Election 2012: Generic Presidential Ballot

So a generic Republican candidate can beat obama? And that's a surprise how? It's amazing that the numbers aren't further apart. It should be Generic guy 99%, obama 1%. The surprising part is that there are still 42% of this Country who are stupid enough to still support this dumbass. The number is shrinking though, and that's excellent.

It's going to be nice to win some more seats in the Senate too. A super majority would be very cool. Imagine the possibilities, a Republican president, a super majority in the Senate and a majority in the house...

From Rasmussen

Generic Republican Candidate 46%, Obama 42%

A generic Republican candidate now holds a four-point lead over President Obama in a hypothetical 2012 election matchup. It's the fifth week in a row that the GOP candidate has been ahead and the widest gap between the candidates to date.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds a generic Republican candidate earns support from 46% of Likely U.S. Voters, while the president picks up 42% of the vote. Three percent (3%) prefer some other candidate, and nine percent (9%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Last week, the Republican held a 45% to 43% advantage. In weekly surveys since the beginning of May, support for Obama has ranged from 42% to 45%, while the Republican has earned 43% to 46% of the vote. Rasmussen Reports will provide new data on this generic matchup each week until the field of prospective Republican nominees narrows to a few serious contenders.

Republicans also hold a seven-point lead over Democrats on the Generic Congressional Ballot for the week ending Sunday, June 26. Republicans have led on this ballot every week since June 2009.

The senate votes to end ethanol subsidies...

In a vote of 73 to 27, the senate voted to end the ethanol subsidy. The house probably won't take up the issue so the senate vote will wind up being symbolic.

For as much as I think dianne feinstein is a moron, I have to agree with her on this. If ethanol can't stand on its own, it should be allowed to fail. Ethanol production has led to higher corn prices. Higher corn prices have led to higher food prices. When farmers have to pay more to buy corn to feed cattle (or other critters) they pass those increases on to us, the consumers.

Cars get less fuel mileage on ethanol. Sure, it may be cheaper than straight gasoline, but if your car gets 20% less fuel mileage what have you really saved?

An industry that intends to be viable has to have the ability to stand on its own in short order. Ethanol has been subsidized for at least 10 years!

Here is a little piece of an article from Slate dated July 19, 2005. Read the rest at the link.

The stickiest question about ethanol is this: Does making alcohol from grain or plant waste really create any new energy?

The answer, of course, depends upon whom you ask. The ethanol lobby claims there's a 30 percent net gain in BTUs from ethanol made from corn. Other boosters, including Woolsey, claim there are huge energy gains (as much as 700 percent) to be had by making ethanol from grass.

But the ethanol critics have shown that the industry calculations are bogus. David Pimentel, a professor of ecology at Cornell University who has been studying grain alcohol for 20 years, and Tad Patzek, an engineering professor at the University of California, Berkeley, co-wrote a recent report that estimates that making ethanol from corn requires 29 percent more fossil energy than the ethanol fuel itself actually contains.

The two scientists calculated all the fuel inputs for ethanol production—from the diesel fuel for the tractor planting the corn, to the fertilizer put in the field, to the energy needed at the processing plant—and found that ethanol is a net energy-loser. According to their calculations, ethanol contains about 76,000 BTUs per gallon, but producing that ethanol from corn takes about 98,000 BTUs. For comparison, a gallon of gasoline contains about 116,000 BTUs per gallon. But making that gallon of gas—from drilling the well, to transportation, through refining—requires around 22,000 BTUs.

In addition to their findings on corn, they determined that making ethanol from switch grass requires 50 percent more fossil energy than the ethanol yields, wood biomass 57 percent more, and sunflowers 118 percent more. The best yield comes from soybeans, but they, too, are a net loser, requiring 27 percent more fossil energy than the biodiesel fuel produced. In other words, more ethanol production will increase America's total energy consumption, not decrease it. (Pimentel has not taken money from the oil or refining industries. Patzek runs the UC Oil Consortium, which does research on oil and is funded by oil companies. His ethanol research is not funded by the oil or refining industries*.)

Considering that ethanol takes more energy to create than it contains and that without subsidies the industry couldn't exist, is this really the smartest way to spend $5+ billion dollars a year? Probably not...

Senate Dems Lose Vote on Repeal of Tax Breaks for Oil Companies Amid Pain at Pump

Why do democrats keep calling these tax breaks subsidies? Why do they keep neglecting to mention that many other industries in this Country get the same tax breaks? Why do they fail to inform us that they are picking on FIVE oil companies? They aren't demanding that these tax breaks be taken away from ALL oil companies, just the five that they don't like. Why don't they admit that if these tax breaks are taken away the price of gasoline will rise in accordance?

These big five oil companies pay about 40% in taxes, even with the tax breaks they get, billions of dollars. But all the democrats see is the dollar figures, never mind that there are lots of companies that make a bigger profit percentage, just not the dollar amount. The democrats also refuse to mention that out of those profits the oil companies pay for research and development and exploration. It's not like they drill a hole in the ground and oil pops out. They spend huge amounts of money figuring out exactly where the oil is.

And lets also keep in mind that the oil industry employs thousands and thousands of people. Every time obama and his gang of thugs make it harder for oil companies to drill, Americans lose their jobs. The oil industry sufffers every day along the Gulf Coast because obama refuses to allow them to drill.

obama recently said he is going to increase drilling in the Gulf, off of Alaska, and off of California. It's bullshit. It is an election stunt. He has no intention of EVER allowing our Country to become energy independent. Don't fall for it people...

From FoxNews

As expected, Senate Democrats lost a key test vote Tuesday on a bill that would have repealed $20 billion worth of tax subsidies for the nation's five largest oil companies, falling 8 votes short of a win.

The 52-48 vote came as a majority of Americans say in a new Gallup poll that high gas prices are hurting their finances.

Nearly seven in 10 Americans said high gas prices are causing financial hardship for their families. More than half said to compensate, they have made major changes, ranging from shorter trips to cutting back on vacation travel. More than a 1,000 people responded to the poll that has a 4 percent margin of error.

The national average price for a gallon of regular gas is $3.94, according to AAA, and Democrats were looking to exploit that high price with Tuesday's vote.

Last week, Democrats grilled oil executives on the tax breaks that they say are not needed and President Obama announced Saturday he was directing his administration to ramp up U.S. oil production by extending leases in the Gulf of Mexico and off Alaska's coast.

Democrats have been touting a new report by the Joint Economic Committee found that eliminating the tax breaks would reduce the deficit by $21 billion over 10 years and encourage alternative energy and energy efficiency.

"This new JEC report makes clear that there are ways to bring down the deficit without harming our economic recovery," said Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., chairman of the committee. "By repealing unnecessary tax breaks to the major integrated oil companies, we can reduce the deficit by more than $20 billion and speed the move to a clean energy economy without impacting prices at the pump."

But Republicans opposed the bill, saying it won't relieve pain at the pump, a conclusion also reached by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who said on the Senate floor Tuesday that "it won't affect gas prices at all."

Reid then went on to say the opposite.

"We have to do something about the exorbitant gas prices, and the best way to start with that is to do something about the five big oil companies getting subsidies they don't need," he said.

Read the rest at the link above...