"Small government" GOP takes a break from all-nighter to screw taxpayers, consumers.

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
Wasn't it sweet of Pete Dominici to give the Dems 48 hours to review the 1700 page bill? Bwuahahahaha!! Boy, that puts the judicial nominee battle in context, no?

I would need a week to just read a 1700 page bill because I'd be falling asleep. Have you ever read any of that prose? No one who writes laws ever passed an English class, I'm certain. The point is to make them muddy so the lawyers can clean up fighting over what the laws mean.

-Robert
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
As expected, the judicial battle is a distraction for GOP trying to screw Americans under the radar. More smoke and mirrors.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Yep - that's the environmental left for you...bashing cleaner(and renewable) fuel incentives. I guess we should just go back to MTBE, or better yet - just go to plain gas.

I guess we should just abandon Bio-diesel incentives since it too can be turned into a 100% renewable fuel source. Bah...but yeah those nasty Rs just want all your money to go to big oil or new alternative fuel energys.


Give it up already - You'd bash them for not supporting alternative energies...if they didn't vote for it...but yet here you are bashing them for supporting it.

CkG

 

Genesys

Golden Member
Nov 10, 2003
1,536
0
0
Originally posted by: SuperTool

20Billion subsidies in the times of $500B deficits..
so, basically you want a lib in office who is going to raise taxes to an astronomical rate to try and balance the budget? youd just love that wouldnt you?
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
Originally posted by: Genesys
Originally posted by: SuperTool

20Billion subsidies in the times of $500B deficits..
so, basically you want a lib in office who is going to raise taxes to an astronomical rate to try and balance the budget? youd just love that wouldnt you?
How about a Fiscal Conservative, not someone who says he is but isn't!
 

zephyrprime

Diamond Member
Feb 18, 2001
7,510
2
81
bashing cleaner(and renewable) fuel incentives
Actually, the value of ethanol is very questionable from an environmental standpoint. I remember some hardvard guy claiming that it was worse than gasoline.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Yep - that's the environmental left for you...bashing cleaner(and renewable) fuel incentives. I guess we should just go back to MTBE, or better yet - just go to plain gas.

I guess we should just abandon Bio-diesel incentives since it too can be turned into a 100% renewable fuel source. Bah...but yeah those nasty Rs just want all your money to go to big oil or new alternative fuel energys.


Give it up already - You'd bash them for not supporting alternative energies...if they didn't vote for it...but yet here you are bashing them for supporting it.

CkG

Speaking of MTBE, this legislation also provides immunity for MTBE producers who pollute ground water. But I appreciate your genuine concern for the environment.

 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
How about a Fiscal Conservative, not someone who says he is but isn't!
The irony is that SuperTool doesn't want someone who is fiscally conservative to balance the budget. He wants "the rich" to "balance" the budget instead.

Not that I'm all that happy with Bush's and our rep's current fiscal policy. But I'm certainly not going to cross over and vote Demoncrat because Bush is "too liberal". :D
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Originally posted by: Corn
How about a Fiscal Conservative, not someone who says he is but isn't!
The irony is that SuperTool doesn't want someone who is fiscally conservative to balance the budget. He wants "the rich" to "balance" the budget instead.

Not that I'm all that happy with Bush's and our rep's current fiscal policy. But I'm certainly not going to cross over and vote Demoncrat because Bush is "too liberal". :D
The problem is Corn wants to kill all poor people in gas chambers. Or maybe he doesn't, but since he assumes to know what I want, so can I :)
I think we should return to taxation levels of the Clinton administration. Taxation levels that brought us close to a balanced budget without undermining growth. I do appreciate the extent of the "suffering" of the rich under Clinton. I really do.
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,489
0
0
Originally posted by: zephyrprime
bashing cleaner(and renewable) fuel incentives
Actually, the value of ethanol is very questionable from an environmental standpoint. I remember some hardvard guy claiming that it was worse than gasoline.
Well there is proof...I'm sold!
 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
Speaking of MTBE, this legislation also provides immunity for MTBE producers who pollute ground water. But I appreciate your genuine concern for the environment.
Would you care to explain to me why we should punish "MTBE producers" for complying with the Clean Air Act mandate that required the use of MTBE enhanced "reforumlated" gasoline?
 

Spencer278

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 2002
3,637
0
0
ethanol is horrible for the enviroment. Like a fuel cell ethanol is not a source just a way to store energy. To make ethanol corn is used but to grow corn lots of fitilizers are need to make the firtilizers they use gas or disiel I don't rember which. When all is said and done there is a net loss of energy. Growing corn waste a lot of fertilizers which end up polloting the water.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Yep - that's the environmental left for you...bashing cleaner(and renewable) fuel incentives. I guess we should just go back to MTBE, or better yet - just go to plain gas.

I guess we should just abandon Bio-diesel incentives since it too can be turned into a 100% renewable fuel source. Bah...but yeah those nasty Rs just want all your money to go to big oil or new alternative fuel energys.


Give it up already - You'd bash them for not supporting alternative energies...if they didn't vote for it...but yet here you are bashing them for supporting it.

CkG
A majority of the bill's tax breaks would boost development of oil, natural gas, coal and nuclear power. Some tax breaks will go to promote energy efficiency and renewable energy sources such as power from wind turbines.
Looks like the majority of the tax breaks go to traditional energy - how much do you suppose is slated for alternative energies? I wouldn't cast this bill as you have - it's clearly not funding much in the way of forward looking alternative energy...
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: SuperTool
But I appreciate your genuine concern for the environment.
I'm not sure why you roll your eyes with that comment. I don't support MTBE or the polluters.
But i see your partisanship has driven you on this issue - I support alternative fuels, and also support actions that allow us to become less dependant on foreign oil.

BTW - Brazil operates half of its cars on pure ethanol using modified engines.

CkG
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Originally posted by: Corn
Speaking of MTBE, this legislation also provides immunity for MTBE producers who pollute ground water. But I appreciate your genuine concern for the environment.
Would you care to explain to me why we should punish "MTBE producers" for complying with the Clean Air Act mandate that required the use of MTBE enhance "reforumlated" gasoline?
We should punish companies who pollute ground water. What part of it needs explaining?
The oxygenated fuel requirement is a subsidy to ethanol and MTBE producers, without a demonstrable positive effect on the environment. States like CA have long asked for this requirement to be dropped, but congress kept it in place to subsidize the midwest farmers, and now wants to double it.
 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
I think we should return to taxation levels of the Clinton administration.
LOL. You chastise me for "assuming", yet you immediately prove my assumption was correct!

 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Originally posted by: Corn
I think we should return to taxation levels of the Clinton administration.
LOL. You chastise me for "assuming", yet you immediately prove my assumption was correct!
Returning taxes to Clinton levels would increase taxes on both poor and rich. Again, the rich did fine under Clinton administration, even though they bitched every second of it.
 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
We should punish companies who pollute ground water. What part of it needs explaining?
They "polluted gound water" by government mandate!

In your bizzaro world way of thinking, a man who robs a bank because his family is being held at gunpoint by the real criminal, should be "punished" for robbing a bank.

What part of "governmental mandate" needs explaining?
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Originally posted by: Corn
We should punish companies who pollute ground water. What part of it needs explaining?
They "polluted gound water" by government mandate!

In your bizzaro world way of thinking, a man who robs a bank because his family is being held at gunpoint by the real criminal, should be "punished" for robbing a bank.

What part of "governmental mandate" needs explaining?
There is a government mandate that says MTBE producers must pollute ground water? OK. Show it to me.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
"it would dramatically increase the use of ethanol, biodiesel and wind generation and deliver natural gas from Alaska to the Midwest, both of which would have important economic benefits for our state and lower prices for consumers. I worked hard to pass this bill, because I believe that we need a national energy policy that accomplishes those goals."
...
"However, I am not willing to accept a national energy policy that does not take advantage of ethanol and other renewable fuels."
...
"The tax incentive for ethanol and biodiesel will ensure continued growth of the renewable fuels industry and provide an additional $4 billion for the Highway Trust Fund that funds our nation's roads, bridges, and other transportation needs."

Guess who?

;)

CkG
 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
There is a government mandate that says MTBE producers must pollute ground water?
SuperTool, why are you arguing a point you are obviously ignorant about? "MTBE producers" didn't directly pollute ground water: reformulated gasoline using MTBE did. Gasoline companies were forced by the Clean Air Act to use this refomulated gasoline. Only a liberal would penalize a company for complying with a federal mandate.
 

rjain

Golden Member
May 1, 2003
1,475
0
0
Only a conservative would call anyone who doesn't agree with him a "liberal".
 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
Only a conservative would call anyone who doesn't agree with him a "liberal".
So, are you trying to say that SuperTool isn't a liberal? LOL, Tool and I have been arguing for years, I know where he's coming from.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY