Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
Sounds that way. (More ethanol subsidies? Great. Just what we need. Lower mileage for cars, worn out carburetors, higher overall energy costs to produce a gallon of fuel than what the addition of ethanol will save . . .) Key here is, sounds like it's bipartisan ps. Not that that's any better, of course, but at least they're working together.
|
I carefully edited the excerpts I quoted to take out party references and grossly prejudicial language. But, since you are obviously unable to conduct the conversation without bringing up partisanosity . . .
It's much more bipartisan in the House (where everyone is up for reelection in less than a month) than in the Senate. As I said, it's a non-partisan primal scream. The Rs are always saying that they are the party of fiscal restraint, and this is a glaring example of an utter lack of restraint and a leaping at the chance to cut $100 b of taxes on X, Y and Z when ostensibly only taking care of a $50 b "problem" for W, a completely different industry. I find it disgusting on all party sides, but the Rs would have us believe this kind of pork is par for the course only for Democrats.
