If this is the move they are making, it's the wrong one.

(07-14-2014 06:43 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-14-2014 06:42 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  It's a good start but they need to do more.

Quote:WASHINGTON -- The Republican-led House of Representatives passed the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act on Thursday night by a vote of 253 to 170. What may appear to be a mundane spending bill includes a number of measures meant to undo environmental programs.

The House version of the spending bill:

1. Slashes funding for renewable energy programs in the Department of Energy by more than $100 million, while boosting funding for coal and other fossil fuels. House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) said the bill "targets lower-priority programs for cuts." (The reduction originally was bigger, but a Democratic amendment added some money for renewables and efficiency back into the package.)

2. Bars the Department of Energy from enforcing energy efficiency standards for light bulbs, thanks to an amendment from Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas). This has been a pet issue for House Republicans, who have added the prohibition to previous spending bills, even though the standards originated in the 2007 energy bill that President George W. Bush signed into law.

3. Prevents the Energy Department from using appropriated funds for its climate model development and validation program -- an amendment from Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.). In a statement on Friday, Gosar said his amendment "is not about making a statement on climate change or the validity of climate science," but about "restoring fiscal responsibility and efficiency to federal spending as well as preventing duplication.”

4. Forbids spending to "design, implement, administer or carry out specified assessments regarding climate change," under an amendment from Rep. David McKinley (R-W.Va.). McKinley added a similar amendment to the defense spending bill in May.

5. Slashes funding for a federal program that provides incentives for swapping low-efficiency toilets for higher-efficiency models. Gosar also offered this amendment, axing what he dubbed the "Cash for Crappers" program.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/11...79345.html



Why not some immigration reform?

Because the democrats and the GOP establishment aren't on the same page as the American people in regards to immigration. Let's hold off on immigration until after the election and make it a central issue in November so that the people decide and not Wall Street.

To me, that really looks like the Republicans are throwing a tantrum more than anything else. You can argue about whether AGW is real but they want to put blinders on and not even look at that one area of science. And oil companies already get tax breaks not to mention free guarding of oil resources by our navy.

And none of those changes will alter the financial picture much. #2 and #5 I don't have have much of an issue with, but again, they're minor points. And #5 might be short-sighted - the question is whether additional water use is sustainable.

Once again republicans reaffirm that they are the party of stupid.

(07-15-2014 08:58 AM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 08:37 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 08:31 AM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(07-14-2014 11:49 PM)ecumbh1999 Wrote:  

(07-14-2014 07:22 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  They are reallllllly tap dancing around the edges. Still.

Disagree strongly with #1. Instead of your team gets subsidies no my team gets subsidies ... how about NOBODY gets subsidies?

Agree, people complain about welfare, yes there are issues, but it cost the average tax $36 a year, where as corporate subsides cost over $800. If the tax code was simplified and all tax subsides/breaks/shelters were done away with the actual rates could be lowered. Corporate rates are too high, but none them pay that rate anyway, more than a few don't pay anything.

Either I'm misreading your typo or you're a very dull individual.

Census Bureau data released last year showed that the number of Americans receiving means-tested federal welfare benefits outnumbered those with year-round full-time jobs. Almost $1 trillion annually goes to the programs, with over 100 million Americans receiving some sort of benefits...

I'm not too sure if this is what Lyndon was intendin'.

his foresight was as good as bringin' forceps to the bar mitzvah

Is this about the equivalent of bringing a milk pump to a pin of boars?

yep....tits on a boar hog....veddy good

(07-15-2014 05:55 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-14-2014 11:49 PM)ecumbh1999 Wrote:  

(07-14-2014 07:22 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  They are reallllllly tap dancing around the edges. Still.

Disagree strongly with #1. Instead of your team gets subsidies no my team gets subsidies ... how about NOBODY gets subsidies?

Agree, people complain about welfare, yes there are issues, but it cost the average tax $36 a year, where as corporate subsides cost over $800. If the tax code was simplified and all tax subsides/breaks/shelters were done away with the actual rates could be lowered. Corporate rates are too high, but none them pay that rate anyway, more than a few don't pay anything.

Agree with your conclusions, but I must say that your $36 versus $800 comparison can only be reached by some extremely creative and slanted accounting.

Those numbers are from the house budget office.

(07-16-2014 11:38 PM)ecumbh1999 Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 05:55 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-14-2014 11:49 PM)ecumbh1999 Wrote:  

(07-14-2014 07:22 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  They are reallllllly tap dancing around the edges. Still.
Disagree strongly with #1. Instead of your team gets subsidies no my team gets subsidies ... how about NOBODY gets subsidies?

Agree, people complain about welfare, yes there are issues, but it cost the average tax $36 a year, where as corporate subsides cost over $800. If the tax code was simplified and all tax subsides/breaks/shelters were done away with the actual rates could be lowered. Corporate rates are too high, but none them pay that rate anyway, more than a few don't pay anything.

Agree with your conclusions, but I must say that your $36 versus $800 comparison can only be reached by some extremely creative and slanted accounting.

Those numbers are from the house budget office.

Link????

Wherever they're from, something is wrong assuming you meant to say that welfare costs the average taxpayer $36 per year compared to $800 for corporate subsidies (reread and I think you left out a few words, and so I'm guessing a bit as to your actual meaning). Assuming every person is a taxpayer, we are somewhere on the order of 300 million taxpayers, meaning that $36 per year would be somewhere around $11 billion per year. There is no single welfare program that doesn't cost multiples of that, much less all welfare combined, which is what you appear to be trying to say. The $800 per year for corporate welfare would be about $240 billion. How accurate that is depends on how you define corporate subsidies. There is probably a definition that fits that amount, it sounds in the ballpark of what one might calculate.

In any event, there is no way that corporate subsidies are 20 times welfare spending.

Again, your original message is not written in English sentences, so it's a bit difficult to infer what you are actually trying to say, but what I think you are saying cannot possibly be right. Somebody did a lot of cooking those nubers between the house budget and your post.

(07-14-2014 07:05 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Gotta take the Senate and the Presidency before you ban climate change research.

Who's talking about banning climate change research?

(07-15-2014 02:45 PM)john01992 Wrote:  Once again republicans reaffirm that they are the party of stupid.

Since you are the gold standard of stupidity, you obviously taught them well.