Ron Paul on the Verge of Going Third Party?

Another traitor!: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/recall-ran...

LORAX wrote:

<quoted text>
Thats because you dont understand what I said. There is indeed a difference between a subsidy that artificially lowers or increases the price and puts actual dollars and/or tax credits into producers pockets.- currently the situation with ALL petroleum fuels that we consumers buy. AND incentive which allows a free markets and the availability to for consumers which may include the military to buy a more expensive or different product to encourage the growth of an industry for long term resource procurement. By choice and free will they decide what is in their best interest both short and long term. Congress dictating a market will fixed at the price of oil should not be a conservatives choice and as a libertarian it certainly is not mine! Do not presume to confuse incentive with subsidy with me again. Price fixing for an industry advantage is pure manipulation of the system and as a Paul supporter and libertarian I have issues with that. The fact that you are bewildered speaks volumes of your understanding of the liberty movement and conservatism in general. Just because its green does not mean its a hippy far out endeavor that is supported by your taxes. Before you can use your mind - you have to open it first.

Nice back hand comment at the end, Lorax, but the fact is my
mind is both open and clear while yours seems to be rooted in
favor of providing justification for the federal government to
both create and manipulate a cause that happens to be something
you identify with. By doing so you are betraying free market
principles and genuine conservatism. I am not.

If you happen to believe that the ethanol industry was created
by free market economics you are sadly mistaken. It came about
because of environmentalists within our government, and the
complicity of certain subsections of the agricultural producers.
Prior to the government's decision to both subsidize and use
tax codes to create incentives for producers of ethanol the
industry was largely a loser. Now every gallon of regular
gasoline contains at least 10% ethanol even though the public
did not ask for it and despite the fact that its deficiencies
create both problems and costs for the consumer. Our alternative
is to pay considerably more for a higher priced product or
just suffer. In the case of those of us using certain types of
equipment or transportation, we must choose to pay the higher
price. Your federal government created and mandated this. It
was NOT the creation of a free market.

I won't even go into detail about how the government creation
of the ethanol market ... which benefits VERY few, all special
interests ... plays havoc with the costs of feed corn and,
because burgeoning costs in one commodity inevitably place
pressure on other crops, inevitably drives up the costs of
wheat, oats, and even soymeal. Before we blame speculators
we should trace the problem back to the federal government which
elected to create this market. The speculators only took
advantage of the kept market they created.

I could give you specific examples of the distortions in every
agricultural commodity, Lorax, but my sense is that you really
haven't much interest because your mind has been made up. I
look at the balance sheets from 2005 and today and cringe at
how ideological policies absolutely destroy the very idea of
free market capitalism.

To follow up on my response above, Lorax, my point
is that for the average person it does not matter
whether it was a subsidy or an incentive that led
to the creation of a federally mandated market.
All he knows is that some choices are no longer
available to him or that some choices are not
choices at all .... they are simply what industry
is allowed to produce.

In sum, there has been no what you called "choice
and free will." If you don't believe me ask any
service station owner you know.

Continuing again this morning, Lorax ....

In my view the price of commodities should be a
matter of supply and demand, except for those
circumstances where weather or natural calamity
creates shortages that create downstream reactions
that the general populace cannot cope with given
their circumstances. At that point in time I
believe it is fair to justify remedial action
under the general welfare clause for the sake of
that populace. It really isn't that much different
from the unscrupulous gas station owner who jacks
up his price from $3.50 a gallon to $6.50 a
gallon when a Level 5 hurricane is coming their
way. Hey, I'll give you $4.50 for having it
ready and able, but go to hell if you try to get
rich over a natural calamity.

Federal interference in the marketplace has
altogether screwed and skewed us to the wall.
They would have you believe it is about farm
subsidies, noting that 80% of those subsidies go
to "industrial" farms. Fair enough, I guess,
but the fact remains that were it not for
federal interference on behalf of the ethanol/
environmental industries would have resulted in
cost-to-consumer prices roughly 40% lower than
we see today on the commodity market.

Just a hint, Lorax. 5 years ago ordinary soymeal,
a basic in raising the protein level of animal
feeds, stood at about $300 per ton downstream.
A few years before it was apologetically at
around $260. It had been there for years and
years.


Today a ton of soymeal is running at an all time
high of $550 a ton. I can assure you that the
added cost will be passed along to you whether
you buy beef or cereal or whatever.


Corn? A decade ago I paid $60 a ton on a good day.
$90 was a really bad day. Today it is not
uncommon to buy a ton of feed corn at $250 a
ton.


You can't blame the weather or industrial ag.
Storage is at a significantly low number.

The real issue is the federal decision to enter
the ag market in a way that would distort the
production of corn. That hitherto "ordinary crop"
became a gold mine because of federal inter-
vention. It took other cropland out of pro-
duction for another commodity and put it into
corn. Speculators capitalized. It invited the
entry of clueless speculators who wouldn't know
kernel of corn from a kernel of truth.


Sorry, Lorax, but the pinheads in Washington
don't have a clue about agriculture, energy, or
the public interest. It is all about an almost
fetish-like devotion to ideology and pseudo-
intellectual nonsense. Given that a cataclysmic
event could disrupt the market I understand the
need for insurance and the need of a government
to even attempt to avoid crazy swings in the
cost of commodities to the consumer. Average it
out and be done with it.

Prep-for-Dep wrote:

<quoted text>America is too scared to vote third party. They think they are wasting their vote. In reality, if everyone voted their conscience rather than worrying about who others are going to vote for, a third party would very likely win.

Man I tell you that you 100% right republicans worry to much about democrats and same with democrats I say I people would actually focus on the real life issues we are facing they would vote Ron Paul but they are concerned about: gays, environment, and power over the world. What we actually need to do is leave the world alone and isolate ourselves from the bs that happens and lick our wounds and restore our strength I say Ron Paul 2012

Holysoldier007 wrote:

<quoted text>Man I tell you that you 100% right republicans worry to much about democrats and same with democrats I say I people would actually focus on the real life issues we are facing they would vote Ron Paul but they are concerned about: gays, environment, and power over the world. What we actually need to do is leave the world alone and isolate ourselves from the bs that happens and lick our wounds and restore our strength I say Ron Paul 2012

Amen to that!

Bill R wrote:

<quoted text>
Nice back hand comment at the end, Lorax, but the fact is my
mind is both open and clear while yours seems to be rooted in
favor of providing justification for the federal government to
both create and manipulate a cause that happens to be something
you identify with. By doing so you are betraying free market
principles and genuine conservatism. I am not.
.....
I could give you specific examples of the distortions in every
agricultural commodity, Lorax, but my sense is that you really
haven't much interest because your mind has been made up. I
look at the balance sheets from 2005 and today and cringe at
how ideological policies absolutely destroy the very idea of
free market capitalism.

I must have really hit a nerve this time! Just because I do not have the time at the moment to digest the several posts of your response - but out of respect I will. I will reply to the first and last paragraph now and get back to you on the rest....It was not a back handed comment. You mind is not open to this - evident by the fact that you did not read or understand my previous post. Currently the fed govt is manipulating the market by obvious and outright price fixing per congressional mandate that says what commodity (oil) will determine the energy rate. So if an energy product is deemed(by a measures yet to be determined) more than the subsidized - yes Bill subsidized rate for oil then government agencies including the military can not buy it. Had this logic prevailed a century ago we'd still be using sails. I did not say that subsidies do not exist. I said my business operates without them - preferably; and the government/Congress is taking away market incentives (research and finding a longer term solution) by dictating that government be excluded from development(ie the willingness to allocate some of their budget - just like private industry does to explore alternative product)when they are/would be the primary benefactor of said technological advancement. By condoning this governmental interference you would condone anti-market actions and statism. As to the rest of your rant on subsidies in alternative energy, ag and hopefully others in your diatribe - I will read and respond to soon. But I didn't have to - to know you missed the point. My perspective is one of pure capitalism that is pissed off that a niche client is now restricted from a market, which btw does not affect my company directly because my products DO correspond with oil because we knew the dumb asses would limit growth over the favor and short-sightedness of oil. It is unconstitutional and stupid and spurred only by political contempt. The fact is that the value chain that has different processes and variations of similar products needs to be explored by those willing to pay higher price in some circumstances. The military will in some circumstances pay a deep discount and other situations a very high premium for a variety of reasons. Its part of an open market. None of these are subsidies they are agreed contract price negotiations. Now the military is not the only player willing to do this - they just happen to be one of the largest which by definition and logic adversely and artificially impacts a niche capital market.

Bill R wrote:

Continuing again this morning, Lorax ....
In my view the price of commodities should be a
matter of supply and demand, except for those
circumstances where weather or natural calamity
creates shortages that create downstream reactions
that the general populace cannot cope with given
their circumstances. At that point in time I
believe it is fair to justify remedial action
under the general welfare clause for the sake of
that populace. It really isn't that much different
from the unscrupulous gas station owner who jacks
up his price from $3.50 a gallon to $6.50 a
gallon when a Level 5 hurricane is coming their
way. Hey, I'll give you $4.50 for having it
ready and able, but go to hell if you try to get
rich over a natural calamity.
Federal interference in the marketplace has
altogether screwed and skewed us to the wall.
They would have you believe it is about farm
subsidies, noting that 80% of those subsidies go
to "industrial" farms. Fair enough, I guess,
but the fact remains that were it not for
federal interference on behalf of the ethanol/
environmental industries would have resulted in
cost-to-consumer prices roughly 40% lower than
we see today on the commodity market.
Just a hint, Lorax. 5 years ago ordinary soymeal,
a basic in raising the protein level of animal
feeds, stood at about $300 per ton downstream.
A few years before it was apologetically at
around $260. It had been there for years and
years.
Today a ton of soymeal is running at an all time
high of $550 a ton. I can assure you that the
added cost will be passed along to you whether
you buy beef or cereal or whatever.
Corn? A decade ago I paid $60 a ton on a good day.
$90 was a really bad day. Today it is not
uncommon to buy a ton of feed corn at $250 a
ton.
You can't blame the weather or industrial ag.
Storage is at a significantly low number.
The real issue is the federal decision to enter
the ag market in a way that would distort the
production of corn. That hitherto "ordinary crop"
became a gold mine because of federal inter-
vention. It took other cropland out of pro-
duction for another commodity and put it into
corn. Speculators capitalized. It invited the
entry of clueless speculators who wouldn't know
kernel of corn from a kernel of truth.
Sorry, Lorax, but the pinheads in Washington
don't have a clue about agriculture, energy, or
the public interest. It is all about an almost
fetish-like devotion to ideology and pseudo-
intellectual nonsense. Given that a cataclysmic
event could disrupt the market I understand the
need for insurance and the need of a government
to even attempt to avoid crazy swings in the
cost of commodities to the consumer. Average it
out and be done with it.

Predictable canned response. Corn/ethanol were indeed a result of direct manipulation and funded primarily by you guessed it big oil. They pushed many of the mandates once they got in the game and rigged the rules for the very few at the top. Soy a commodity that my industry uses from time to time has fluctuated naturally based on differing demands from competing industries including food, fuel, and other applications. We choose to use non-food commodity seed crops if we press virgin oil to produce bio diesel, but mostly recycle used cooking oil. You're are arguing the same thing and dont even realize it. Of course those were mistakes and unwanted intrusions to the market, but why would you remedy those mistakes by reducing choice and price fixing to choose the winner in a single commodity? You bitch about subsidies and price fixing and have no clue or want to admit that it happens with ALL petroleum based fuel products. It does not happen with bio diesel. For a couple of short years the government applied a credit that equaled a fraction of the credits the petrol supplier and blenders enjoy and they revoked that just as the industry was beginning to build its own infrastructure.Be consistent in your thinking Bill a commodity is a commodity.

For the record the BCAP credits were a type of subsidy. We have never relied on them and they were a fraction of petroleum credits. They presently do not exist. What I would like to see is for Congress to reverse its ridiculous mandate capping all energy expenses with the subsidized value of oil. Return it to an open market like it should be. FtR I am for ending all other ag subsidies traditional or otherwisse and starting from scratch in an open market. Can you afford that on your farm Bill? I can on mine.

Damn Topix! Always looses my best posts!

There should have been one in between the two above that answered your post on subsidies and your predictable argument Bill. Short story is that Ethanol was fixed and ruined by big oil, Corn sucks because of that and soy has been affected by alternative fuel and food markets and other technologies you probably are unaware of. Bio diesel has never enjoyed subsidy at the level of ethanol or agriculture for that matter. BCAP existed for a few years and then was revoked again at the prodding of big oil. Finally, I do not want subsidy - I want the government out of the business of picking winners and price fixing the market. You have made my points for me and helped argue for the government staying out price fixing markets even if it thinks it will save money in the short term.

perfect its back - sorry for the redundancy - re-post.

The right wing Republicans controls House Of Representatives of 400 members who represents ,gets $150,000 for supporting the big Oil and those still receive 38,000 for their effort.

Yep crony capitalism at work.

Bill R wrote:

<quoted text>
Regarding the "tie, a movie, a cold beer, and a surprise stripper,"
I can only guess that maybe you scored on 3 of 4.

I never said a tie. I don't wear a tie unless it's formal or I'm in the mood. We know what you got father's day.:)

I'm surprised no one (especially Bill because I directed it at him) got my quote from the admin answering a reporters question on allowing children of illegals to stay. That's where I got the quote from.(another pandering for latino votes)

I've been reading this blog a lot because the perspectives fascinate me. Just not commenting because issues and opinions on the current topic of alternative energy are getting rehashed instead of renewed.

Next on the blog agenda should be the SCOTUS striking down the individual mandate (which by clerks acct is 84% likely to happen).

What is going to happen when the insurance companies cannot reign in enough $$$ to keep promises such as no excluding pre-existing conditions.

Which reminds me of DR. Paul..during the republican primary debates, When asked by Wolf Blitzer if a 30 year old uninsured man with a health crises and no insurance should be left to die, the answer was NO! The audience erupted with shouts of "Let him die". For those that believe in God and judgement day, imagine standing in front of God and defending this willingness to let the sick die without care.

My libertarian ideology is conflicting with my hatred of insurance companies which is conflicting with my love of the free market which is conflicting with my humanitarian spirit.

Wo is me.

ps..stop corn subsidies. Subsidize fruits, vegetables and beef.

sane..yes...money maker maybe..political contributions ..not likely..

result..subsidize corn

http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/too-bad-libertar...

Strange..I got gary johnson with 84% and ron paul with 72%.

interesting survey from young people.

A special day on Saturday .... given 2 reserved
tickets at the Olympic Trials at Hayward Field
in Eugene .... Tracktown USA, no doubt the neatest
place to attend a track and field event in the
United States.

Moment to remember .... watching 24 year old
Ashton Eaton, an Oregon native and UO graduate,
break the world record in the decathlon. The
final event, the 1500, was an absolutely mind-
blowing experience. The record had stood for
11 years and he was only the 2nd person to
surpass 9,000 points, largely because he won 7
of 10 events.

Best of all, he is a genuinely nice guy.

Sometimes it is nice just to set aside politics
and just enjoy some of the sweet moments in life.

I am floating around the salt flats in low country for a week. See ya next week.

If Ron Paul went third party he would certainly get my vote.

If not than I don't think anyone will get my vote.

I am sick of voting for Jack@sses

Politicians that are truthful about these bogus wars will never win a primary

I respect Ron Paul

"The Massachusetts health care insurance reform law, St. 2006, c.58,[1][2], enacted in 2006, mandates that nearly every resident of Massachusetts obtain a state-government-regulated minimum level of healthcare insurance coverage and provides free health care insurance for residents earning less than 150% of the federal poverty level"

John Kingsdale!