It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
reply to post by beezzer
Based on what?
And what is redistribution of costs?
So using your quote, I think the 2 wars , started by a previous POTUS, a Repub I believe, would fit in here nicely.
Originally posted by beezzer
When I say reditribution of cost, I mean that programmes designed to aid a specific group are going to be paid by everyone.
Originally posted by azureskys
reply to post by EvilSadamClone
This is for that post by beezzer but thought you might like a laugh.
Take your pick
Two Cow Politics
Socialism : You have two cows. You keep one and give one
to your neighbor.
Communism : You have two cows. The government takes them
Both and provides you with milk.
Fascism : You have two cows. The government takes them and
sells you the milk.
Bureaucracy : You have two cows. The government takes them
Both, shoots one, milks the other, pays you for the milk, and
Then pours it down the drain.
Capitalism : You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull.
Corporate: You have two cows. You sell one, force the other to
produce the milk of four cows and then act surprised
When it drops dead.
Democracy : You have two cows. The government taxes you
To the point that you must sell them both in order to
support a man in a in a foreign country who has only one cow
Silva joins a growing and diverse chorus of people calling for an unprecedented waiver or suspension of the RFS. This week, 25 U.S. Senators urged the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to adjust the mandate, while the chief executive of grains giant Cargill said the free market should dictate biofuels use.
Researchers at Texas A&M University have estimated that diverting corn to make ethanol forces Americans to pay $40 billion a year in higher food prices. On top of that, it costs taxpayers $1.78 in subsidies for each gallon of gasoline that corn-based ethanol replaces, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
As for the environmental virtues of ethanol, those were debunked long ago. True, gasoline-ethanol blends can lower greenhouse emissions by 20 percent, and ethanol can replace toxic additives such as benzene that make gasoline more combustible. But growing corn is energy intensive. Tractors that run on diesel fuel must plow fields, plant seed, spread fertilizer and pesticides (that run into local waterways), harvest the crop and haul it to refining plants. Unlike oil, ethanol is highly corrosive and can’t be transported by pipeline. Trucks or trains must carry the finished product to gasoline blenders. By some calculations, ethanol takes more energy to produce than it yields, negating the environmental benefits.
Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Char-Lee
Eh.. I am going to go with the poor do eat beef these days. You can get a burger for 85 cents. Unfortunately they eat poor quality, high fat, hormone injected beef.
Originally posted by TXRabbit
Originally posted by groingrinder
Thank God it is beef. For a minute, I thought it said beer.
Then I'd have to take to the streets, armed to teeth!
"You can # with my taxes and you can # with my rights but don't you ever....EVER....# with my beer"
-said by me