You read it,

[Nraman]

One thing for sure. If this does not work, it wont be long before they come up with something new.

Sure, there are many guilt ridden Lefties that will jump at the opportunity to redistribute wealth.
I find it hard to believe that they are going through all the motions and at the end they will not benefit from it.
BTW The IPCC branch of the UN that dealt with AGW was founded by Maurice Strong, a Canadian communist. Figuring who's behind the latest will be interesting.

 

[RickN]

Republicans are controlling the purse strings now, and we got a $177B budget increase...

Incorrect. Republicans control one third of the purse strings. They control the House, Dems control the Senate and the Republicans do not have the power to override a veto.

 

[LightningCrash]

Jer. 2:7. I brought you into a fertile land to eat its fruit and rich produce. But you came and defiled my land and you made my inheritance detestable.

 

[vvvvvvv]

Incorrect. Republicans control one third of the purse strings. They control the House, Dems control the Senate and the Republicans do not have the power to override a veto.

The bill must originate in the House, which means that they have more power than the Senate over the contents of the bill. As for the Presidential veto power, vetoing a budget bill is a politically expedient way to not be re-elected in 2012.

So politically, Republicans have quite a bit more say in the budget than Democrats do right now.

What peeves me is them selling it as a $37.7B cut. Mr. Lankford should have called it an "extremely irresponsible" budget rather than the "extremely responsible" budget that he did. It shows how little respect they have in Washington for you - the taxpayer.

Only in Washington can you call a $177B budget increase a $37.7B cut and get away with it. If the government were a company in the private sector, everyone of them would be fired for fraud and gross misconduct.

 

[RickN]

The bill must originate in the House, which means that they have more power than the Senate over the contents of the bill. As for the Presidential veto power, vetoing a budget bill is a politically expedient way to not be re-elected in 2012.

So politically, Republicans have quite a bit more say in the budget than Democrats do right now.

What peeves me is them selling it as a $37.7B cut. Mr. Lankford should have called it an "extremely irresponsible" budget rather than the "extremely responsible" budget that he did. It shows how little respect they have in Washington for you - the taxpayer.

Only in Washington can you call a $177B budget increase a $37.7B cut and get away with it. If the government were a company in the private sector, everyone of them would be fired for fraud and gross misconduct.

Partly right and partly wrong. The bill must start in the House but since the Dems skipped it last year and the one the Republicans wrote was killed by the Senate a so called compromise was worked out between the House, Senate, and White House. The truly sad part is the bill was the best the Republicans could get without a government shutdown and since the Dems were hoping for a shutdown to blame on the Republicans during next years election they pretty well were forced to take it.

Now that Obama has proven he lies during a compromise, the Republicans should never do it again and when the Dems start whining they should point out his lies as the reason for not trusting him.

The $37.7B amount comes from Obama's proposed budget and I agree the whole cut thing sucks.

 

[vvvvvvv]

The $37.7B amount comes from Obama's proposed budget and I agree the whole cut thing sucks.

Yep. Washington accounting is about the same as Hollywood accounting. That's like saying my wife makes an arbitrary budget for me, I shrink it a little, and its a budget cut. Wording it that way makes the American people think that spending is going down from the previous year.

The same accounting is used to explain the Clinton "surplus". That would be like me creating a budget purposely low, ignore the spending that went over budget, and call the revenue that was above budget a surplus. It's still a net deficit.

 

[Nraman]

Yep. Washington accounting is about the same as Hollywood accounting. That's like saying my wife makes an arbitrary budget for me, I shrink it a little, and its a budget cut. Wording it that way makes the American people think that spending is going down from the previous year.

The same accounting is used to explain the Clinton "surplus". That would be like me creating a budget purposely low, ignore the spending that went over budget, and call the revenue that was above budget a surplus. It's still a net deficit.

Or, you could decide to spend $100,000 more than you expect to make, decide that it is best to go $50, 000 over and then brag about saving $50,000.
These people are a bad joke.

 

[Biggsly]

Or, you could decide to spend $100,000 more than you expect to make, decide that it is best to go $50, 000 over and then brag about saving $50,000.
These people are a bad joke.

I would say it is more like, plan on spending $100,000, promise to cut it down to $90,000, but then slip in another $200,000 into another bill and pass it at midnight Friday with hopes that no one will catch it.

 

[Gideon]

Communities and environmental activists would be given more legal power to monitor and control industries and development to ensure harmony between humans and nature.

Umm...communities ALREADY have control over industries. If we don't like that new pollution factory across town, just about any level of government has some power to shut them down.

 

[Cinaet]

....the inalienable rights of other members of the Earth community - plants, animals, and terrain.

When I read that I feel a desire to hear new age music in the background, maybe an Enigma Gregorian chant or even something Celtic by Enya.