reason corn is $6.50.

Add in the COST of raising corn as well. Yes, costs go up, but alot of that COST has to do with other regulations as well. Emission regulations, permitting, crop insurance regulations, the cost of farm fuel and new taxes imposed on farm grade diesel, etc, all play a role. So, if it's more expensive for the farmer to raise corn, you can guess how that effects the price as well. Mix in a drought, and all of a sudden there's a shortage in corn supply, higher prices still.

My point is, lots of things effect the prices of commodities, and some of those things we cant control. We can't control when it rains or how much or how little it rains. But we CAN control regulations that effect the prices of commodities that end up hurting the middle class.

Now, I am confused.

This is dated January 3, 2012.

The multi-billion dollar ethanol subsidy expired on Saturday. Most of the ethanol added to gasoline in this country is produced from corn. And, of course, Iowa produces huge amounts of corn. But even in this political season, even as Iowa prepares to caucus today, Congress let the formerly sacred subsidies expire after more than 30 years and about $20 billion. To talk more about why the era ends now, we called Bruce Babcock. He's the Cargill chair of energy economics at Iowa State University.

Someone posted that when I was ranting about ethanol subsidies driving up food costs. Is the above still accurate, or have subsidies been reinstated?

 

[ocean515]

As a business owner, I've never met a rule that has caused any significant pain, and nearly all of them helped my business even if it cost me money.

One business I was involved in was an ice cream factory. Did you know that under govt regulations, spilled milk is not only something to cry over, it's an official "hazardous material"? If you spill some, there's an entire protocol you have to go through in order to ensure against bacterial infection. And of course, it has to be documented. Or else you're left in the position of telling the inspector "We never spill milk here" when he asks to see your reports. Not a good place to be.

However, in the long run, it protects my business. After all, the costs associated with cleaning up the spill and filling out a report is nothing compared to what it would cost if my product was contaminated and people got sick and sued me.

A business I'm currently involved in imports a food product from Europe. Until recently, we bought it in 50-gal barrels, opened them up, and used a pump to pump the product into smaller, ready-to-sell, packages with our label on it.

Since 9/11, food security has become an issue our govt is interested in, and as a result they passed some laws called HAACP. In order to protect the nations food supply, the govt has issued a host of new rules regulating a wide range of food products. Because of HAACP, my business had to invest tens of thousands of dollars to buy equipment that can transfer the product from barrels directly into my containers without coming into contact with the air (amongst other things)

However, now that we're HAACP-certified, our business can now sell to buyers in a number of nations without having to go through a bureaucratic nightmare. A number of other nations have also accepted HAACP's standards and agreed to allow HAACP-certified products to be imported into their country without that nation doing their own inspection of certification. This expands our potential markets exponentially. We already have some buyers, and we may very well double our business as a result.

Interesting.

HACCP (or HAACP) Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points, is an identified process used to insure the safe production of food, or products that will have food contact, such as containers, bags, etc. It is not, and has not, been a federal regulation. It's origin as a recomended overall approach to food safety began long before 9/11.

A HACCP certification means the defined process outlined in the plan has been reviewed and meets with the generally accepted practices for proper food safety. Outside of illustrating a companies commitment to an organized approach to food safety, it doesn't mean much.

I'm thinking your enthusiasm for federal regulations would be better illustrated with something you are more familiar with.

 

[sangha]

Wait, let me correct you, because 5 years ago, you would be right. But under Obama, and the latest Farm Bill that was passed, corn producers lose subsidies when selling corn being used for food consumption, and still get subsidized if the farmer sells to an ethanol plant.

Where I live, there are 2 very large ethanol plants with which I conduct business with (not related to what they do, I handle benefits for their employees), but I have had several lengthy discussions with them about their business simply because it interests me. Corn for ethanol production is still heavily subsidized, because without it, it would fold up like a dirty shirt, plants and all. Corn based ethanol, and it's production, would collapse without government subsidizing it. But under Obama administration, they have reduced corn subsidies on producers selling corn for food. This is a fact.

The regulation has nothing to do with subsidies. There is only so much corn harvested in this country every year, and less corn harvested in drought years. But the regulation mandates that 40% of all domestic production be set aside and sold for the production of ethanol. Imagine taking 40% of your income and not being able to use it for what you need it most for. For commodities, this drives prices up, which we see. It also means there is 40% less corn to produce food products or feed cattle, which is why food prices have gone up, and beef has gone up almost 300% in 4 years.

These types of regulations effect the middle class disproportionately. My cousin in law is also a commodities trader. He buys and sells commodities. He tells me that the regulation has a severe impact on corn prices. Now, it's good for the farmers, because the prices are so high. It's good for the ethanol producers because they're highly subsidized. But it hurts consumers. This isn't the ONLY reason corn is $6.50.

Add in the COST of raising corn as well. Yes, costs go up, but alot of that COST has to do with other regulations as well. Emission regulations, permitting, crop insurance regulations, the cost of farm fuel and new taxes imposed on farm grade diesel, etc, all play a role. So, if it's more expensive for the farmer to raise corn, you can guess how that effects the price as well. Mix in a drought, and all of a sudden there's a shortage in corn supply, higher prices still.

My point is, lots of things effect the prices of commodities, and some of those things we cant control. We can't control when it rains or how much or how little it rains. But we CAN control regulations that effect the prices of commodities that end up hurting the middle class.

Your post is nonsense mixed with BS

For one thing, Obama doesn't pass Farm Bills. Congress does.

For another, subsidies for corn haven't been cut, as far as I can tell, and your post offers nothing to support your claim other that your own say-so

Also, the govt doesn't take 40% of a corn farmers income,. That is a straight out lie. It is also dishonest to portray that as hurting a corn farmer when they benefit from the increase in prices that result from diverting 40% of the crop.

And again, as even you point out, the corn crop would collapse without govt support. Imagine what the price of corn would do then. And beef would be even more expensive, as I pointed out earlier. Your post actually confirms my argument

 

[sangha]

Interesting.

HACCP (or HAACP) Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points, is an identified process used to insure the safe production of food, or products that will have food contact, such as containers, bags, etc. It is not, and has not, been a federal regulation. It's origin as a recomended overall approach to food safety began long before 9/11.

A HACCP certification means the defined process outlined in the plan has been reviewed and meets with the generally accepted practices for proper food safety. Outside of illustrating a companies commitment to an organized approach to food safety, it doesn't mean much.

I'm thinking your enthusiasm for federal regulations would be better illustrated with something you are more familiar with.

You obviously googled it, and now think you're an expert in a field where you're clueless. For my business, it is REQUIRED

FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA)

This is just the latest is a series of actions the govt has taken to secure our food supply

 

[Masada]

Your post is nonsense mixed with BS

For one thing, Obama doesn't pass Farm Bills. Congress does.

For another, subsidies for corn haven't been cut, as far as I can tell, and your post offers nothing to support your claim other that your own say-so

Also, the govt doesn't take 40% of a corn farmers income,. That is a straight out lie. It is also dishonest to portray that as hurting a corn farmer when they benefit from the increase in prices that result from diverting 40% of the crop.

And again, as even you point out, the corn crop would collapse without govt support. Imagine what the price of corn would do then. And beef would be even more expensive, as I pointed out earlier. Your post actually confirms my argument

You seem to have a reading problem then. Because I specifically said high corn prices actually help the farmers, and hurt the consumers. Every democrat voted for the most recent farm bill. Maybe you heard about the most current farm bill being voted down, because of conservatives in Congress.....care to know why? I doubt that very much. Subsidies HAVEN'T been cut for corn production going towards ethanol production, they HAVE been reduced for corn going towards food production.

No, the mandate that says 40% of corn production must be set aside for ethanol production doesn't reduce the farmer's income, I never said it did. Here again, if you could read a little better, you would clearly see I didn't say that whatsoever. The mandate that 40% of corn production go for ethanol production hurts CONSUMERS because it reduces the amount of corn available for food products, including beef, which drives prices up at the grocery store, impacting the middle class the most.

Either you're the poorest reader in debate politics history, or you are purposefully misstating what I said. Go back and read again bro......

Subsidies that divert corn away from food production, and steer corn towards ethanol production drives prices up. Any fool can understand this. Your argument is invalid. Regulations on corn production are effecting the price of corn, that's undebatable. The price of corn is effecting world wide food prices, also undebatable. No move on son, the game is over for your argument, you lost. Because of political ideology, liberals HURT the middle class through regulatory policies which drive the price of goods UP, not down.

Liberal regulatory policies drive the cost of food up, insurance up, utility bills up, and energy up. All of those items disproportionately effect the middle class family. Perhaps you saw the report today that 75% of Americans live PAY CHECK TO PAY CHECK. The price of food, energy, insurance, and utilities dramatically effects the middle class, and it's liberal regulatory policy that's causing it primarily.

Case and point, Insurance premiums were rising on average of 19% nationwide BEFORE Obamacare passed. Since it's passage, premiums are rising at a 37% rate nationally. Doubled. The price of food is up. The price of energy is up. The price of utilities are up because of the regulatory requirements liberals impose through Obama's EPA on coal powered power plants. The majority of the country still gets it's electricity from coal generated power. The majority of the country drive cars that use gasoline. The majority of the country still buys food! Liberal regulatory ideology drives prices up, which hurts the middle class far more than any tax break Bush gave someone 7 years ago.

 

[sangha]

You seem to have a reading problem then. Because I specifically said high corn prices actually help the farmers, and hurt the consumers. Every democrat voted for the most recent farm bill. Maybe you heard about the most current farm bill being voted down, because of conservatives in Congress.....care to know why? I doubt that very much. Subsidies HAVEN'T been cut for corn production going towards ethanol production, they HAVE been reduced for corn going towards food production.

No, the mandate that says 40% of corn production must be set aside for ethanol production doesn't reduce the farmer's income, I never said it did. Here again, if you could read a little better, you would clearly see I didn't say that whatsoever. The mandate that 40% of corn production go for ethanol production hurts CONSUMERS because it reduces the amount of corn available for food products, including beef, which drives prices up at the grocery store, impacting the middle class the most.

Either you're the poorest reader in debate politics history, or you are purposefully misstating what I said. Go back and read again bro......

Subsidies that divert corn away from food production, and steer corn towards ethanol production drives prices up. Any fool can understand this. Your argument is invalid. Regulations on corn production are effecting the price of corn, that's undebatable. The price of corn is effecting world wide food prices, also undebatable. No move on son, the game is over for your argument, you lost. Because of political ideology, liberals HURT the middle class through regulatory policies which drive the price of goods UP, not down.

Liberal regulatory policies drive the cost of food up, insurance up, utility bills up, and energy up. All of those items disproportionately effect the middle class family. Perhaps you saw the report today that 75% of Americans live PAY CHECK TO PAY CHECK. The price of food, energy, insurance, and utilities dramatically effects the middle class, and it's liberal regulatory policy that's causing it primarily.

Case and point, Insurance premiums were rising on average of 19% nationwide BEFORE Obamacare passed. Since it's passage, premiums are rising at a 37% rate nationally. Doubled. The price of food is up. The price of energy is up. The price of utilities are up because of the regulatory requirements liberals impose through Obama's EPA on coal powered power plants. The majority of the country still gets it's electricity from coal generated power. The majority of the country drive cars that use gasoline. The majority of the country still buys food! Liberal regulatory ideology drives prices up, which hurts the middle class far more than any tax break Bush gave someone 7 years ago.

Again, as even you pointed out, without the subsidies, corn would be out of business in this country. If that happened, the price of corn would soar.

Do you think that would help consumers?

 

[Masada]

Again, as even you pointed out, without the subsidies, corn would be out of business in this country. If that happened, the price of corn would soar.

Do you think that would help consumers?

That's NOT what I pointed out, it's what your little mind read. Let me clear it up for you......now pay close attention.....

Without subsidies, ETHANOL PRODUCTION would be out of business, not "corn". As I stated, corn is the number one food ingredient world wide, so there's no way "corn" would be out of business.

Without ethanol subsidies, and the regulation requiring 40% of all domestic corn production going towards ethanol, corn prices would come down, probably back around normal prices like $3.50-$3.75. This would LOWER food prices.

wait for it, wait for it......

WHICH WOULD HELP CONSUMERS.

 

[sangha]

That's NOT what I pointed out, it's what your little mind read. Let me clear it up for you......now pay close attention.....

Without subsidies, ETHANOL PRODUCTION would be out of business, not "corn". As I stated, corn is the number one food ingredient world wide, so there's no way "corn" would be out of business.

Without ethanol subsidies, and the regulation requiring 40% of all domestic corn production going towards ethanol, corn prices would come down, probably back around normal prices like $3.50-$3.75. This would LOWER food prices.

wait for it, wait for it......

WHICH WOULD HELP CONSUMERS.

Without subsidies, corn would be out of business in this country. On their own, farmers would not be able to make through the ups and downs of the market

Without ethanol, corn farmers would make less money. Many would go out of business.

Then guess what would happen to corn prices?

The price consumers pay for food is at a historically low point relative to income. Guess why?

 

[Masada]

Again, as even you pointed out, without the subsidies, corn would be out of business in this country. If that happened, the price of corn would soar.

Do you think that would help consumers?

lol...it's clear you have no clue what you are talking about. You are comparing subsidies for corn, and subsidies for ethanol. Corn subsidies would lower prices presumably, but ethanol subsidies raise prices.

When you subsidize the usage of corn for food, ya, it would help. But that's not what Obama and his administration is doing. When you subsidize ethanol, and then implement a regulation that diverts 40% of corn away from food production to ethanol production, what the hell do you think is gonna happen to the price of corn????????????

Geeezus man....just think for a second.

 

[sangha]

lol...it's clear you have no clue what you are talking about. You are comparing subsidies for corn, and subsidies for ethanol. Corn subsidies would lower prices presumably, but ethanol subsidies raise prices.

When you subsidize the usage of corn for food, ya, it would help. But that's not what Obama and his administration is doing. When you subsidize ethanol, and then implement a regulation that diverts 40% of corn away from food production to ethanol production, what the hell do you think is gonna happen to the price of corn????????????

Geeezus man....just think for a second.

No, when you subsidize corn for ethanol, you are helping corn farmers survive. If corn farmers go out of business, what do you think is going to happen to the price of corn?

Since the govt began massively subsidizing food production in the US, the price of food has gone down relative to income, proving that consumers have benefited from the subsidies.

 

[Masada]

Without subsidies, corn would be out of business in this country. On their own, farmers would not be able to make through the ups and downs of the market

Without ethanol, corn farmers would make less money. Many would go out of business.

Then guess what would happen to corn prices?

The price consumers pay for food is at a historically low point relative to income. Guess why?

Then subsidize corn FOR FOOD PRODUCTION!!!!!!

It's real simple man, what do you think helps/hurts the middle class average family more, the availability of ethanol? Or the freaking price of food at the grocery store?

How many middle class families are driving cars fueled with ethanol????? Ethanol is being mixed with gasoline. What the hell for????? It drives the price of gas up, is less efficient, and pollutes more for Christ sake.....

When will you liberals ever learn???????

 

[Masada]

No, when you subsidize corn for ethanol, you are helping corn farmers survive. If corn farmers go out of business, what do you think is going to happen to the price of corn?

Since the govt began massively subsidizing food production in the US, the price of food has gone down relative to income, proving that consumers have benefited from the subsidies.

THey wont go out of business man.....corn FOR FOOD, is in higher demand than corn for ethanol I assure you.....Geeez. Corn farmers didn't go broke before the days of ethanol did they???? No, in fact, they got rich!!!! There will ALWAYS be a demand for food worldwide.

 

[sangha]

Then subsidize corn FOR FOOD PRODUCTION!!!!!!

It's real simple man, what do you think helps/hurts the middle class average family more, the availability of ethanol? Or the freaking price of food at the grocery store?

How many middle class families are driving cars fueled with ethanol????? Ethanol is being mixed with gasoline. What the hell for????? It drives the price of gas up, is less efficient, and pollutes more for Christ sake.....

When will you liberals ever learn???????

And again, by providing income for corn farmers the ethanol subsidies help keep corn farms in business, which is good for consumers.

 

[Hard Truth]

Obama mandated a new regulation in 2009, that 40% of ALL corn production in the US go towards the production of corn based ethanol. Why? To appease the green energy donors. There are lots of side effects to this regulation. Corn is the number one food ingredient in the world, and now 40% of ALL corn production isn't used for human consumption. This drives the price of corn up drastically, which drives the price of food up. Since America is the world's largest exporter of corn, it's driving food prices up globally.

Ethanol is not widely supported by environmentalists since it is not one of the cleaner or efficient technologies. Ethanol is promoted by both parties largely due to the disproportionate political power of the midwest (esp. Iowa) due to the way the presidential primaries are held.