Homeland Security to fight....Global Warming??

[BT]

Either way, it didn't exist before, and is now being put in place, specifially to deal with the unproven science of Global warming, using our tax dollars

So this task force is costing us additional dollars? How much? How many new employees were hired to staff this additional layer of bureaucracy?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[sirs]

Yes, because of course, a NEW Government program, takes no money to run.  And Obamacare is fully funded, and won't cost us a cent or any increase in our debt or deficit

Let's put it this way Bt, if you want to hold onto the notion that a new Government division is taking money from another source within their dept or Federal budget, lessening what the other dept was to get, you go right ahead and believe that pipedream

Until I see it though, I'm going to base my deductions on current reality and Federal Governmental trends

[BT]

Yes, because of course, a NEW Government program, takes no money to run.

Then it shouldn't be too hard to give me the figures i requested, because you are certain that this is an additional layer of bureaucracy and all.

[sirs]

Apparently, you're not paying attention.  I'd reference you to the post above, but since you're responding to it, and obviously ignoring it, then I guess we've hit our end here

[BT]

Apparently, you're not paying attention.  I'd reference you to the post above, but since you're responding to it, and obviously ignoring it, then I guess we've hit our end here

Yeah once again you get caught making stuff up out of thin air and end up sputtering and stammering on your way out the door.

BTW neither the CIA nor the FBI reports to the HSD director.



 

[sirs]

Again, with the not paying attention.  Ever since the Mosque debacle. Sad, really.  What part of Until I see it though, I'm going to base my deductions on current reality and Federal Governmental trends, could you not understand??

Because, your "counter-arguement" is no different, and is based on nothing but your current.....dare I say, stammering

[kimba1]

I think I understand whats happening,DHS is a unregulated dept. and by it`s nature will not be able do it`s core function well. this is just proof DHS doesn`t know what thier job is anymore. in a decade from now it`ll probly be like the IRS, highly feared but get the most minimul budget

[BT]

Again, with the not paying attention.

Sure I am:

You said:

Yes, because of course, a NEW Government program, takes no money to run.  And Obamacare is fully funded, and won't cost us a cent or any increase in our debt or deficit.

Let's put it this way Bt, if you want to hold onto the notion that a new Government division is taking money from another source within their dept or Federal budget, lessening what the other dept was to get, you go right ahead and believe that pipedream

This isn't a new government program, it is a task force. I seriously doubt anyone was hired nor permanently transferred to this new non-existent layer of bureaucracy.

What it is is lipservice to the base, ecoreligionists in particular. And I say so what. If they come up with a better, more cohesive plan for the what ifs involved with global warming, man made or not, then we as a nation are better off than we were with sub par non cohesive planning. So pardon me if i don't share your outrage.

In the meantime try not to confuse my approval for government thinking ahead, otherwise known as planning, as some deep seeded belief that the best government is one that spends, spends, and spends.

I think we need to follow up on this poorly written story  and see what the end result of this nefarious task force is.

[sirs]

Let's put it this way Bt, if you want to hold onto the notion that a new Government division is taking money from another source within their dept or Federal budget, lessening what the other dept was to get, you go right ahead and believe that pipedream

This isn't a new government program, it is a task force.

Right.....and a fee isn't a tax

I seriously doubt anyone was hired nor permanently transferred to this new non-existent layer of bureaucracy.

And I seriously doubt your present deductive doubt

What it is is lipservice to the base, ecoreligionists in particular. And I say so what.

Well, considering the source of the lip service, and the consistent pattern of spending connected to the adminstrative lip service, I guess I have a tad more concern about our tax dollars than you do

If they come up with a better, more cohesive plan for the what ifs involved with global warming, man made or not, then we as a nation are better off than we were with sub par non cohesive planning. So pardon me if i don't share your outrage.

And that's just it...if they HAD promoted this as some form of new task force, to work on contingincies, that needed shoring up for lack of being modernized, that'd be one thing.  But words have meaning.  and words that demonstrate a plan to use tax dollars in a dept who's priorities now are completely upside down, following non-established science is the height of arrogance and fiscal irresponsibility.  But hey, if you have so much faith in the governent running things, no wonder you don't have a problem with them running healthcare, be it state or Fed.  Just VAT it, and whalaa, our healthcare is all fixed.
 

[BT]

Sirs says:

Right.....and a fee isn't a tax

For those who know the difference, a fee is not a tax.

Sirs says:

And that's just it...if they HAD promoted this as some form of new task force, to work on contingincies, that needed shoring up for lack of being modernized, that'd be one thing.  But words have meaning.  and words that demonstrate a plan to use tax dollars in a dept who's priorities now are completely upside down, following non-established science is the height of arrogance and fiscal irresponsibility.  But hey, if you have so much faith in the governent running things, no wonder you don't have a problem with them running healthcare, be it state or Fed.  Just VAT it, and whalaa, our healthcare is all fixed.

Words do have meanings. Results have more meaning. That was my point. If your point was that the government should not be spending taxpayer dollars based on unsettled science, wouldn't that same argument hold true in the Arizona Christmas thread?

[sirs]

Sirs says:

Right.....and a fee isn't a tax

For those who know the difference, a fee is not a tax.

The State of California has concluded otherwise

And that's just it...if they HAD promoted this as some form of new task force, to work on contingincies, that needed shoring up for lack of being modernized, that'd be one thing.  But words have meaning.  and words that demonstrate a plan to use tax dollars in a dept who's priorities now are completely upside down, following non-established science is the height of arrogance and fiscal irresponsibility.  But hey, if you have so much faith in the governent running things, no wonder you don't have a problem with them running healthcare, be it state or Fed.  Just VAT it, and whalaa, our healthcare is all fixed.

Words do have meanings. Results have more meaning.

When the results are taking tax dollars and applying it towards unsettled science, and hiding behind "economic justice", THOSE results have more meaning

If your point was that the government should not be spending taxpayer dollars based on unsettled science, wouldn't that same argument hold true in the Arizona Christmas thread?

I'm not the one arguing that "Government doesn't do religion", nor is religion "unsettled science"  In fact, it's not science at all

[BT]

Sirs says:

The State of California has concluded otherwise

Source

Sirs sez:

When the results are taking tax dollars and applying it towards unsettled science, and hiding behind "economic justice", THOSE results have more meaning

I would certainly hope that whatever contingencies arise consider the economically disadvantaged. Perhaps evacuation planning that includes the use of mass transit...

Sirs sez:

I'm not the one arguing that "Government doesn't do religion", nor is religion "unsettled science"  In fact, it's not science at all

But you have argued that the location of an offensive (to some) symbol does matter.

[sirs]

The State of California has concluded otherwise

Source

Prop 26, passed by the people, of the state of CA

When the results are taking tax dollars and applying it towards unsettled science, and hiding behind "economic justice", THOSE results have more meaning

I would certainly hope that whatever contingencies arise consider the economically disadvantaged. Perhaps evacuation planning that includes the use of mass transit...

Your "hope" aside, again has nothing to do with the reason for the existance of the DHS.  But we can debate the supposed priorities of the dept for another thread.  Suffice to say, in this thread, the point remains, that the Federal Government is implimenting yet another bureaucratic body, using our tax dollars, to deal with an issue that hasn't even been scientifically settled, if not debunked 

I'm not the one arguing that "Government doesn't do religion", nor is religion "unsettled science"  In fact, it's not science at all

But you have argued that the location of an offensive (to some) symbol does matter.

To those some that have brought forth civil litigation and support the Government banning all forms of Christmas decor, that would be THEIR arguement

[sirs]

The State of California has concluded otherwise

Source

Prop 26, passed by the people, of the state of CA

And before Bt even tries, no it doesn't say fee = tax.  It says, quite clearly though, that it is to be address as a tax.  It was put on the ballot precisely because Democrat legislators were getting around the 2/3 majority requirement to increase taxes, by calling what would be a tax, a "fee" instead.  This passed proposition. put an end to that

[BT]

The State of California has concluded otherwise

Source

Prop 26, passed by the people, of the state of CA

And before Bt even tries, no it doesn't say fee = tax.  It says, quite clearly though, that it is to be address as a tax.  It was put on the ballot precisely because Democrat legislators were getting around the 2/3 majority requirement to increase taxes, by calling what would be a tax, a "fee" instead.  This passed proposition. put an end to that

Actually it didn't:

As used in this section, ?tax? means any levy, charge, or exaction of any kind imposed by the State, except the following:

    (1) A charge imposed for a specific benefit conferred or privilege granted directly to the payor that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the reasonable costs to the State of conferring the benefit or granting the privilege to the payor.

fees are imposed for a specific benefit conferred or privilege granted directly to the payor that is not provided to those not charged

The California Constitution did not merge the definition of fees with the definition of taxes, which do not confer specific benefit nor are the benefits granted directly.

The million dollar question remains as to what reasonable costs to the state are.

Your claim is false.