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



(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?

.. and then Harry Reid makes sure it never sees the floor in the Senate...

(07-14-2014 06:44 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  .. and then Harry Reid makes sure it never sees the floor in the Senate...

But the house could create a bill and vote on it so that everyone knows where they stand on immigration before the election.

(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 we don't NEED immigration reform. We have laws on the book that say... You're here illegal, you get sent back home!

Gotta take the Senate and the Presidency before you ban climate change research.

(07-14-2014 06:59 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(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 we don't NEED immigration reform. We have laws on the book that say... You're here illegal, you get sent back home!

Actually that is incorrect. There is a law that says that if you are a child not from Mexico or Canada, you cannot be sent back home. That is why we have the problem we have right now.

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?

(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.

(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 Obama won't enforce the laws as passed. Who could trust such a lying, deceitful b!tch.

(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?

Obama has a pen

(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.

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

what you are really saying is you realize your 401k is fuxxored moving forward....

what you don't realize is how it could stabilize and grow if the right would listen....

nope....better off fighting stupid wars and neglecting our infrastructure....

stay the course and play the hand that is dealt....2-7 is a winner....

(07-14-2014 06:44 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  .. and then Harry Reid makes sure it never sees the floor in the Senate...

And here I was, thinking that the good, honest Reid liked to compromise.

(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'.

(07-15-2014 05:33 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(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?

Obama has a pen

And a fone

(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

(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?

(07-14-2014 07:18 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-14-2014 06:59 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(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 we don't NEED immigration reform. We have laws on the book that say... You're here illegal, you get sent back home!

Actually that is incorrect. There is a law that says that if you are a child not from Mexico or Canada, you cannot be sent back home. That is why we have the problem we have right now.

Actually, they can be sent back home but not directly. The law requires a different process for them because they are unaccompanied minors, which is the ethical thing to do. That law, passed by a Democratic Congress, requires that those kids have their cases heard in immigration court first. We can't just dump unaccompanied children at the border and wipe our hands of them. That would be morally reprehensible. The issue is the federal immigration hearing process is overwhelmed and inefficient (aka...government at it's norm). Children crossing the border with adults can be directly deported with those adults. It's only the unaccompanied children that are causing this dilemma.

(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?

No need with an open border.