AgTalk Home
AgTalk Home
Search Forums | Classifieds (135) | Skins | Language
You are logged in as a guest. ( logon | register )

RIN Waivers lead to first decline in Domestic Ethanol usage in two decades
View previous thread :: View next thread
   Forums List -> Market TalkMessage format
 
NOCO_Farmer
Posted 3/14/2019 12:15 (#7380081 - in reply to #7377580)
Subject: RE: RIN Waivers lead to first decline in Domestic Ethanol usage in two decades


... How about we use reality for a change instead of sniping at Trump? Does anyone honestly think 1 person can push something through all by themselves? No, so move on from that. Second, if Ethanol is going to survive and thrive as it should it needs to stop depending on the Fed to mandate its usage. And if they can't do that themselves then the market deserves to die. It is funny to me that people get twisted up about Trump's bankruptcies (but ignore his billions made..) but then get upset that more isn't happening to prop up the Ethanol industry. Bankruptcy means the business plan didn't work and they cut ties with it and got out to live another day, the same thing needs to happen to the RFI, either get it done on your own or its over. There is nothing positive that will happen from propping up an economy, and it doesn't matter if it hurts the farmers demand or checkbooks, because it means its not a real industry anyway.

If you want to say Trump is all big oil, fine, but then you better also accept that every single Congressman or Senator is as well because they are not pushing to get this through either. If they weren't these same people that are pushing the Green New Deal would be all over this to get it pushed through, what is the downside for them? More corn used, means higher prices, means higher feed costs for cattle, means less cattle farts, plus fighting big oil, plus reducing emissions, plus more government control of 2 industries. The only minus for them is it would be viewed as a Trump win as well.

By the way, who was it that gave billions to farmers this last year in a bailout plan?

My point of this post is to point out the hypocrisy of the entire situation from blaming 1 person, all the way to those wanting to prop up an industry, to those that could benefit the most politically from it at this stage, to those here that want to say someone is always against them and doesn't care but will gladly take their bailout check to the bank and then use that extra cash flow to justify doing the EXACT SAME THING AGAIN to their banker. Everyone here needs to take a deep breath and take a step back and look at things pragmatically.

And before anyone comes at me with snide comments about being a Trump lacky or something equally ridiculous, I am not, I am a realist, and I am not absolving him of anything because there is not really anything for him to be absolved of here. He nominated Pruitt, I did think Pruitt was the personality type needed in the EPA because they are not a governing body, but create rules (not laws) that can break people, and such, but it turned out he didn't think he needed to play by the same rules as anyone else so hes gone, but that list of names confirmed him as well. And also keep in mind everyone on this forum and in this industry benefits massively from cheap oil/gas/LNG prices.

/end rant
Top of the page Bottom of the page


Jump to forum :
Search this forum
Printer friendly version
E-mail a link to this thread

(Delete all cookies set by this site)