Skip to main content

Once a week they meet at the Golden Corral to commiserate on how everything would be better if the representatives would just "vote right".

Looking at the minutes of the Crystal Coast Tea Party Meeting (with "Meeting" spelled "Meetng" in the page title), I found quite a bit of fun stuff.

Join me under the Orange Sunrise Cloud squiggle of love, won't you?

Yes, we all know that the tea partyers are 99%'ers who haven't figured it out yet.

Still its fun to watch them try.

KEN LANG said he is getting very discouraged with Senator Burr. Everything we had told Burr we do not want, he has voted for. We need to be thinking about a viable candidate to run against Burr next time.

Really?  On 12/14/11 the Republican Senator voted "yea" on a Constitutional Amendment to require a balanced budget.

The notes of the meeting were for the same date.  December 14th.

Aren't tea partyers all about balanced budgets?  Or is Dale simply not paying attention?

BOB reported the bad news that he had lost his shed by fire today. He said he had attempted to thaw out a frozen pipe on the exterior of the shed with a small propane torch. He had then put the torch (which he thought was out) into a box in the shed and left to run errands. Mrs. Cavanaugh said she heard an explosion, looked out and saw nothing wrong. Then she heard another explosion and when she looked again she saw smoke coming from the shed and called 911. Bad news for the TEA Party too. All the items belonging to the CCTPP were in the shed – our flags, buntings, posters, some shirts, etc – all gone. Nancy said she still had a box of shirts, so we are not totally out. Guess we need to be thinking about a fund raiser to replenish our supplies.

Oh my.  I'm glad no one was hurt.  Lol.  That Bob.  He's always leaving a hot propane torch in a cardboard box.  Third shed in as many years.  Poor Missus Cavanaugh.

Discussed Ethanol. We would not have to be concerned about ethanol and corn if not for the Federal subsidy. Some say if we do away with ethanol the farmers will lose from $3.00 to $5.00 per bushel. Disagree – we’d rather eat that corn rather than burn it. Not using all that corn for ethanol, we could bring the cost of feed for cattle and hogs down. Also many products are made with corn (sweeteners, etc.). The price for many food products should also decrease with the elimination of ethanol.

Ok, I am going out on a limb here, but what makes these folks think that removing a government subsidy to grow corn for ethanol would make corn grown for livestock food and human consumption cheaper?  

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if corn was cheaper, woudn't less farmers want to grow it?  If the corn reserved for Ethanol is gone from the equation, why would those particular farmers say, "what the heck", and switch to growing unsubsidized corn?  

I'll admit I am no expert on ethanol, or what parts of the corn plant don't get used for ethanol and go into the marketplace as foodstuffs.  

A simple google search gave me an overview.  Wet milling is one of the methods of creating ethanol from corn.  It yields both ethanol and corn sugars, which make their way to the marketplace.  (The second way of creating Ethanol has the entire plant being used.)

Wouldn't the loss of those subsidized products which come from wet-milling corn for Ethanol and end up in the marketplace also bring the price of corn-related products up?

The point is, shouldn't just a little bit of research help these folks shape their views?

This is in no way meant as being a pro-Ethanol post.  I'm very much against it, but I think I have some idea of why it is an ongoing subsidized crop and issue, and I have to thank the Crystal Coast Tea Party for the laughs, and tweaking my curiosity when the "logic" of the members seems just a wee bit suspect.

Pay close attention to the voting on the Dream Act. If this act passes it will be the final blow to our country.

Oh my.  We certainly can't have well educated aliens of good moral character staying, working and paying taxes in the US.

The DREAM Act (acronym for Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors) is an American legislative proposal first introduced in the Senate on August 1, 2001[1] and most recently reintroduced there on May 11, 2011.

This bill would provide conditional permanent residency to certain illegal aliens of good moral character who graduate from US high schools, arrived in the US as minors, and lived in the country continuously for at least five years prior to the bill's enactment. If they were to complete two years in the military or two years at a four year institution of higher learning, they would obtain temporary residency for a six year period. Within the six year period, they may qualify if they have "acquired a degree from an institution of higher education in the United States or has completed at least 2 years, in good standing, in a program for a bachelor's degree or higher degree in the United States" or have "served in the armed services for at least 2 years and, if discharged, has received an honorable discharge".[2] Military enlistment contracts require an eight year commitment, with active duty commitments typically between four and six years, but as low as two years.[3][4] "Any alien whose permanent resident status is terminated... shall return to the immigration status the alien had immediately prior to receiving conditional permanent resident status under this Act."[5] This bill would have included illegal immigrants as old as 35 years of age.

In a December 2010 report, the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that the November 30th, 2010 version of the DREAM Act would "reduce deficits by about $1.4 billion over the 2011-2020 period and increase government revenues by $2.3 billion over the next 10 years."[6] The same report also notes that the Act "would increase projected deficits by more than $5 billion in at least one of the four consecutive 10-year periods starting in 2021".

One recent UCLA study estimates that between $1.4 trillion and $3.6 trillion in taxable income would be generated for the economy over a 40 year period based upon estimates ranging between 825,000 and 2.1 million potential DREAM Act beneficiaries successfully obtaining resident status through the legislation.[7]

Bolding in the Wiki stuff above is mine.

The final blow to our country?  Really?

I think that the 28 folks who attended this meeting and are mad at their Republicans representatives for not "voting right" are going about this all wrong.

As Meteor Blades fine article from yesterday pointed out, the Republican establishment is there, it is real, and asking your senator to cut out all the earmarks before he votes on anything isn't going to work.  

Not if you are 28 strong, can't work a google between you, and left your bunting and signs in Bob's shed that is.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Ethanol increases corn prices (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    agnostic, VClib
    Those policies, on average, increased corn-ethanol production by 1.2 billion gallons a year and increased the price of corn by 18 cents a bushel, according to the economic analysis conducted by the Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute, or FAPRI.


    There's lotsa literature out there; this was just the cleanest excerpt I found w/ quick googling.  In response to your claim that more corn would be planted such that prices would find equilibrium, it doesn't appear that the corn market is perfectly elastic.  

    •  Except that I did not claim that more corn (0+ / 0-)

      would be planted.

      I stated that growers who were no longer subsidized would be unlikely to grow unsubsidized corn.

      The two markets are separate (corn for consumption and corn for Ethanol).

      It makes no sense that removing one from the equation would make the price of the other go down, but perhaps it would.  A whole 18 Cents a bushel.  According to your one source.

      •  All corn is subsidized, whether it's food or fuel. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        I don't know why you'd assume that a farmer wouldn't switch from fuel from food corn.  They're not going to grow nothing.

        •  I assume that because they would get less money (0+ / 0-)

          for it.  Also because corn is a high cost to grow and fertilize crop in the first place.

          If you were a business man, would you sell the same product for 15% less this year over last year?  Assuming your costs to produce your product stayed the same?

          Being in business is not about making less profit than you did last year.  Expenses tend to grow as profit grows.  They don't shrink as fast, though, unfortunately.

          •  Lensy - it depends on your alternatives (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            Would someone plant corn if the potential price was 15% lower than last year? It would all depend on the alternatives. If corn is still the best profit per acre, regardless of the price, then farmers will plant corn. If the farmers have higher profit alternatives they will switch crops. The expected market price of corn is only one of many variables that would influence a decision.

            "let's talk about that"

            by VClib on Fri Dec 23, 2011 at 09:50:20 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  The conservative mind is into bi-lateral or (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        johnny wurster

        bi-polar thinking.  Everything has its opposite and when one goes down, the other goes up.  It's like riding a see-saw.  
        I think this kind of thinking used to be referred to as black/white.  But, that's a shorthand that's not accurate.  The parts in a conservative equation are not necessarily in the same category of reality.  All kinds of unrelated things can be paired--like capitalism and democracy (one relating to the use of resources; the other to an official selection process).

        What makes pairing particularly attractive, I think, is that it leads to the conclusion that one thing can be promoted (private sector jobs) by targeting its nominal opposite (public sector jobs) for destruction.
        It's like Georgie knocking Susie off the see-saw by being violent or jumping off.  The bi-lateral model of reality lets people do things indirectly and promotes their ulterior motives. And the good thing about ulterior motives isn't just that they're not identified, but that nobody notices, if they fail. Indeed, in some cases, where longevity is desired, ulterior motives are designed to fail and enable the perpetrator to "try and try again."

        Success, you see, is a terminal condition--the end.

        People to Wall Street: "LET OUR MONEY GO"

        by hannah on Fri Dec 23, 2011 at 05:13:34 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'd think the liberal mind is reality-based, (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Gooserock, VClib

          which is why when the academic literature is all unanimous that ethanol production raises food corn prices, we would take that literature seriously.

          •  Inanimate things or processes do not (0+ / 0-)

            act.  People charge money for what they produce and other people pay money or not.

            Bread seems to rise on its own, but it's really the yeast that's growing as it consumes moisture and sugars.  Prices do not rise on their own.  Humans pretend that things happen magically because that relieves them of having to recognize that their actions have consequences which they may or may not like. If believing in magic makes people happy, fine.  But that's not reality.

            People to Wall Street: "LET OUR MONEY GO"

            by hannah on Fri Dec 23, 2011 at 05:32:34 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  With the exception of the corn products from (0+ / 0-)

      wet-milling that is.  

    •  While we're on the subject of meeting minutes, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      though, here's a funny snippet from OWS minutes:

      So I want to remind everybody, if you have not read the good neighbor policy, please pick up a copy of this, and please in addition to the amazing Sanitation presentation, do not pee or poop in public doorways!


      A similar one:

      I want to report that the behavior in these churches that we are dealing with. I am part of Security WG and we need to behave ourselves as if you were in your own home. Would you pee or spit on the floor? We are trying to establish some place warm for us to be in for the winter. The movement does not stop because it gets cold. We have to identify ourselves by our behavior and if we react stupidly in these churches we will lose these churches.

      •  There is something atavistic about (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        johnny wurster

        humans which leads them to claim a territory by defecating in it -- a sort of marking of the space.  It's not uncommon to find that someone has left a poop in an abandoned residential or commercial structure, and not in the toilet.
        When humans have to go, they have to go.  If there are insufficient public restrooms, then that's a public deficit that needs to be corrected.  Even ancient Rome had public baths and toilets.  That the facilities along all our national highways have been upgraded and are maintained to acceptable standards of sanitation is evidence that it can be done, if there's a will to do it.

        Why should people in cages with wheels have better toileting and bathing facilities than people who still rely on their own two feet to travel from place to place.

        Public transit facilities used to be outfitted with toilets and lavatories.  It's only recently that the degradation of all things public has been allowed to occur.  Where are the black/white water fountains that used to be cause for complaint?  All gone.  All of us are equally deprived and the water in our schools isn't even fit to drink.

        Btw, the D.C. Metro has restrooms for the public--if you know to ask an attendant in a booth to give you private access.  That's how our ability to shit is rationed.

        People to Wall Street: "LET OUR MONEY GO"

        by hannah on Fri Dec 23, 2011 at 05:26:18 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  First, that's no Orange Sunrise Cloud. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    johnny wurster, Gooserock

    That's two gay republican snails on a secret rendezvous before a Tea bagger meeting. You can tell they are republicans by the slime trail they leave.

    Second, by providing a secondary market for  . . . let me put it this way.

    X = the maximum stable amount of corn production, absent acts of dog, or artificial, temporary methods that would destroy the soil.

    Y = is the market price for X.

    Z= is the normal demand for corn products, both for animal and human consumption.

    Under most economic studies, when supplies of a marketable item decrease, while demand remains stable, the price will increase.

    let's assume, for argument, that 1/2X represents the amount of corn shifted from eatification and animal "fud" to the heroin-like addiction we have to gasoline.

    The amount of X available to eateries, corn users, and food processers has been cut by 50%, leaving  the supply available for Z to be only half as bountiful. Obviously, the price will because until substitutes are found, or people learn to do without, Z is pretty damned stable.

    Every dollar spent on underwriting ethanol production increases food costs. Period.

    What we call god is merely a living creature with superior technology & understanding. If their fragile egos demand prayer, they lose that superiority.

    by agnostic on Fri Dec 23, 2011 at 04:55:39 AM PST

  •  Tipped for the Ballad of Bob's Shed. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Clem Yeobright, johnny wurster, Lensy

    In other news, the George Bush Library burned today. All three books were lost, and two weren't even colored in yet.

    Corporations are people, my friend Yeah, well, so's Soylent Green, so I don't find that very comforting. New video: Not Enough (HD)

    by Crashing Vor on Fri Dec 23, 2011 at 05:09:33 AM PST

  •  Called 911? Socialist. Calling a government... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    sponsored line for union thugs to come and put out the shed fire.

    Doesn't she pay a private fire company staffed by non-union workers for this type of thing?

    Some tea bagger she is.

    “Tax and Spend” I can understand. I can even understand “Borrow and Spend”. But “Borrow and Give Tax Cuts to Billionaires”? That I have a problem with.

    by LiberalCanuck on Fri Dec 23, 2011 at 06:26:16 AM PST

  •  Minor misstatement re: dry-milling (0+ / 0-)

    Above, you refer to dry-milling (not-wet-milling) as using the entire PLANT. Actually, it uses the entire KERNEL. The remainder of the corn plant is relatively inaccessible cellulose, that may someday be fermentable (see: switchgrass, etc.)

    From your friendly biofuels chemist.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site