House passes energy plan
The House on Thursday passed an energy and water funding bill — the first under its new Speaker — with big cuts for renewables and home electrification rebates.
The bill, which passed 210-199 is the second piece of legislation to pass since Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) took the gavel.
It is not expected to become law — the White House has already threatened a veto — but it stakes out the GOP’s position as budget negotiations continue .
The bill would cut:
- A program from the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) that gives rebates to consumers who purchase electric appliances
- An IRA program that looks to help states and cities adopt climate-friendly building codes
- A large chunk of funding from the Energy Department’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
House GOP passes energy, water funding bill | The Hill
Who would have thought that a largely unknown Representative from Louisiana could walk in and look so effective. This bill which will be vetoed by the radical left's proxy will be the template for the GOP if we finally get a Republican congress in 2024. If voters are wondering where the GOP stands on energy policy, it is now official. The GOP is against waste and radical ideas about climate and green energy.
The Green Energy Plan was nothing more than an ultra-expensive trojan horse that would centrally plan the US economy and make us all less serene, secure & self-sufficient.
Thank you, Speaker Johnson.
Tags
Who is online
473 visitors
Good morning:
In other news, Biden finally allowed US forces to respond to all the attacks that were launched against them over the past few weeks. The details of which the Pentagon was slow to acknowledge. The link to Iran was also mentioned.
It is day 3 of the manhunt for an insane individual who killed 18 and injured another 13 in one of the nation's safest states.
Biden says after the war with Hamas, there must be a two-state solution!
An off-campus rally got out of control for Tulane students protesting the Israel-Hamas war on Thursday afternoon. Three students were assaulted and two arrests have been made.
Several demonstrators and counter-demonstrators confronted each other and a fight broke out, according to a statement the university released on Facebook.
Fight breaks out near Tulane over Israel-Hamas war, students injured | wwltv.com
T he Israeli military raided the central Gaza Strip, near Gaza City, overnight Friday with ground troops for the second time in as many days ahead of an expected full ground invasion of the territory.
The IDF said the “targeted” raids were intended to “prepare the battlefield.” Overnight Thursday, a small group of IDF tanks entered Gaza as “part of preparations for the next stages of combat.”
Israel targets Gaza City outskirts in second ground raid (msn.com)
Last but not least: insurrectionist Jamaal Bowman got a sweat deal.
In case you thought a Democrat would actually suffer the consequences of his criminal actions, however, news came out yesterday that Rep. Bonehead wasn't going to get any jail time, but a small $1,000 fee and the charge expunged off his record.
Jamaal Bowman gets sweetheart deal to have charges expunged but new video shows he REMOVED THE EXIT WARNING SIGNS before he pulled the fire alarm | Not the Bee
He committed a crime to obstruct congress, lied about it and democrats don’t care. Yet again, we see All their anger about trump is because of the r after his name.
[Deleted]
Speaker Mike Johnson says now not the time to discuss gun control: "Problem is the human heart, not guns"
Speaker Johnson says now not the time to discuss gun control: ‘Problem is the human heart, not guns’ | The Hill
“Speaker Mike Johnson says now not the time to discuss gun control: "Problem is the human heart, not guns"…”
When is the time mr. speaker?
He is correct in stating it is indeed a ‘heart’ issue…for those with no heart will ignore the obvious, continuing the decades long tradition of spouting platitudes in lieu of having the true heart it will take in addressing our national embarrassment.
Fortunately for Johnson there are mass shootings virtually every single day in this country, so there will never be a time to discuss gun control because the time should be spend sending nonstop thoughts and prayers instead.
americans are so fortunate that the new thumper speaker is going to pray all of our problems away. /s
So, what is your logical and defensible position on gun control?
Do you have any workable solutions that prevent criminals and determined mass shooters from obtaining guns?
Gun control only affects responsible, law-abiding individuals, not the bad guys.
And the answers are................................
Ummmmmmm.
Uummmmmmm no
Ummmmmmmmmm.....................................................................yeah I know it.
“Gun control only affects responsible, law-abiding individuals, not the bad guys.”
I respectfully disagree. ‘Responsible law abiding individuals’ should be championing stricter restrictions, enforcement and accountability for it is by their example of responsible ownership that we must ensure and emulate.
Our 2nd amendment rights will not be infringed upon, slippery slope arguments notwithstanding. It will always be an integral part of our national identity and I agree with its premise.
That being said, I think we can all agree that there is a problem that needs to be addressed. You ask me for workable solutions. That is obviously beyond my control. My solution is to acknowledge the reality and be willing to engage in a civil debate, sans the vitriol in a shared attempt to curb the violence.
Again, with respect for our commonality.
Well, responsible law-abiding individuals have ALWAYS championed enforcement of existing laws. How often are existing laws plea-bargained away in criminal cases that included a gun crime? In this particular case why was the mental health problems this individual was experiencing not followed up on? Mental health issues have been noticed in several mass shootings, why is that not something that is being worked on to improve? Why do so many people ignore the issues on the individual but instead turn to blame the gun?
Biden wasted no time in pushing again to ban "assault weapons" when there is still so many unanswered questions around this particular case including why mental health officials did not follow up with the Yellow Flag laws in Maine, why this individual was allowed to retain his guns. Against a backdrop of that knee-jerk reaction, it's rather difficult to have an intelligent conversation around the problem.
Far too often, and some folks would complain that certain people are adversely affected by some laws.
We even have prosecutors cutting deals to diminish punishments.
Can you detail how new gun laws would have an effect on criminals?
In the latest case it was neither. We had a madman who should have been institutionalized kill 18 people and injure 13 others.
Why are democrats still against institutions for the mentally ill?
“Against a backdrop of that knee-jerk reaction, it's rather difficult to have an intelligent conversation around the problem.”
Thank you for acknowledging that a problem does exist.
With every inevitable incident, it becomes less a ‘knee-jerk’ reaction and more just another example of our collective unwillingness and hence inability to accept the fact that we must do something. That is the ‘backdrop’ that precludes the necessary conversation.
Again, respectfully submitted.
when over 75% of americans want universal background checks and more sensible gun laws, yet republicans fail to act on their behalf, it's just another example of their failure to govern effectively.
And I just bet you didn't say a word when Pelosi's House failed to do what you are complaining about.
Easy words to say. What are "sensible gun laws" in your view?
... like the republican majority in the house, as an example?
Yet you have just been saying "we lack the courage to do what is necessary"
But now you admit you have no idea what "necessary" actually entails.
Was Reagan a democrat?
Once they're closed, there is no opening them again without funding.
And an unhinged ex-president?
JFK closed them.
Once they're closed, there is no opening them again without funding.
BULL SHIT. There was funding for solar panel companies. We can fund things that keep people safe.
Not, all of them he didn't. St. Ronnie could have reopened them, but instead, St. Ronnie was the death of the rest of them.
It's not BULL SHIT. If you want to re-fund mental institutions, then tell the fucking legislature to get off of their collective fucking asses and do something about it. Conservatives have no high ground here because they've done absolutely nothing about mental health services at all. All they do with every shooting is cry about mental health issue and then silence. You people can't have it both ways.
I'm sure he's of the typical gqp stance on guns and that the murder of children is acceptable
Easier for the gqp to blame their endless fuckups on Democrats
My thoughts exactly!
Urban legend. Mental institution population peaked here in the 50’s. Most mental hospitals were state hospitals, not federal ones.
BULLSHIT
No bullshit, urban legend;
Again, bullshit!
You're correct WT, it was mentally declining Reagan who, along with the alleged compassionate conservatives, who closed them and basically dumped them on the streets.
Urban legend my ass.
I’m not going to discuss your ass here.
” Deinstitutionalization began in 1955 with the widespread introduction of chlorpromazine, commonly known as Thorazine, the first effective antipsychotic medication, and received a major impetus 10 years later with the enactment of federal Medicaid and Medicare.”
” Deinstitutionalization varied from state to state.”
“ Deinstitutionalization was based on the principle that severe mental illness should be treated in the least restrictive setting. As further defined by President Jimmy Carter's Commission on Mental Health, this ideology rested on "the objective of maintaining the greatest degree of freedom, self-determination, autonomy, dignity, and integrity of body, mind, and spirit for the individual while he or she participates in treatment or receives services."
The act that Carter signed into law required states to establish mental health care bureaucracies to meet new federal standards. Failure to meet them would result in the loss of federal block grants.
This was meant to pressure states to improve mental health treatment. However any state that failed to meet the federal standards, for whatever reason, would lose all the federal mental health funding.
Reagan’s Omnibus bill rescinded many of the requirements of the law Carter passed, thereby restoring block grants that all states had previously received. The good was that federal funding was restored and states retained control of their mental health care systems.
One of them provided funding and the other cut funding. End of story.
You got the story part right.
One provided funding, one cut funding. Those are facts.
Yes Carter cut funding if states didn't meet federal mandates and Reagan restored it. How many state institutions were left from 19556 to 1981?
Reagan cut the funding as quoted above.
In 1981, The Democratic controlled Congress sent Reagan a modification of the previous year's Mental Health Systems Act and Reagan signed the Democratic approved legislation. That's a fact.
Reagan cut funding as quoted above. That's a fact.
You picked an appropriate moniker.
I'll take politifact's word over yours any day, and referring to my screen name like that is against the coc.
When the House of Representatives passes a bill that has no chance of surviving in the Senate and is sure to be vetoed by the President if it does, the net result is absolutely nothing. Oh, and btw shouldn't they get to work on a budget?
media posturing by maga extremists is considered equal to legislating by those ignorant enough to support them.
Yes they should, but it's not likely to make the Dems or Biden happy.
True, it's not likely to make them happy at all but, again, When the House of Representatives passes a bill that has no chance of surviving in the Senate and is sure to be vetoed by the President if it does, the net result is absolutely nothing.
The hypocrisy never stops, where was this comment when Nacy was passing shit out of the house and sending it to McConnell and trump?
Oh, ffs, man, you know that was different!
I suspect SteevieGee would agree that when Pelosi was the Speaker of a D majority House and she marshalled a bill that has no chance of surviving in a Republican Senate that the legislative result would be absolutely nothing.
After all, that is an obvious fact. Unless, of course, the intent was to pass the bill in the House as part of making a political statement or to put political pressure on the opposing party holding the majority in the Senate.
But, out of curiosity, do you agree or disagree with SteevieGee's comment?
The article clearly states what was passed was part of appropriations.
I guess they are ahead of you already.
Get to work?
[Deleted]
I'm sorry, but I don't agree with guilt by association. Jeffries has been nothing but supportive of the Jewish community.
[Deleted]
Before this is over, Democrats will be wishing they had kept the California Republican. Guess we'll find out how bi-coastal liberals defend themselves from Kingfish politics.
Explain what you mean by a centrally planned economy. That term has a very specific meaning and if you abide by that meaning then explain how the Green Energy Plan would transform our market-based economy into a centrally planned economy.
Let me start with the most obvious. A market-based economy is based on choices made by consumers. Consumers are rejecting expensive, unreliable, unsuported EVs. The government is mandating a move to these vehicles by 2035. That is central planning.
WASHINGTON/DETROIT, Dec 8 (Reuters) - The U.S. government plans to end purchases of gas-powered vehicles by 2035 in a move to lower emissions and promote electric cars under an executive order signed by President Joe Biden on Wednesday.
The government owns more than 650,000 vehicles and purchases about 50,000 annually. Biden's executive order said that light-duty vehicles acquired by the government will be emission-free by 2027.
U.S. government to end gas-powered vehicle purchases by 2035 under Biden order | Reuters
Many Californians right now are no doubt feeling the whipsaws of conflicting government policies. Not a month ago, they learned that the state will ban the sale of gas-powered vehicles by 2035, mandating that all new passenger cars and trucks sold in the state must be electric vehicles (EVs).
California Wants 100% Electric Vehicles By 2035. Will Its Energy Grid Be Ready? (forbes.com)
That is NOT central planning. It is definitely a move to influence the market, no question, but this is not in any way shape or form central planning.
A centrally planned economy is one where the supply is determined and controlled by an authority.
In contrast, you should consider this to be government influence that will necessarily take place in any market economy that is not purely laissez-faire ( an ideal that does not exist anywhere ).
Ummm, I think you are wrong here. According to the Biden White House fact sheet, the Administration is setting a plan to have half of all new vehicle sales to be electric by 2030. How is that not the federal authority attempting to determine and control supply?
It is influencing the market. Governments routinely and normally influence and regulate market economies .
There is a monster difference between influencing / regulating select areas within an overall market economy and having a centrally planned economy.
It is an absurd exaggeration to use terms like "centrally planned economy" (popularized by the former USSR) when talking about the normal influence / regulation that governments impose on market economies.
This is why I included quotes and links. This is not just me offering my opinion. Everyone can easily look this stuff up and see the meaning behind these terms:
So the disagreement appears to be around volume. Using your definition, it's not a centrally planned economy until all 100% of it is being managed by the federal government. But a simple question around that, did the USSR take over the entire economy overnight or was it a piecemeal approach?
The federal government mandating the supply chain for new automobiles is a facet of central planning rather than letting the market decide what to build. Are we here in the US in danger of our economy being turned into what the USSR lived with? No, of course not. I don't even believe that this approach on EV automobiles is a dangerous attempt by the federal government to exert full control, but you cannot ignore that they are looking to manage the supply and from that will impact the market economy. And when the federal government stops the financial incentives around EV's, what will happen to that market?
Where did you get 100% from my words?
A centrally planned economy would exist if the economy was predominantly planned by a central authority. Predominantly would be 50%+ but at around 50% I think people would call that a 'mixed' economy. Seems to me a centrally planned economy would likely need to be 70%+ centrally planned.
The former USSR was in an entirely different situation than our nation in 2023. Prior to the USSR, Russia was a pre-industrial nation based on a monarchy. In the brief period between the fall of the last Tzar (Nicholas) and the rise of Lenin, there was a weak provisional government. Lenin quickly overthrew this government and then within a few years had an authoritarian rule in place. Part of Lenin's early struggles was his attempt to force a move to Marxist socialism onto Russia. The problem here is that Marxism is based on an established industrial nation whose capitalist-based class divisions were acute (problematic). Marx envisioned an organic revolution (not the assumption of authoritarian rule by a dictator) wherein the proletariat (the workers ... the people as a collective) assumed industrial control (socialism) and then over time (decades) would eventually be so organized and cooperative that there would no longer be any class divisions and no longer be a need for a State (communism).
But those conditions did not exist in Russia in 1917. There was no established industrial base for the proletariat to take over and then directly use to benefit the people. Lenin soon realized that before he could effect his move to socialism (per Marx), he had to build Russia into an industrial society. Lenin died before doing anything, really, to that end and was replaced with Stalin who took the USSR into a very different, much darker future based on exploiting the labor and wealth of the people and the nation to build a war machine. So, during the Lenin era, the economic control was abrupt (due to a weak provisional government) but then very slow (due to the lack of an established industrial society). With Stalin the economic control was greatly accelerated (forced due to a brutal, dictatorial rule).
You can then argue that any move by the government toward any direction is a 'facet' of the general direction. For example, any move by our government to provide social programs can be argued to be a 'facet' of moving to social democracy. Any move by our government to promote nationalism can be argued as a 'facet' of moving to Fascism.
This practice is the making of conspiracy theories. One can always take some element of the government and greatly extrapolate into something very bad. In reality, societies (and their governments) evolve. We will see various 'facets' emerge as we experiment in an attempt to improve. We will naturally see 'facets' emerge and withdraw as we evolve. We should not take such profound tangents during this process.
Glad you hold that position.
The phrase "manage the supply" connotes central planning. The language you are using is much stronger than what is actually happening. The government is trying to influence the market; this is a substantially lesser level of intrusion than literally managing the supply. Our government is trying to encourage the growth of EVs; it is trying to help with the always difficult kick-start of a new disruptive technology/trend. Just like it is trying to encourage the use of renewables, to conserve, to reforest, etc. And don't forget about the execution of antitrust laws. Governments routinely influence NON-laissez-faire free markets (there are no truly laissez-faire free markets in the major nations).
If the market has established itself, it will continue to grow. If the market has not established itself then it will wane and could likely collapse.
Keep in mind also that this is not simply a US domestic economic issue. The EV market is a world market. So I answered assuming most governments stopped with financial incentives, not just ours.
Call it what you will, you're going to anyway.
Why do you sour a nice, civil discussion with a quip like that?
LOL, don't most of your discussions with conservatives here tend to end up that way?
Not for all, but for some the only time it does not end up sour is when I agree with them.
For example, if I were to make a comment on illegal immigration, fiscal responsibility, personal responsibility, anything negative about any D, etc. the conversation is just fine.
sometimes watching how fast the opposing arguments degrade into personal insults is comical...
This is a quote from Mike Johnson:
My only questions are: Which version of the bible and are we going to legislate from and according to the bible?
The Speaker can not pass anything alone.
People are getting worked up over what hasn't even happened.
And the PotUS cannot pass legislation alone.
The fact that an individual does not have absolute power does not mean they are not highly influential.
Do you recognize that the Speaker of the House is in a powerful, highly influential position and that his/her views do indeed matter?
The President can't pass any legislation at all. Pointless.
A Speaker has some influence, granted.
Yes, the lack of absolute power does not mean the individual is not highly influential.
So, getting back to Kavika's point, the views of Mike Johnson do indeed matter.
No one argued differently.
They always do.....................like this blast from the past......................
Exactly!
That is correct but the Speaker is highly influential and is their view carry a lot of weight.
From his statement everything in his world view you can find in the bible which bears some explantion.
Not getting worked up over anything, simply asking a question.
throughout history that question has usually led to the slaughter of millions of cultists or innocents...
he's a hateful scumbag
That phonier than thou 'christian' has no place in our government, much less Speaker of the House
It's actually a lot worse than that. When someone is asked what their policies are, I didn't think it was possible to get that question wrong. You might think their policies are wrong, but their answer isn't wrong. But a representative of our Republic, the formation of which was heavily influenced by the Enlightenment and set up by a bunch of guys who were the elite of the elite, said to consult a hyper-ambiguous religious text which has been interpreted to support *any* imaginable policy (e.g. slavery). This is a stupid answer which is also wrong; you know, that Constitution thing. How do conservatives always manage to suss out the stupidest person for any position?
They managed to pick a truly crappy Speaker this time. Johnson should not even be in Congress with his idiotic dependence on the Bible for necessarily secular policies. They found someone substantially worse than McCarthy.
no thumper/dominionist should be allowed anywhere near government. maga mike is a figurehead that will dutifully submit to the white xtian nationalist agenda over the US constitution.
“…you know, that Constitution thing.”
Only invoked when it fits the narrative. The degree to which ‘patriots’ will acquiesce is simply and sadly mind numbing.
While I do not have a major problem with people holding religious beliefs (there is no stopping that anyway so we need to just accept it), I have a substantial problem with public officials imposing their religion on policy decisions. Not only is their religion one of many, but religious beliefs should have nothing whatsoever to do with secular policy in a multicultural nation.
Secular policy should be based on facts and logic —critical thinking— not a particular (one of countless many) interpretation of a particular holy book.
if somebody can't respect the establishment clause in their private life, chances are slim they can do it in any type of political life. I don't think it's possible adhering to an oath to defend the constitution without abiding by the 1st amendment. religious dogma only belongs in churches and the privacy of one's home, not in our government.