╌>

House passes energy plan

  

Category:  Op/Ed

By:  vic-eldred  •  7 months ago  •  87 comments

House passes energy plan
“This is the first step in getting our appropriations done,” Johnson said shortly after passage. “Yesterday, I promised we were going to get back to work for the American people and today we proved it.”


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

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1  author  Vic Eldred    7 months ago

Good morning:

Coffee-With-Biscuits-Wallpaper-Gallery.jpg

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)

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2  author  Vic Eldred    7 months ago

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

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
2.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Vic Eldred @2    7 months ago

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.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1    7 months ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3  author  Vic Eldred    7 months ago

Speaker Mike Johnson says now not the time to discuss gun control: "Problem is the human heart, not guns"

F9cug6_WEAEhXCr?format=jpg&name=small

Speaker Johnson says now not the time to discuss gun control: ‘Problem is the human heart, not guns’ | The Hill

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Junior Quiet
3.1  afrayedknot  replied to  Vic Eldred @3    7 months ago

“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. 

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
3.1.1  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  afrayedknot @3.1    7 months ago

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.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.1.2  devangelical  replied to  afrayedknot @3.1    7 months ago

americans are so fortunate that the new thumper speaker is going to pray all of our problems away. /s

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
3.1.3  Greg Jones  replied to  afrayedknot @3.1    7 months ago

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.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
3.1.4  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Greg Jones @3.1.3    7 months ago

And the answers are................................

So, what is your logical and defensible position on gun control?  

Ummmmmmm.

Do you have any workable solutions that prevent criminals and determined mass shooters from obtaining guns?

Uummmmmmm no

Gun control only affects responsible, law-abiding individuals, not the bad guys.

Ummmmmmmmmm.....................................................................yeah I know it.

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Junior Quiet
3.1.5  afrayedknot  replied to  Greg Jones @3.1.3    7 months ago

“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. 

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
3.1.6  Snuffy  replied to  afrayedknot @3.1.5    7 months ago

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.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.7  Texan1211  replied to  Snuffy @3.1.6    7 months ago
.  How often are existing laws plea-bargained away in criminal cases that included a gun?

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.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.8  Texan1211  replied to  afrayedknot @3.1.5    7 months ago

Can you detail how new gun laws would have an effect on criminals?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.9  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  afrayedknot @3.1    7 months ago

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?

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Junior Quiet
3.1.10  afrayedknot  replied to  Snuffy @3.1.6    7 months ago

“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. 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.1.11  devangelical  replied to  afrayedknot @3.1.10    7 months ago

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.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.12  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @3.1.11    7 months ago

And I just bet you didn't say a word when Pelosi's House failed to do what you are complaining about.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
3.1.13  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  devangelical @3.1.11    7 months ago
more sensible gun laws

Easy words to say. What are "sensible gun laws" in your view?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.1.14  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.9    7 months ago
Why are democrats still against institutions for the mentally ill?

... like the republican majority in the house, as an example?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
3.1.15  Jack_TX  replied to  afrayedknot @3.1.5    7 months ago
You ask me for workable solutions. That is obviously beyond my control.

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.

 
 
 
Wishful_thinkin
Freshman Silent
3.1.16  Wishful_thinkin  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.9    7 months ago
Why are democrats still against institutions for the mentally ill?

Was Reagan a democrat? 

Once they're closed, there is no opening them again without funding.  

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
3.1.17  cjcold  replied to  devangelical @3.1.14    7 months ago
republican majority

And an unhinged ex-president?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.18  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Wishful_thinkin @3.1.16    7 months ago

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.

 
 
 
Wishful_thinkin
Freshman Silent
3.1.19  Wishful_thinkin  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.18    7 months ago
JFK closed them.

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.  

BULL SHIT. There was funding for solar panel companies. We can fund things that keep people safe.

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.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.20  Tessylo  replied to  afrayedknot @3.1    7 months ago

I'm sure he's of the typical gqp stance on guns and that the murder of children is acceptable

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.21  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @3.1.11    7 months ago

Easier for the gqp to blame their endless fuckups on Democrats

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.22  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @3.1.14    7 months ago

My thoughts exactly!

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
3.1.23  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Wishful_thinkin @3.1.19    7 months ago
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.  

Urban legend.  Mental institution population peaked here in the 50’s.  Most mental hospitals were state hospitals, not federal ones.  

 
 
 
Wishful_thinkin
Freshman Silent
3.1.24  Wishful_thinkin  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.1.23    7 months ago

BULLSHIT 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
3.1.25  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Wishful_thinkin @3.1.24    7 months ago

No bullshit, urban legend;

From 1900 to 1955, the peak year-end census in state and county hospitals, public psychiatric hospitals were provided minimal resources to meet the needs of huge patient populations. Subsequently, as these hospitals were progressively eviscerated, the hospitals and those who worked there were vilified, perhaps as a way to assuage the guilt of what happened to their former residents. The asylums of earlier days became popularly known as the snake pits of the 1940s and 1950s and abandoned shells in our lifetimes.
 
 
 
Wishful_thinkin
Freshman Silent
3.1.26  Wishful_thinkin  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.1.25    7 months ago

Again, bullshit!

In 1980, President Jimmy Carter signed the Mental Health Systems Act, which sought to bolster federal assistance for the care of people with chronic mental illness. But Carter lost reelection that November, and the following year, Reagan — then the president — signed a budget bill that repealed virtually all of the act’s provisions and effectively cut funding by about one-third.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.27  Tessylo  replied to  Wishful_thinkin @3.1.24    7 months ago

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.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
3.1.28  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.27    7 months ago
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."

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
3.1.29  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Wishful_thinkin @3.1.26    7 months ago

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. 

 
 
 
Wishful_thinkin
Freshman Silent
3.1.30  Wishful_thinkin  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.1.29    7 months ago

One of them provided funding and the other cut funding. End of story.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
3.1.31  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Wishful_thinkin @3.1.30    7 months ago
End of story.

You got the story part right.

 
 
 
Wishful_thinkin
Freshman Silent
3.1.32  Wishful_thinkin  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.1.31    7 months ago

One provided funding, one cut funding. Those are facts. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
3.1.33  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Wishful_thinkin @3.1.32    7 months ago

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?

 

 
 
 
Wishful_thinkin
Freshman Silent
3.1.34  Wishful_thinkin  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.1.33    7 months ago

Reagan cut the funding as quoted above. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
3.1.35  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Wishful_thinkin @3.1.34    7 months ago

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.

 
 
 
Wishful_thinkin
Freshman Silent
3.1.36  Wishful_thinkin  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.1.35    7 months ago

Reagan cut funding as quoted above. That's a fact. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
3.1.37  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Wishful_thinkin @3.1.36    7 months ago

You picked an appropriate moniker. 

 
 
 
Wishful_thinkin
Freshman Silent
3.1.38  Wishful_thinkin  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.1.37    7 months ago

I'll take politifact's word over yours any day, and referring to my screen name like that is against the coc. 

 
 
 
SteevieGee
Professor Silent
4  SteevieGee    7 months ago

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?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
4.1  devangelical  replied to  SteevieGee @4    7 months ago

media posturing by maga extremists is considered equal to legislating by those ignorant enough to support them.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
4.2  Greg Jones  replied to  SteevieGee @4    7 months ago

Yes they should, but it's not likely to make the Dems or Biden happy.

 
 
 
SteevieGee
Professor Silent
4.2.1  SteevieGee  replied to  Greg Jones @4.2    7 months ago
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.

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
4.2.2  George  replied to  SteevieGee @4.2.1    7 months ago

The hypocrisy never stops, where was this comment when Nacy was passing shit out of the house and sending it to McConnell and trump? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.3  Texan1211  replied to  George @4.2.2    7 months ago

Oh, ffs, man, you know that was different!

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.2.4  TᵢG  replied to  George @4.2.2    7 months ago

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?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.3  Texan1211  replied to  SteevieGee @4    7 months ago

and btw shouldn't they get to work on a budget

The article clearly states what was passed was part of appropriations.

I guess they are ahead of you already.

 
 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.4  Tessylo  replied to  SteevieGee @4    7 months ago

Get to work?

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
5  George    7 months ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
5.1  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  George @5    7 months ago

I'm sorry, but I don't agree with guilt by association. Jeffries has been nothing but supportive of the Jewish community. 

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
5.1.1  George  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.1    7 months ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
6  Nerm_L    7 months ago

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.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7  TᵢG    7 months ago
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.

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.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
7.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @7    7 months ago

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)



 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.1.1  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1    7 months ago
The government is mandating a move to these vehicles by 2035.  That is central planning.

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.

A centrally planned economy, also known as a command economy, is an economic system where a government body makes economic decisions regarding the production and distribution of goods. Centrally planned economies are different from  market economies , where these decisions are the result of thousands of choices by producers and consumers.

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 ).

Free markets are often conceptualized as having little to no interference from the government. However, in reality governments do step in to stabilize markets, regulate transactions, provide institutional frameworks, and enforce rules around contract law and property rights. Governments can also intervene when markets fail in the form of bailouts and other emergency measures. .

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
7.1.2  Snuffy  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.1    7 months ago
A centrally planned economy is one where the supply is determined and controlled by an authority.

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?

As part of President Biden’s goal of having 50 percent of all new vehicle sales be electric by 2030, the White House is announcing public and private commitments to support America’s historic transition to electric vehicles (EV) under the EV Acceleration Challenge. 

FACT SHEET: Biden-Harris Administration Announces New Private and Public Sector Investments for Affordable Electric Vehicles | The White House

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.1.3  TᵢG  replied to  Snuffy @7.1.2    7 months ago
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:

Free markets are often conceptualized as having little to no interference from the government. However, in reality governments do step in to stabilize markets, regulate transactions, provide institutional frameworks, and enforce rules around contract law and property rights. Governments can also intervene when markets fail in the form of bailouts and other emergency measures.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
7.1.4  Snuffy  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.3    7 months ago

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?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.1.5  TᵢG  replied to  Snuffy @7.1.4    7 months ago
Using your definition, it's not a centrally planned economy until all 100% of it is being managed by the federal government.

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.

But a simple question around that, did the USSR take over the entire economy overnight or was it a piecemeal approach?

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).

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. 

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.

Are we here in the US in danger of our economy being turned into what the USSR lived with?  No, of course not. 

Glad you hold that position.

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.

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).

And when the federal government stops the financial incentives around EV's, what will happen to that market?

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.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
7.1.6  Snuffy  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.5    7 months ago

Call it what you will, you're going to anyway.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.1.7  TᵢG  replied to  Snuffy @7.1.6    7 months ago

Why do you sour a nice, civil discussion with a quip like that?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
7.1.8  devangelical  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.7    7 months ago

LOL, don't most of your discussions with conservatives here tend to end up that way?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.1.9  TᵢG  replied to  devangelical @7.1.8    7 months ago

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.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
7.1.10  devangelical  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.9    7 months ago

sometimes watching how fast the opposing arguments degrade into personal insults is comical...

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
8  Kavika     7 months ago

This is a quote from Mike Johnson:

“This is not about the people themselves. I am a Bible-believing Christian. Someone asked me today in the media, they said, ‘… People are curious. What does Mike Johnson think about any issue under the sun?’ I said, well, go pick up a Bible off your shelf and read it – that’s my worldview. That’s what I believe and so I make no apologies for it.”

My only questions are: Which version of the bible and are we going to legislate from and according to the bible?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
8.1  Texan1211  replied to  Kavika @8    7 months ago

The Speaker can not pass anything alone.

People are getting worked up over what hasn't even happened.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.1.1  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @8.1    7 months ago
The Speaker can not pass anything alone.

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?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
8.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @8.1.1    7 months ago
And the PotUS cannot pass legislation alone.

The President can't pass any legislation at all. Pointless.

A Speaker has some influence, granted.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.1.3  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @8.1.2    7 months ago
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.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
8.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @8.1.3    7 months ago
So, getting back to Kavika's point, the views of Mike Johnson do indeed matter

No one argued differently.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
8.1.5  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Texan1211 @8.1    7 months ago
People are getting worked up over what hasn't even happened.

They always do.....................like this blast from the past......................

256

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
8.1.6  Texan1211  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @8.1.5    7 months ago

Exactly!

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
8.1.7  Kavika   replied to  Texan1211 @8.1    7 months ago
The Speaker can not pass anything alone.

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.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
8.2  devangelical  replied to  Kavika @8    7 months ago
Which version of the bible and are we going to legislate from and according to the bible?

throughout history that question has usually led to the slaughter of millions of cultists or innocents...

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.2.1  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @8.2    7 months ago

he's a hateful scumbag

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.3  Tessylo  replied to  Kavika @8    7 months ago

That phonier than thou 'christian' has no place in our government, much less Speaker of the House 

 
 
 
JumpDrive
Freshman Silent
8.4  JumpDrive  replied to  Kavika @8    7 months ago
My only questions are: Which version of the bible and are we going to legislate from and according to the bible?

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?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.4.1  TᵢG  replied to  JumpDrive @8.4    7 months ago
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.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
8.4.2  devangelical  replied to  TᵢG @8.4.1    7 months ago
 Johnson should not even be in Congress with his idiotic dependence on the Bible for necessarily secular policies.

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.

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Junior Quiet
8.4.3  afrayedknot  replied to  JumpDrive @8.4    7 months ago

“…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. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.4.4  TᵢG  replied to  devangelical @8.4.2    7 months ago

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.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
8.4.5  devangelical  replied to  TᵢG @8.4.4    7 months ago

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.

 
 

Who is online



36 visitors