JohnSmith2007

What do you suppose this means?

That November is going to be dramatic.

People don't like paying taxes - and that's news? Also, what's with the 'my state is better than your state nah nah nah nah nah?'.

I think the real rub,at least for me, is what the taxes are being used for. If it is spent on things we don't agree with then that person would probably say he is over taxed. If it is spent on things he likes then he would say the taxes are OK. As for me I would like to see us get out of Iraq and Afgan. That money is being thrown down a rat hole. I wanted some real health care reform but got a clusterfukc instead. That money is also wasted. So I fall in the side of feeling overtaxed.

The Realclearpolitics.com poll averages has the Reps gaining 8 seats. If you look closer at some of the states that are currently polling blue show they may even gain 9 or 10 which would give them control. It is quite dramatic.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/senate/2010_elections_senate_map_no_toss_ups.html

Dude, the stick the word "socialist" in every argument is getting old.

Strangely enough it's the "socialist" than can buy four houses in Texas - in cash - for the price of one in their own country.

Why are you proud that housing is 4 times the cost of ours? That would seem to be a negative to me.

Stereotypes, the mothers milk of the left. Gotta love it.

66% Say America Is Overtaxed

Sunday, April 11, 2010

When thinking about all the services provided by federal, state and local governments, 75% of voters nationwide say the average American should pay no more than 20% of their income in taxes. However, the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that most voters (55%) believe the average American actually pays 30% or more of their income in taxes.

Sixty-six percent (66%) believe that America is overtaxed. Only 25% disagree.

Lower income voters are more likely than others to believe the nation is overtaxed.

Not surprisingly, the tax issue provokes a wide gap between the Political Class and Mainstream Americans. Eighty-one percent (81%) of Mainstream American voters believe the nation is overtaxed, while 74% of those in the Political Class disagree (see more about the Political Class and Mainstream Americans).

Eighty-one percent (81%) of Republicans believe the nation is overtaxed. So do 73% of voters not affiliated with either major party. Democrats are evenly divided on the question.

Among those who consider themselves part of the Tea Party movement, 96% believe the nation is overtaxed, and only one percent (1%) disagree.

These figures help explain why candidate Barack Obama promised to cut taxes for 95% of all Americans during Election 2008. Shortly after the election, Scott Rasmussen wrote a Wall Street Journal column noting how Obama won the White House by campaigning like Ronald Reagan. Currently, only eight percent (8%) believe their taxes will be cut during the Obama presidency, while 46% expect a tax hike.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/taxes/april_2010/66_say_america_is_overtaxed

Outside its mandate? Can you specifically site what you are referring to? Who in your opinion should regulate pollutants?

They do it all the time,

Court shoots down ethanol mandate, says EPA overstepped its authority.

(ethanol mandate for reformulated gasoline, Environmental Protection Agency)

WASHINGTON -- A federal court Friday struck down the ethanol mandate for reformulated gasoline (RFG) issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) last year.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia agreed with oil executives that EPA had no authority to require a market share for renewable oxygenates.

EPA had required that 15% of oxygenates for RFG in 1995 come from renewable sources -- essentially ethanol, made from corn. The requirement was to rise to 30% next year.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-16894374.html

Did the EPA Overstep Its Powers?

May 25, 2000|By Gary M. Galles

THE CLEAN AIR ACT directed the EPA to set air pollution standards "requisite to protect the public health." So, in 1997, when the EPA announced tighter ozone standards and created new standards for fine particulate matter, which would have more than tripled the number of U.S. counties (to 411, including all of Southern California) not in compliance, it claimed "compelling new scientific evidence" as its justification.

Those standards were then challenged on both scientific and constitutional grounds. Despite EPA administrator Carol Browner's claim that overturning them would mean "125 million Americans . . . will breathe air that doesn't meet health standards based on modern science," the Washington, D.C., Court of Appeals found that the EPA "failed to state intelligibly" the scientific basis for them.

http://articles.sfgate.com/2000-05-25/opinion/17647444_1_ozone-rules-new-ozone-epa-administrator-carol-browner

COURT RULES EPA OVERSTEPPED ON CLEAN-AIR POLICY

The trucking industry’s biggest association is applauding a federal appeals court ruling that the Environmental Protection Agency’s setting of air pollution rules amounts to an “unconstitutional delegation of legislative power.”

The decision will require the Clean Air Act to be substantially rewritten and EPA’s bounds of authority redrawn.

The ruling was a victory for the American Trucking Assns. and other industry groups that filed suit against EPA new pollution standards the agency set two years ago. The groups said complying with the standards would cost them $45 billion a year.

The decision did not completely set aside the new ozone standards, but said they could not be enforced under the section of the clean-air law. The court set aside the coarse particulate matter standards and told EPA to develop different ones.

“What EPA lacks is any determinate criterion for drawing lines,” the court said. “It has failed to state intelligibly how much [pollution] is too much.”

The panel reinforced the fact that EPA must follow the law as written by Congress and cannot just implement its own open-ended policy preferences, as Section 109 of the act allows. “The maximum stringency would send industry not just to the brink of ruin but hurtling over it, while the minimum stringency may be close to doing nothing at all,” the court said.

EPA said it planned to recommend an appeal to the Justice Department. But if it loses in the courts, EPA said it would then call on Congress to “preserve these protections.”

http://www.heavydutytrucking.com/1999/07/052c9907.asp

So you're saying you're a changed man, Gary?

No, I am not him either.

Quick, somebody get the man a waaaaaaaaaaaahmbulance!

Tell you what, GFY.

You will find me disagreeing with you about whether or not the EPA is acting within its mandate as enacted by Congress.

Back to the topic. I do think that the EPA is acting outside its mandate. It now has the power to change the very way our country is run. It can, in effect, mandate profound changes to our economy without any oversite from congress. Doesn't that bother you at all?

Yes, it's all about you isn't it?

Please review my posts. Look for one instance where I refer to you as left, right, yellow, purple or polka dotted, let alone 'RWN'. Look for any reference from me using the phrase 'RWN' at all. You will not find one. What you will find in my posts is a concern that we have a too-shrill debate that has polarized left/right on issues that really shouldn't be thought of as left/right. How is that an attack just on the right? Or on you? You will find me disagreeing with you about whether or not the EPA is acting within its mandate as enacted by Congress. Surely I'm allowed to disagree with you, without attacking you, yes?

As to Steven, he can speak for himself.

Ok, more Steven than you. I just feel ganged up on for voicing an opinion. I am NOT a RWN.

@scandal and Steven. First of all, where in the world do you get the idea that I am some sort of a RWN? Where have I ever said anything that would cause you to label me as such? Just because I worry that a government agency is overreaching makes me so? In that case your opinion means nothing because you are falling into the catagory of a left wing nut. For the record, I never liked the EPA or the power granted it. Not just since Obama became president but since Nixon created it. And I was equally upset at Bush and his power grabs. I was hoping that Obama would live up to the hype and bring back transparancy to the government, I actually voted for him with that hope in mind. But to my dismay he is even worse than Bush. I am on the fence as far as Man Made GW goes. I really don't know. I don't think that we can do much to change it if we are in fact causing it with our CO2. It would require a total revamping of our economy and our way of life. If that would "save the world" then I suppose it would be worth the pain but the reality is that even if we reduced our CO2 to zero the rest of the world would just continue on and nothing would change except our own demise financialy. I would rather see us plan and prepare for what is coming. That we can do.

Ok, so discuss. You apparently have some view on the subject, right?

Do you agree with the gist of the article you posted, or disagree? Or did you just pick it randomly without having any opinion about it whatsoever?

After the welcome I got from Steven I must admit that I am a bit apprehensive to voice an opinion. But since you asked, I do think that this administration is using means other than laws passed by congress to get their objectives done. The power the EPA holds does give me a bit of pause. If the government wants to call CO2 a dangerous substance, fine, pass a law and regulate it. To do an end run through the EPA takes the checks and balances that normally regulates our government out of the equation.

From the Washington Times...which has about as much journalistic credibility as the back of a cereal box. Thanks for playin, Mister Troll.

Did you take "self important azzhole" lessons or does it come naturally to you? I guess unless something comes from your list of "approved" sites it has no merit. What a shame Steven, what happened to you? It is sad to see what you have become.

You think the EPA is in violation of the Constitution? If so, explain.

I didn't say a thing, I posted a story for discussion.

*cough* Bill *cough*

Well, I don't know who Bill is. Like I said, you assume a lot brother. I remembered you as an all right guy, Tried not to hurt peoples feelings, seemed fair and middle of the road. Two years later you are now spitefull, hatefull and judgmental. You have also seemed to have gone off the deep end of the left side of the pool. Sorry man, if this is what VJOT does to people maybe it was a good thing I left when I did.

Anyone who doe not agree with him is a Wing Nut, where you been? keemosabre

I used to lurk here a few years ago, got away from it for a while. I remembered Steven as a pretty normal guy back then. I see he has changed quite a bit.

The Washington Times is a Right Wing Nut publication, owned and operated by the nutty Reverend Moon. Anyone who quotes anything they publish as the gospel is therefore a nut himself or at least an enabler.

Hmm... I guess I missed the part where I said it was gospel. Like I said, you assume a lot cowboy.

You Right Wing Nuts and your imaginary understanding of the Constitution is just funny to watch. Everything you nutjobs don't agree with is unconstitutional. Oye vey!

Who are you calling a right wing nut? You assume a lot cowboy.

EPA's ginormous power grab

Congress should block agency's effort to regulate climate policy

By Iain Murray

It's a sure sign that a government agency has become overmighty when it vastly increases its budget, grabs power unconstitutionally and treats Congress with contempt. All of this applies to the Environmental Protection Agency. Unless Congress acts quickly to curb the EPA's power, it will become a huge drag on the economy. Few bodies are more deserving of cutbacks now. This year, EPA's budget (which had hovered at $7 billion to $8 billion since 1997) increased by 34 percent, to more than $10 billion for the first time ever. The budget increase does not translate into an upsurge in staffing level - which remains lower than its apex of more than 18,000 workers in 1999 - but instead represents much more patronage in the form of grants to states.

This increased patronage comes at a time when the EPA is accruing much more power. Its finding under the Clean Air Act that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare goes way beyond the powers of the act. The agency has decided it has the power to:

c License California and other states to adopt nonfederal fuel-economy standards within their borders.

c Act as co-equal (or even senior partner) with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in setting fuel-economy standards for the auto industry.

c Establish climate and energy policy for the nation.

c "Tailor," that is, amend, the Clean Air Act to avoid an administrative debacle of its own making.

As my colleague Marlo Lewis has pointed out, in each of these cases, the EPA is ignoring the plain language of the statutes and, in some cases, the constitutional requirements of the Supremacy Clause and separation of powers.

The details of each of these actions are complicated, but the basic thrust of this four-step power grab is as follows.

By granting California the power to ignore federal fuel-economy standards, the EPA created a regulatory patchwork that imposes significant burdens on the auto industry.

This led to the White House brokering a deal whereby the EPA muscles in on the NHTSA's statutory authority to regulate fuel-economy standards, something for which the EPA has no statutory authority.

The EPA claims this then compels it to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources, thereby making it the effective arbiter of national climate policy - even as Congress debates what to do about the issue.

Even the EPA seems to recognize the absurdity of the resulting regulations under the language of the Clean Air Act - which would lead to the EPA having to issue permits for fast-food franchises and large apartment buildings to emit greenhouse gases - so the agency took upon itself the power to tailor statutory language, thereby playing lawmaker, to avoid the regulatory debacle which it itself had put in motion.

Fortunately, some lawmakers have caught on to what the EPA is up to. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, Alaska Republican, was so concerned that she wrote to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, asking 13 simple questions about the proposed course of action. The reply she received was so evasive that it answered only two of the questions - and partially at that.

Congress may soon get its first real opportunity to rein in this rogue agency. Sometime between now and May 25, the Senate is expected to vote on Mrs. Murkowski's Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution of disapproval. This measure would veto the legal force and effect of EPA's endangerment finding. The EPA's nongovernmental allies are so worried about this resolution that they have engaged in a smear campaign, accusing Mrs. Murkowski and others of seeking to impose a "Dirty Air Act." She has not been intimidated, though, and her proposal is likely to come to a vote.

A rogue regulatory agency is like an oil tanker with sails. Once in motion, it takes a lot to stop it. Congress can take the wind out of the EPA's sails through the Murkowski resolution of disapproval and a significant reduction in the agency's budget.

On the other hand, if the EPA gets away with this power grab, we can expect further abuses of its authority in relation to the Clean Water Act and the National Environmental Protection Act. If it gets its way, the agency's $10 billion budget will look like chicken feed.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/apr/08/epas-ginormous-power-grab/

They say beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but this looks like a cross between Donald Duck and Cat Woman.. To each their own....

What is it with the collagen enhanced lips anyway? Is it suppost to look sexy? Or maybe make her look like a bj machine? I think it looks sick personally.

If that graph is from an actual body of science that studies the climate, I'm sure you'll find it.

Just Google any of those bodies of science I listed to find their website and from there you can search for climate records.

You really didn't answer my question. Just because a skeptic says something does that mean, to you, that he is lying?

I looked for that graph on the Science Magazine's web site but I would have to pay to see it. I did find this graph that is saying the same thing, that the planet warmed, on its own and without human intervention, in tens of years rather than thousands of years. You do trust NOAA I assume?

Medieval Warm Period - 9th to 13th Centuries

Norse seafaring and colonization around the North Atlantic at the end of the 9th century indicated that regional North Atlantic climate was warmer during medieval times than during the cooler "Little Ice Age" of the 15th - 19th centuries. As paleoclimatic records have become more numerous, it has become apparent that "Medieval Warm Period" or "Medieval Optimum" temperatures were warmer over the Northern Hemisphere than during the subsequent "Little Ice Age", and also comparable to temperatures during the early 20th century. The regional patterns and the magnitude of this warmth remain an area of active research because the data become sparse going back in time prior to the last four centuries.

The plot below, from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report (2007), shows numerous Northern Hemisphere paleoclimatic temperature reconstructions. The various studies differ in methodology, and in the underlying paleoclimate proxy data utilized, but all reconstruct the same basic pattern of cool "Little Ice Age", warmer "Medieval Warm Period", and still warmer late 20th and 21st century temperatures.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html

Sorry, but that's not from a reliable source even if you believe he's referencing from a science journal.

It's not that hard to find a body of science that studies climate:

The American Meteorological Society

American Geophysical Union

American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)

World Meteorological Organization

So your saying that the graph is in error? Why is that? Are you the type that thinks anyone that is a skeptic is also automaticly a lier? If you want I can find the same graph from the Science study but why should I have to? Facts are facts no matter who repeats them are they not?

PRINCETON, NJ -- Tea Party supporters skew right politically; but demographically, they are generally representative of the public at large. That's the finding of a USA Today/Gallup poll conducted March 26-28, in which 28% of U.S. adults call themselves supporters of the Tea Party movement.

Tea Party supporters are decidedly Republican and conservative in their leanings. Also, compared with average Americans, supporters are slightly more likely to be male and less likely to be lower-income.

In several other respects, however -- their age, educational background, employment status, and race -- Tea Partiers are quite representative of the public at large.

A Uniformly Negative Reaction to Health Bill

Over the past year, Tea Party movement activists -- originally kindled by grass-roots opposition to the economic stimulus bill and taxpayer bailouts of homeowners -- came out strongly against the Democrats' national healthcare reform plans. That stance is evident in the latest USA Today/Gallup poll, in which 87% of Tea Party supporters -- versus 50% of all Americans -- say they consider passage of healthcare reform a bad thing.

While opposition to the healthcare bill is perhaps the most distinctive characteristic of Tea Party supporters in the new poll, their views on abortion are also notable. Nearly two-thirds consider themselves "pro-life" on the abortion issue, compared with 46% of all national adults.

More generally, a separate question included in the March 26-28 poll showed that 37% of Americans view the Tea Party movement favorably and 40% unfavorably, with the remainder expressing no opinion. Predictably, Republicans and conservatives are most likely to have favorable opinions.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/127181/Tea-Partiers-Fairly-Mainstream-Demographics.aspx

Source? (What I mean by source - from an actual body of science that studies climate)

I don't know who this Hoffman guy is but he is quoting a study from the journal "Science" which is a reputable source. The graph at the botom gives the timelines.

Medieval Warm Period Rediscovered

Submitted by Doug L. Hoffman on Tue, 04/07/2009 - 12:38

A recent article in the journal Science has provided a new, detailed climate record for the Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA), also know as the Medieval Warm Period. It was the most recent pre-industrial warm period, noted in Europe and elsewhere around the globe. The researchers present a 947-year-long multi-decadal North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) reconstruction and find a persistent positive NAO during the MCA. The interesting thing is that the MCA had basically been removed from the climate record by Michael Mann's infamous “hockey stick” history graph that was adopted by the IPCC a decade ago.

More interesting, Trouet et al., based their work in part on a tree-ring–based drought reconstruction for Morocco (1049–2002) and a millennial-length speleothem-based precipitation proxy for Scotland (900–1993), a methodology similar to Mann's work. Unlike Mann, these researchers found significant climate warming during the MCA. According to the report: “The Morocco and Scotland reconstructions contain substantial multi-decadal variability that is characterized by antiphase oscillatory behavior over the last millennium.” Their reconstruction can be seen in the figure from the article seen below.

http://www.theresilientearth.com/?q=content/medieval-warm-period-rediscovered

Lovelock: 'We can't save the planet'

Professor James Lovelock, the scientist who developed Gaia theory, has said it is too late to try and save the planet.

The man who achieved global fame for his theory that the whole earth is a single organism now believes that we can only hope that the earth will take care of itself in the face of completely unpredictable climate change.

Interviewed by Today presenter John Humphrys, videos of which you can see below, he said that while the earth's future was utterly uncertain, mankind was not aware it had "pulled the trigger" on global warming as it built its civilizations.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8594000/8594561.stm

If you read or listen to what the actual climate scientists have to say - they aren't saying we stop Global Warming outright. The concern is over the accelerated rate it is happening because of CO2 emissions. Previous Global Warming periods happened over thousands of years, but we've managed to crank up the rising global temperature to a rate that will make it near impossible for life as we know it to continue.

The warming period that happened a thousand (medieval warming period?) years ago didn't take more than a few tens of years to come about.