Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : President Barack Obama -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: zeta1961 who wrote (24552)	6/24/2008 2:11:12 PM
From: Sr K	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 149317

Me, too. Corn subsidies flowing into ethanol was dumb 4 years ago. I expect Obama to move to the obvious (to me) position, removing all subsidies for corn that goes into "non-economic, energy non-sensical" production. I don't mind phasing it out over 3 years. Brazil does it right, we do it wrong, and we set 52 cents/gal. tariffs on importing ethanol. And, we mandated using more of it! But, politically, Iowa is the first caucus, and almost all candidates pander to Iowa.

To: zeta1961 who wrote (24552)	6/24/2008 2:17:32 PM
From: TARADO96	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 149317

I agree. McSame is taking the lead on the energy crisis deal. Obama can not cede leadership in that most important issue to the neocons. Right now, americans have skyrocketing gas prices on their mind, not the Iraqi war. Whoever is perceived as the guy with the best solutions for the energy crisis will win.

To: zeta1961 who wrote (24552)	6/24/2008 2:51:48 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 149317

I seriously disagree with Obama's pander here..I'm disappointed he didn't get on board with McCain on this one..missed opportunity. I agree.......its probably the first time I have been disappointed in one of his positions.

To: zeta1961 who wrote (24552)	6/24/2008 4:05:42 PM
From: DismalScientist	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 149317

I also disagree with Obama on the issue of ethanol. However, if he had not pandered, would he have won the IOWA caucus? I doubt it. If he had not won the Iowa caucus would we be talking about Obama as the nominee? I doubt it. So the question is a classic "Does the end (winning Iowa, winning the nomination, winning the GE and becoming a great president) justify the means (telling the Iowa farmers what they wanted to hear, even if you know it is bad economic policy and just pure BS). We can each form our own opinion on this philosophical question.