One Political PlazaSM - Home of politics
Home | Political Digest | Active Topics | Search | Login | Register | Help
We have ordinary people from all over the world reporting information that the media simply doesn't release to you.
Read this:
 

We are not some political camp blindly advocating an agenda by following a pre-set list of bullet points. Instead, we let individuals voice their opinions and back them with facts and logical reasoning.

Among our users we have influential business owners in various industries, active and retired military, former and current government employees who share their insight and provide unprecedented level of access to information that you won't find anywhere else. Some speak anonymously using aliases, others disclose their identities (it's up to them), and we provide a way for you to hear what they have to say. Some of them only post information on our website and nowhere else! So you won't find it anywhere.

We are a community of people who gathered together specifically to discuss politics and uncover the truth behind what's happening domestically in the USA and globally in the world. Today, right this minute.

Daily, you'll be receiving our political forum digest with the latest hottest news, analysis, discussions and some things the media simply won't report to you.

Here are just some of the things being uncovered on One Political Plaza right now:

• What hurts the economy more: the welfare or the defense spending? (The answer isn't what you thought. I guarantee it.)

• Do immigrants bring more money into the economy by being consumers or do they send more "back home"? We have some hard numbers posted.

(What if we take into account the new immigrants from Syria currently headed to the US? How does that change the immigration debate?)

• Why do politicians lie? You hear people always say that politicians are all crooks. But why is that? Why can't there be more honest politicians? Or can there? (This will surprise you, as it surprised me when I found out.)

• Is the minimum wage all about the union contracts or about actually helping those at the bottom? Does it actually help? (This will definitely change your mind about the issue.)

• Furthering LGBT equality rights through lawsuits to the point of forcing businesses to serve against their beliefs. Does that violate the rights of business owners? Or does the notion of equality trump it all?

• Will Obamacare actually solve the healthcare problem in the long run, or is just a fad that will be reversed eventually? (Some interesting arguments in favor of one of the sides. Something you probably haven't considered.)

• Join in and see for yourself. This will shock you. And it's all completely FREE!

• Let me repeat that. Since for some reason a lot of people contact us asking if the membership is really free or if there is some catch: we are a social website for people who like to discuss politics and know what's happening out there. So we don't sell anything, we don't solicit for political donations, and we don't work as a recruiting front for any party or agenda. It's as simple as that.

Here is how to proceed and what to expect:

Enter your name and e-mail address below, and you'll be instantly added to our political mailing list distribution. You'll receive a one-time confirmation e-mail. Right after that, the first e-mail with today's digest will be forwarded to you. The signup process is completely automated, so you are just a few minutes away from discovering what our existing users already received earlier today. You'll get up to speed right away on what's the latest on our website, without any long introductions or other delays.

First name:

E-mail address:

Going forward, the next digest will be released in just a few hours. So if you don't sign up now, you'll also miss everything covered in it too.

 
Invite-Only Discussions
Same old attitude until Jan 20 2017
If you would like to post a reply, then please login (if you already have an account) or register (if you don't).
Dec 13, 2016 13:22:34   #
ldsuttonjr
 
December 13, 2016
Michael Bastasch

House lawmakers sent a letter to the White House Monday demanding an up-to-date list of how much federal agencies spend on global warming-related programs.

The budget law, passed in late 2015, required the Obama administration to detail all its global warming expenditures, but so far, the White House hasn't handed anything over to lawmakers.

A 2013 White House report detailed more than $20 billion in global warming-related spending and was supposed to deliver such information to Congress by June, but that didn't happen.

"We believe it is important that there be transparency and accountability with regard to the climate change related expenditures across the federal government, and that Congress and the public should know how much is spent by federal agencies, and for what purpose," lawmakers wrote.

The chairmen of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and the House Committee on Appropriations sent the letter to Shaun Donovan, director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

Congress included a provision in the last-minute budget deal that was hashed out in December, 2015, requiring OMB to submit "a comprehensive report … describing in detail all Federal agency funding, domestic and international, for climate change programs, projects, and activities in fiscal years 2015 and 2016."

The budget provision was included after President Obama pledged billions of dollars to global warming-related programs.

Obama pledged $3 billion to the United Nations Green Climate Fund and said he'd spend $10 billion on green energy research. So far, Obama's only been able to spend $500 million of his Green Climate Fund pledge.


The White House reported to Congress in 2013 that it spent $22.2 billion on global warming programs that year. That number included scientific research, international climate assistance and green energy technology subsidies.

For perspective, the $22.2 billion in global warming spending was nearly twice as much as the government said it would spend on customs and border enforcement.

Obama's 2014 budget request only asked for $12 billion to fund the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency. The White House projected it would spend $21.4 billion on global warming in 2014.

Lawmakers' request comes as President-elect Donald Trump gets ready to take office in January. Trump has said he'd deal with the U.S. national debt by growing the economy and getting rid of government waste.

Could this be a list of places to cut?

It's not clear, but the Congressional Research Service reported in 2013 the federal government spent $77 billion on global warming programs over the previous five years.

Three-quarters of that came from funding green energy production though the Department of Energy. Trump's reported Energy Secretary pick, former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, said DOE was one of the agencies he'd cut when running for president in 2012.
 
Dec 13, 2016 13:53:18   #
missinglink (a regular here)
 
You have no doubt heard of the " dine and dash " tactics of mooches getting a free meal .
Eat a large meal at a restaurant then run out on the tab. Well wait till the Obama gang
has finished their meals at the public troth and run out leaving the tab.
People will be sickened by the results . If we will be given a view of his tab. That's a big if.
Honor among thieves runs rampant across D.C.




ldsuttonjr wrote:
December 13, 2016
Michael Bastasch

House lawmakers sent a letter to the White House Monday demanding an up-to-date list of how much federal agencies spend on global warming-related programs.

The budget law, passed in late 2015, required the Obama administration to detail all its global warming expenditures, but so far, the White House hasn't handed anything over to lawmakers.
A 2013 White House report detailed more than $20 billion in global warming-related spending and was supposed to deliver such information to Congress by June, but that didn't happen.

"We believe it is important that there be transparency and accountability with regard to the climate change related expenditures across the federal government, and that Congress and the public should know how much is spent by federal agencies, and for what purpose," lawmakers wrote.

The chairmen of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and the House Committee on Appropriations sent the letter to Shaun Donovan, director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

Congress included a provision in the last-minute budget deal that was hashed out in December, 2015, requiring OMB to submit "a comprehensive report … describing in detail all Federal agency funding, domestic and international, for climate change programs, projects, and activities in fiscal years 2015 and 2016."

The budget provision was included after President Obama pledged billions of dollars to global warming-related programs.

Obama pledged $3 billion to the United Nations Green Climate Fund and said he'd spend $10 billion on green energy research. So far, Obama's only been able to spend $500 million of his Green Climate Fund pledge.


The White House reported to Congress in 2013 that it spent $22.2 billion on global warming programs that year. That number included scientific research, international climate assistance and green energy technology subsidies.

For perspective, the $22.2 billion in global warming spending was nearly twice as much as the government said it would spend on customs and border enforcement.

Obama's 2014 budget request only asked for $12 billion to fund the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency. The White House projected it would spend $21.4 billion on global warming in 2014.

Lawmakers' request comes as President-elect Donald Trump gets ready to take office in January. Trump has said he'd deal with the U.S. national debt by growing the economy and getting rid of government waste.

Could this be a list of places to cut?

It's not clear, but the Congressional Research Service reported in 2013 the federal government spent $77 billion on global warming programs over the previous five years.

Three-quarters of that came from funding green energy production though the Department of Energy. Trump's reported Energy Secretary pick, former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, said DOE was one of the agencies he'd cut when running for president in 2012.
December 13, 2016 br Michael Bastasch br br Hous... (show quote)
 
          
Invite-Only Discussions
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2016 IDF International Technologies, Inc.