[DannyTN]

"Why do we need proof of benefits? Cut the subsidies and quit forcing us to buy it. If it survives on its own then it can be deemed beneficial. A free market place is the only test needed."

I don't think there are any benefits in this case. But suppose that it really was reducing our dependence on foreign oil and in the process helping defund terrorist supporting states. That would certainly be a goal I could get behind and would support government intervention in the market place to help happen.

If Biofuel was likely to be viable alternative to oil given economies of scale and this program was helping achieve those economies of scale, then again I could support the government intervention. Especially if it meant American jobs vs overseas jobs during a time of high unemployment.

But I think there are better alternatives that have already been proven viable like Nuclear, that I'd rather see the government put it's resources behind. I just think the Biofuel, is not going to be viable unless you go to it 100% like Brazil and even then it's very questionable.

[FreedomNotSafety]

You will not defund anything by cutting our imports of oil. The oil just moves around the market place until it is sold and world wide supply and demand come into equilibrium. There are other ways of handling terrorists that don't involve restricting our freedoms.

If Bio was viable why would you need subsidies to get it going? You would not. But if you consider Bio to be good then the fact that the free market wont make it or buy it is considered a failure.

I will take a free people buying and selling as they see fit over having your preferences imposed on me by government diktat.