Postman interviews House Democrat Leader Nancy Pelosi(D-San Francisco), who is in town campaigning for Darcy Burner:
we're up against Republicans who are unconcerned about money, truth or decency. They will say anything."That sounds more like Darcy Burner, who, as I watch the debate on TVW, just said (21:49) "This Congress and my opponent voted to give $14.5 billion in tax subsidies to the oil companies". As I've noted before, that statement is wildly untrue.
On a related note, anybody care to wager whether Burner and/or her supporters will be posting photos of Nancy and Darcy together?
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at October 13, 2006 05:35 PM | Email ThisYou know, I like money, but I have to question whether it should be placed along side truth and decency in the pantheon of Good Things.
Posted by: ScottM on October 13, 2006 07:29 PMThe tax package includes $14.5 billion dollars to improve energy production, transportation and efficiency, according to the chart. Here's the breakdown:*$3.1 billion for electricity reliability
*$2.9 billion for clean coal
*$2.9 billion for renewable and clean energy incentives
*$2.7 billion for energy efficiency and conservation measures
*$2.6 billion for oil and gas production and enhanced refining
$11.6 Billion goes somewhere other than oil and gas. - and Darcy wants to claim the high road of truthfulness?
Ha! (That's a laugh, not an ad for the dark side)
Posted by: SouthernRoots on October 13, 2006 09:14 PMGive it a rest.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on October 13, 2006 11:14 PMWhat you are saying is that between 2006 and 2008
It is ok with you
1) that our troops cut an run in Iraq - so that violent jihad can come to your local shoping center and Iran gets a nuke and uses it, while 1000's of Iraqs are slaughtered like people were in Vietnam and Cambodia
2) That taxes go up on everybody for everything,and the economy dies and tax and spend liberals take over.
3) no conservative judges are appointed, no Roberts etc. in effect you will be voting for pro-abortion - baby killers
4) The anti-terrorist programs are killed, and Jihad will flourish here.
5) that a suit case nuke goes off in Seattle
6) That nothing at all is done about the border (the dems will do nothing - , they let "green card" voters vote in king county)
7) That you want more false accusations by John Murtha of "cold blooded killing' to continue.
In fact you want Pelosi, Murtha, Schumer, Reid, Biden, etc. to take over and pave the way for Hillary in 2008.
John, conservatives are often confronted, especially in this state, with the lesser of two evils. The issue is not simply what do you think of republicans ( you are frustrated as a conservative, you are not alone in this) but how you vote also says how serious you think electing democrats is. Because we do not have a viable third party system. A stay at home, no vote or third party vote is a vote for the dominant element here in WA, by default it is a Dem vote.
THEN feel free to point fingers and slam 'evil corporations'. As if your little government consulting firms are exempt from evil? Hypocrites all.
Obviously they cannot and based on your trying to palm off old articles as current information, neither can you.
Bill H
Just as other generations spoke of a Great Plague and a Great Depression, our children will be compelled to endure The Great Warming - and find a way to conquer its consequences.
Filmed in eight countries on four continents, endorsed by dozens of the world's leading scientists, this three-hour television series is the most factually accurate, visually stunning and wide-ranging production ever mounted about this complex, fascinating subject.
Narrated by: Alanis Morrissette and Keanu Reeveshttp://www.thegreatwarming.com/
You know, I'd reference Cheney's meetings on energy policy but, guess what, it's a state secret.
Posted by: monkey jr.pophalous on October 14, 2006 07:36 AMThis could be good, though. Keep up the scare routine, and maybe I can buy some ocean front property from some other "true believers" for a bargain price!
By the way, this is OFF TOPIC.
Bill H
Posted by: Bill H on October 14, 2006 07:39 AMThey'll tell ya, fer sure! You bet-cha!!!!!!
Posted by: monkey jr.pophalous on October 14, 2006 07:44 AMAre you denying that the oil industry is subsidized or are you merely quibbling over the exact figure? And since Burner's dollar amount doesn't jibe with yours, then she's a "liar"?
Is that all you got ,Bill? Just a few lame rhetorical devices that Reichert is incapable of even understanding...
Posted by: monkey jr.pophalous on October 14, 2006 07:50 AMBill H
Posted by: Bill H on October 14, 2006 07:51 AMThe point is that Darcy is not telling the truth when she says "This Congress and my opponent voted to give $14.5 billion in tax subsidies to the oil companies". You have shown nothing to refute the point that that statement is a lie.
Do you have anything relevant to that question?
Bill H
Posted by: Bill H on October 14, 2006 07:58 AMNow a complete buffoon, he has to get his kicks by carrying the Dhimmicrats water (do you shine their er, shoes too, liberal~john?).
Posted by: alphabet soup on October 14, 2006 08:25 AMIf she substituted the work "Democrats" she'd be right on the money. Dems such as Burner can lie about the energy tax subsidies all they want because they know their Mainstream Media protectors won't call them on it. It's disgusting.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on October 14, 2006 09:35 AMNo david, you ditz - the one who makes the claim backs it up. And the notion that one moron making a claim and then citing another moron who posts it on the Internet automatically lends credibility?!
Have you been smoking from the same crack pipe as liberal~john?
Posted by: alphabet soup on October 14, 2006 10:03 AMMonkey said "You've called her a liar, now back it up. Don't tell me to read something you said weeks ago. As you reminded me in an earlier comment of mine: 'That's old news!'" I think you are referring to my statement in #25 that was referencing you going off topic by getting into global warming. I said "monkey, there was a large free-ranging discussion of this topic on Sound Politics about a week ago. Go back and educate yourself by reading some of the discussion there. This is not the thread to go into this discussion since, as I already mentioned, it is OFF TOPIC."
Status: As I see it, where we stand is that Southern Roots, in Post #7 refuted Darcy's claim that $14.5 Billion went to the Oil Companies and here we are more than 20 posts later and I have not seen any response that backs up Darcy's claim or that casts doubt on Root's refutation.
Now, let's start again. Anything of relevance to say?
Bill H
Posted by: Bill H on October 14, 2006 10:19 AMBill H
Posted by: Bill H on October 14, 2006 10:24 AMBill H
Posted by: Bill H on October 14, 2006 11:06 AMBill H
Posted by: Bill H on October 14, 2006 11:37 AM-Bill H
"Ben, actually quite a bit gets done in the House."
-Bill H
Posted by: The Kettle on October 14, 2006 01:21 PMBill H
Posted by: Bill H on October 14, 2006 01:31 PMBill H
Posted by: Bill H on October 14, 2006 01:36 PM"The Nov. 7 midterm elections are less than six weeks away. The stakes have never been so high: Control of the House and Senate and governorships nationwide. A recent poll shows that 75 percent of voters are disgusted by the Republican majority House and Senate, the highest disapproval rate since 1994. They are frustrated at Bush's endless Iraq war, by Republican cronyism and corruption, tax giveaways to the rich, cutbacks in vital services, and criminal negligence in the wake of Hurricane Katrina."
"Bush's policies of war and repression have made us less secure. The people are angry and they want change."
Are these the words of DNC Chairman Howard Dean? John Kerry? Ted Kennedy? Nancy Pelosi? Harry Reid? Al Gore? Dick Durbin? George Soros? Is it Hillary Clinton? Is it one of the Hollywood cast of idiots, or maybe the Ditzy Chicks? While all of these people and their many minions have regurgitated these words until we're sick of hearing them, this quote is taken directly from a mid-term campaign appeal issued by The National Board of the Communist Party USA, released Sept. 25, 2006.
Read all about it here:
So You Still Think Democrats Are American?
This link has been posted on SP before but deserves revisiting. A lot.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on October 14, 2006 02:08 PMBill H
Posted by: Bill H on October 14, 2006 02:45 PMYou guys are idiots.
Posted by: monkey jr.pophalous on October 14, 2006 04:54 PMWhat criteria are you using to imply that "You guys are idiots." I still have seen NOTHING that refutes Roots' post or that defends Darcy's post. Who is an idiot?
Bill H
Posted by: Bill H on October 14, 2006 05:04 PMAt least we aren't snotty, condescending trolls.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on October 14, 2006 05:17 PMReread #7, or better yet, follow the links Stefan added.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on October 14, 2006 05:36 PM
This is truly old old news. Most people who have kept up on current Politics know how the 14.5 million dollar LIE is allocated.
Read # 7 or find your perfect company over at Ha (horsesass.org)
Show me da money!
Posted by: monkey jr.pophalous on October 14, 2006 05:56 PMIt does not lay out the information in exactly the same way, but it is consistent with the numbers. It says "The tax package -- negotiated behind closed doors by lawmakers -- would award 58 percent of the total benefit over 10 years to traditional energy industries, including oil, natural gas, coal, electric utilities and nuclear power. About 36 percent of the total would go for renewable sources of energy, energy efficiency and cleaner-burning vehicles."
Stick with me on the math--58% of $14.5B is $8.4B, and 36% of $14.5B is $5.2B.
Now, from the chart, if you add the $3.1B for Electricity, the $2.9B for Coal and the $2.6B for Oil and Gas, you get $8.6B, which is within the rounding error of $8.4B in the WaPo article.
And, if you add the $2.9B for renewable energy and the $2.7B for energy efficiency, you get $5.6B, about the same as the $5.2B in the WaPo article.
The WaPo article only says what 94% (58% + 36%)goes for, while the chart breaks out about 98% (14.2/14.5) of the total, so the chart looks like it includes a few items in these categories that the WaPo article does not allocate.
You can nit-pick the differences, however, either set of numbers completely refutes the Darcy claim that "This Congress and my opponent voted to give $14.5 billion in tax subsidies to the oil companies".
Are you going to continue to pretend that this statement is not an out and out lie?
Bill H
Posted by: Bill H on October 14, 2006 06:20 PMBill H
Posted by: Bill H on October 14, 2006 06:46 PMGo to the fricking link above and come back here and tell Bill (with links) that the amount of 14.5 billion is from several "bills"
Jeeeezzzz, do you have a problem with English?
Done reading yet????
David
Done reading Yet????
Posted by: Chris on October 14, 2006 06:58 PMBill H
Posted by: Bill H on October 14, 2006 07:09 PMBill H"
HR4297, HR5427
I wouldn't call them "magical." The suspense was just killing you, wasn't it!
Posted by: David on October 14, 2006 09:43 PMLooking at the votes, I guess Darcy is also telling Washington voters that Maria Cantwell has to go because, "This Congress[, Maria Cantwell,] and my opponent voted to give $14.5 billion in tax subsidies to the oil companies".
Washington
Jun 28, 2005: This bill passed in the Senate by roll call vote. The totals were: 85 Ayes, 12 Nays, 3 Present/Not Voting.
Aye WA Cantwell, Maria [D]
Aye WA Murray, Patty [D]
Apr 21, 2005: This bill passed in the House of Representatives by roll call vote. The totals were: 249 Ayes, 183 Nays, 3 Present/Not Voting.
Nay WA-1 Inslee, Jay [D]
Nay WA-2 Larsen, Rick [D]
Nay WA-3 Baird, Brian [D]
Aye WA-4 Hastings, Doc [R]
Aye WA-5 Mcmorris, Cathy [R]
Nay WA-6 Dicks, Norman [D]
Nay WA-7 McDermott, James [D]
Aye WA-8 Reichert, Dave [R]
Nay WA-9 Smith, Adam [D]
Jul 29, 2005: After passing both the Senate and House, a conference committee is created to work out differences between the Senate and House versions of the bill. A conference report resolving those differences passed in the Senate, paving the way for enactment of the bill, by roll call vote. The totals were: 74 Ayes, 26 Nays, 0 Present/Not Voting.
Aye WA Cantwell, Maria [D]
Nay WA Murray, Patty [D]
By Monkey's own cut and paste from some left wing website:
"Subsidies to the Oil Industry. The bill provides over $3 billion over ten
years in tax breaks and direct spending to the oil and gas industry"
$3B is obviously quite a bit less than $14.5B.
David--come back when you have something that refutes anything rather than just picking random House Bills.
Bill H
Posted by: Bill H on October 15, 2006 05:10 AMvirtually every industry has some kind of tax break or subsidies, both nationally and locally. just look around. farmers, textile, small manufacturers. Between rants, Monkey enjoys the benefits of many market products brought to you by those evil subsidies.
would libs have us eliminate all breaks in the name of purity & honesty? how about starting with the liberal movie industry? singers/performers? the music industry? sports? the arts? other lefty-dominated businesses?
everyone is drinking at the tax & subsidy fountain. the question is, which favors are we willing to keep, at what cost & why.
is the industry critical? are taxpayers screaming for help or indifferent. it depends on who wants their ox gored or protected. should it be autos? gambling? booze? steel? or rap music?
tell your legislator if you don't like it. that's more productive than trading factiods & insults in a blog.
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on October 15, 2006 06:34 AMYour statement about everyone drinking at the subsidies fountain is true.
However, your acceptance of this is very anti-Reagan and very much against what real conservatives stand for. Government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers in the marketplace, or aiding this market or that market. It raises taxes, governments pick more losers than winners, and it hurts the economy and innovation.
Posted by: John McDonald on October 15, 2006 08:23 AMThen why in heck are you trying to help the Democrats gain back power? What will that accomplish? How on God's green earth will giving the tax and spend Democrats control of any piece of the government do the opposite of what you posted?
...snip...
It raises taxes, governments pick more losers than winners, and it hurts the economy and innovation
... end snip from John...
Please do tell...
Posted by: Matt on October 15, 2006 08:34 AMwho said i accept it? i agree that the market, in it brutality, will pick winners itself. i'm just a realist. all sides want govt help when you boil it down. lobbyists are everywhere. and--why should the U.S. "play fair" when other countries subsidize their pet industries? why be the lone intl. fool? try selling rice in Japan. they guard their farmers like gold.
i'm just stating that it's dishonest for liberals to wine about "tax breaks for big business" when their lobbyists also ask for same--and i'm especially including the "big business" of social programs & that whole dependency industry who have lobbyists too.
for effectiveness, i'm urging people to contact their legislators if they want to whine about subsidies. some industries deserve subsidies or help--those that involve our strategic national safety or precious commodities that can cripple a nation in an instant. who wants to outsource our defense or crucial protections or critical resources? not me.
and John, with your ending 2 sentences, would you now remove all the AIDS research money the government spends? it dwarfs any other research spending of diseases with more numerical deaths like heart disease. (i wonder why--political?) i would cut the govt funding. let private industry do the research--they are better at it anyway--less bureaucrats and red tape.
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on October 15, 2006 08:59 AM