Obamadmin: We can do more than force you to buy something - we can tell you how much.

I wonder what happens if I can only afford 2 gallons

Obama has a penalty (and a program) for that.

The reason for the minimum? Backwash from previous E15 blended gas purchases under four gallons, leaving excess E15 in the hose. The stuff is so crappy and corrosive it will damage engines in blended quantities under four gallons.

Next? Consumers will be forced to purchase four tubes of toothpaste at one time, or mouthwash -- to prevent similar backwash incidents on the homefront.

eagleisland Thu, 09/20/2012 - 10:29am: "So much for gassing up the lawn mower..."

This is their way of banning lawnmowers through "nudging" you into the "voluntary choice" to not have something that breaks when you try to use it. That way they aren't banning lawnmowers. Viros hate lawnmowers, chainsaws, snowmobiles, and anything else that uses a gasoline engine. So why not convert "fuel" into meaning its opposite as an instrument of sabotage? Requiring that you buy more of it a time than you need so you have to store it, which causes it to break down into water, only helps the cause.

Most lawnmowers won't run the E15...destroys them. The whole ethanol thing is a scam anyway, right from the beginning.

Scam is an understatement. The way things are trending, I'll soon be spending more on "stabilizer" than I spend on gas.

Can one of you super smart Republicans PLEASE explain to me why the current super smart Republicans we have representing us continue to support this ethanol lunacy? PLEASE!!!

While you're at it tell me waht super, super smart Mittens is going to do about it.

Thanks in advance.

As to point one: beats hell outta me, Lieutenant.

As to point two: beats hell outta me, Lieutenant. Guess we'll have to wait to find out, because we know that the current guy likes things the way they are just fine.

I think Mainelion's real question is this: What would Ron Paul do?

No. My question is, if these Republicans are so darn smart and everyone understands that ethanol is a huge money wasting scam then why are they not in the forefront of denouncing it and introducing legislation to do away with it.? It doesn't even make the radar on the issues that Republican candidates talk about. Why?

You tell us to vote for Republicans, but if anyone dares to question why they can't take the lead on such an obvious issue they are treated as a pariah. You seem more interested in electing Republicans than in what they actually do once elected.

Apparently you aren't smart enough to answer the question...or even ask it in the first place. Anyone else?

^ "+1"

It's really quite simple. No politician dares to take an anti-corn stand and lose Iowa.

........"You tell us to vote for Republicans, but if anyone dares to question why they can't take the lead on such an obvious issue they are treated as a pariah. You seem more interested in electing Republicans than in what they actually do once elected".......

That is a good question.......one I have asked myself a number of times. That is what has led us to the "Rhino" phenomenon so prevalent today.

Virtually nobody, on either side of the two party system........wants to take on big businsess for fear of losing the "big political contributions" and future elections.

You can see a clash in the R party right here in Maine. I have thought for a long time that, if Reupblican Ideals are to survive, the party must clean up its act.

Some members of what used to be the "party of limited government" have not been the least bit ashamed to use the power of government to keep us from being able to buy all the (CHEAP) Quebec Hydro power we might like to buy and, instead, have made is so we have to subsidize the stupid windmill industry in order to keep money flowing to their employers and themselves.

No wonder America is going down the tubes between burning our food for motor fuel and giving millions to those lucky enough to have connections in the hot air industry, one that cannot begin to stand on its own two feet.........without our subsidies!

WC

I'm just a dumb citizen who expects rational legislation from our legiscritters. I'm still waiting for the super smart Republicans here to tell me why we must continue with an inane energy policy, and in fact double down on it. So far just the sound of crickets

I just told you in post 11.

........"You tell us to vote for Republicans, but if anyone dares to question why they can't take the lead on such an obvious issue they are treated as a pariah. You seem more interested in electing Republicans than in what they actually do once elected".......

Maine lion asks the question. Makes Republicans squirm. Answer soon from......Rep McKane?

As I recall, Beth O'Connor tried to do something about this.

So since Iowa grows corn the entire country has to have an inane energy policy. Brilliant!!! Looks like I was wrong about the Republicans being super smart. But what do I know? I'm just a stupid citizen who expects a common sense approach to the problems we face.

If you're lucky you'll elect people with an R beside their names and the free market policies they advance will require everyone to purchase gasoline which will contain 5% MORE of a useless additive that destroys small engines and makes it almost impossible to store. But hey, you can call it free market if you like. YMMV. I know mine does. Literally.

As I recall, Beth O'Connor tried to do something about this.

We have R majorities and an R governor. What's the hold up?

Thanks guy's,
I just unloaded on a friend from the MDEP about this.
Now he's beside himself.

Side note: he said that someone just sued against the E10 and the court threw it out.
Was it because Congress made the law and it is constitutional, so thereby not judging it?
He was citing that "O" Admin. had every right to do what they need to at the EPA and more to follow.
I said Congress voted it in and it really didn't matter what the EPA had to say so long as fit "the law".
Unfortunately, given recent history with this admin. anything goes- any thoughts?

By the way, he's beside himself in a good way.
Even he as an environmentalist can see his daily budget going up over this.
And the destruction of our engines.
If cash for clunkers wasn't enough, try ruining all our motors.
I call this a tax on us poor people.
We now have to get motors that can run on this crap.
Setting us back to the stone age.
4 gals to dilute the E15, are you kidding...
I'll pay at breakfast when I eat my ? corn cereal?
This guy has got to go and these ideas.
Thanks Republicans for helping to cause this.
You suck too.

I’ve got a cheap clear hose that I use to syphon gas out of my snow sled at the end of the winter season. The left over gas goes into my mower. I’ll just full up my car tank with gas from their regulated pump and then syphon it into my one gallon can for whatever purpose I see fit. There are also ways to separate the ethanol out of the gasoline blend using simply science. However, some government agent might consider this a fire safety issue, and educate the public not to attempt back yard chemistry. There are always a few folks catch on fire playing with gas, its just thw way it is.

Strategically traditional thinking around gasoline powered engines may be challenged by increased prices. When gas was being rationed during the oil embargo, creative back yard engineers converted some gas powered engines into alcohol burners. The concept was based on the ability to distill your own alcohol using organic mash and become independent from the pumps. In cold climates the converted engines required a gas primer, sometimes using a windshield washer bottle and pump fill with gas, to prime the motor and get it warm enough to switch over to pure alcohol.

Commercially a 55gal barrel of 85% ethanol sells for around $610, not a real deal compared to the experiments from the 1970’s. However, moon shine distilleries where productive in making alcohols during the prohibition days and simple men where able to crate fine brews using some mash and water from a creek.

For now it’s all based on connivance at the pump, but things could change and the labor of making your own fuels might become the norm when buying a horse doesn’t make since.

Beth O'Connor led the charge against this stupidity in the Maine legislature, and she's not done yet. She really did her homework on the issue, although facts are never enough to change people's minds. It takes 1.6 gallons of diesel fuel to produce 1 gallon of ethanol and that's only the beginning of the stupidity. It reduces our gas mileage, while destroying our engines. The concept of burning our food, and burning the food we feed to our food thereby raising the price of our food would only make sense to a politician. Of course, if you object it means you want to destroy the environment.