daz28

No, you will be informed of the facts. Then you get to decide if they were effective or not. It's clear to even a casual browser of this site that you're a bored troll.

It's a tax write off, but yes I don't have that specific example. I was just pointing out that subsidizing risk for millionaires to live in high risk areas is dumb. You'd think most people would agree on that. If they can afford their own repairs, they shouldn't be getting a cent.

I provided measures California has taken, which are verifiable. You claimed they were negligent, and only had forest fires, because of that. I was hoping you'd provide evidence of the culling done in other states, which makes California so negligent. Apparently, resilience is removal of vegetation, but I'm no expert and am not claiming to be. Define research? I had assumed it was looking up facts. Again, it doesn't matter where it's from or who said it if it's a verifiable fact. Personally, I'm not happy they spent all that money on protecting homes built in suspect areas, but I'm not a Cali resident, so not my money.

Because what "he said" can be accounted for in the California budget spending. There's literally receipts. Why do I have to repeat myself?

For the last 30 year period, FEMA alone has spent about $12 billion/year. There's literally a federal insurance program that subsidizes beach front properties, and that costs you and I $1.4B/year. Not only do they receive FEMA funds, but they also get massive tax relief as well. The tax relief can also be included on top of insurance claims. The last trump farmer bailout sent checks to millionaires, who weren't even farmers. There's MASSIVE grift in disaster relief: Trump USDA farmer bailout funds flowed to Mar-a-Lago neighbor instead | Environmental Working Group Look up disaster tax relief. It used to be that it had to effect 10% of your AGI income before you could apply. Biden just removed that, and now it only requires a $500 minimum loss to apply. The tax code in itself is a joke.

What I posted can be verified by looking at the budget. The money was spent on these things. They're actual, verifiable things. You're trying to tell me that even though I can show you what I got and the receipts for it, I'm still lying. Now you're trying to flip it to me "defending" California, when all I was doing was proving you had no clue what you were talking about. I've given you confirmable facts, and you're STILL here squirming. Just take the loss, and admit you know little to nothing about the situation, except that you ARE trying to undermine California. I don't live there, and I don't support socialism for millionaires, so I have no 'dog in the fight'.

You have to admit that there MUST be an underlying problem with the conundrum that is broke farmers, and consumers that can't afford their products, right? Shouldn't the farmers just raise their prices until they make a profit? Isn't that how business is supposed to work? Big AG has done a great job putting themselves into the 'too big to fail' government socialism program, which is astounding, because people WILL spend their money on food before any other good.

Glad someone gets it. If you can't afford to live in an area, without impacting the environment, then you shouldn't live there. If you can't afford the necessary insurance to protect your property, then you shouldn't live there. It's obscene to me that the average taxpayer should be rebuilding millionaire properties in Florida and California on the regular. This may seem insensitive, but America is founded on taking risks. If our broke government rebuilds someone's multimillion dollar home, and leaves them with $30M in their bank account, then that's ABSURD to me. What about the guy who couldn't afford insurance on his $100k home, who lost EVERYTHING? For him it's just bad luck and poor planning by him, right?

Mike Johnson just penned a CR with over a hundred thirty thousand dollars of "aid" to farmers and FEMA. If farmers are broke, yet people can't afford groceries, then the problem is MUCH MUCH larger than throwing billions in subsidies to big AG is going to fix. FEMA is historically bad, and it's really just socialism, with the money going to "rebuild" the areas likely going to campaign donors and contractors, that congress members are heavily invested in. Really not much different than destroying Iraq and rebuilding it(money laundering). I'm not a conspiracy guy, but it seems disasters have become big business in America. Tracking where the funds are going, and who donated what to who's campaign seems like a no-brainer to me. Fox is opinion, and they don't hide that fact. The facts I supplied are verifiable, and can be tracked by "gubernment sites" that are mandatory for reporting the spending on these items. If you'd like to provide actual EVIDENCE that anyone "swallowed propaganda", then I'm all ears, but just calling it propaganda, because you don't want to believe it, is unacceptable.

It would appear to me that you're the one with little knowledge, who's actually throwing random numbers around. Could you expand on your forest fire prevention background, and cite some of the sources you base your information on(not the Fox sound bites they want you to repeat)? Is it possible California faces conditions other states do not? Here are some things I've found that California, specifically, is doing to reduce them: Governor Newsom has dramatically ramped up state work to increase willdland and forest resilience, as well as adding unprecedented resources to support wildfire response. California officials treated more than 700,000 acres of land for wildfire resilience in 2023, and prescribed fires more than doubled between 2021 and 2023. Other steps the state has taken to protect Californians from wildfires include: Investing in wildfire resilience. The Governor’s Budget reflects a total of $4 billion which maintains $2.5 billion in prior investments and commits another $1.5 billion over the next several years. In addition, the state is investing $200 million annually through 2028-29 for healthy forest and fire prevention programs, including prescribed fire and other fuel reduction projects. Tracking wildfire prevention. California recently unveiled newly updated, first-of-their-kind dashboards that will help Californians track the state’s wildfire prevention work. More boots on the ground than ever before. The administration is implementing shorter workweeks for state firefighters to prioritize firefighter wellbeing, while adding 2,000 additional state firefighters to CAL FIRE’s ranks over the next five years. Expanding the world’s largest aerial firefighting fleet. Governor Newsom has overseen the expansion of California’s aerial firefighting fleet, including the addition of more than 16 helicopters with several equipped for night operations, expanded five helitack bases, and assumed ownership of seven C-130 air tankers, making it the largest fleet of its kind globally. The state also adds to its world-leading air attack capacity through recent new funding to contract 24 additional non-state owned firefighting aircraft. Cutting-edge drone technology. CAL FIRE has doubled its use of drones for critical tasks like aerial ignition during prescribed burns, wildfire containment, and real-time assessments. Artificial intelligence and real-time data tools. The state is leveraging AI-powered tools to spot fires quicker and the Fire Integrated Real-Time Intelligence System (FIRIS) to provide real-time mapping of wildfires. Advanced mapping and satellite technology. California has partnered with the U.S. Department of Defense to use satellites for wildfire detection and invested in LiDAR technology to create detailed 3D maps of high-risk areas, helping firefighters better understand and navigate complex terrains. Greater capabilities for incident reporting. CAL FIRE has expanded its capabilities for incident reporting at fire.ca.gov, updating the incident map with near real time information about firefighting aircraft activity, 3-D maps with evacuation orders, local shelter information, road closures, and more.

It is a grift. The GQP needs a scapegoat for why they're cutting things that are helping Americans, and helping billionaires, while refusing to even consider the bloated military industrial complex. I'm STILL waiting for any evidence that supply side economics was worth $36 trillion in debt it gave us, instead of just blaming the spending side of the equation. Don't get me wrong, there's plenty of grift and waste in government, and I'm hopeful they can identify, and correct some of it.

It's all over the news today. Google: one big beautiful bill. I'd also urge some research on how both parties have historically abused the crap out of reconciliation, which is basically just a way to circumvent the filibuster, and pass partisan legislation.

The plan is to throw everything into one big bill, and ram it through with reconciliation. Let's see where all the "single issue bill" people stand on this idea. I'm guessing they'll love it, but only if they're hypocrite right wingers. This was supposedly a process that would help reduce deficit spending, but is badly abused. My favorite part is threatening the "UNELECTED" parliamentarian with firing, which I believe they did in 2001 to push Bush tax cuts if I'm not mistaken.

Now if only there was a way to cross reference campaign donations to this list.

The trump train may as well have, 'The Military Industrial Complex' written right on the side of it. He's not a war hawk and I appreciate that, but he's not great at making peace either. Absolutely no one on either side has ANY intention of ever defunding it. The idea that other countries fear trump, and mind their P's and Q's because of it, is a myth.

What happened to the people seeing through the democrats BS? I thought it only helped them get elected. You may as well stop, because I'll never allow hypocritical nonsense to slide. Don't be shocked to see MG back in politics soon, and it's because the GQP is NOT the party of values anymore. That's quite apparent.

I don't believe he's a "pedophile", but from the information I've seen, it appears he did have sex with a person underage. I also believe what HE literally called "funds" were a payment. I'm asking YOU why you can in one instance claim he must be innocent if they didn't prosecute, yet still claim they'll indict anyone on flimsy charges if they're a member of the GQP. That's YOUR conundrum, not mine. fund [fənd] noun funds (plural noun) a sum of money saved or made available for a particular purpose:

I think we can agree to agree Merry Christmas to all.

You've provided you own conundrum. Why didn't the corrupt Biden DOJ, that has no issue whatsoever bringing false charges against enemies of the democrats, bring charges against a pedophile? Seems to me you believe lack of evidence hasn't been a problem before, right?

Right. Why even create a report, that they can read for themselves. Just pay someone $5 to write whatever MAGA wants to hear, and save us a ton of money. Why waste all this money gathering those silly facts.

Maybe we shouldn't vote for someone 78 years old, and that will greatly reduce the possibility. Please don't use Mitch as the bastion against perversion of democratic processes.

I mean they could have made the pages bigger and the print smaller, too. All that matters is how much is spent. They screwed the people over to literally make the bill look 'smaller'. Miniscule spending cuts or offsets. That's why the "rinos" still hated it, and the dems loved it.

The people got screwed, because they spent a ton of money, that we have no clue if it will be used wisely. Over 1/10th of a trillion dollars on "disaster relief". Sure we had some disasters in the not too distant past, but that number is ABSURDLY high. Over $20B for struggling farmers. How can the farmers be struggling if no one can afford groceries? That's basically an admission that agriculture is now a 100% government subsidized entity, aka socialism. The tax and spend democrats won by getting everything they wanted, AND splattered egg on the GQP's face. The GQP's only win was once again convincing their cult followers, who believe anything they say, that they stopped the democrats from 'porking' up the bill. This was a lie, and the bill had the same spending it always had. Everyone with a brain should know that red states love pork just as much as blue ones. What should anger us ALL is that this spending benefits their donors more than it does the people.

President-elect Donald Trump has said the quiet part out loud, admitting he wants Congress to eliminate the debt ceiling under President Joe Biden’s administration. Trump’s calls for getting rid of the debt ceiling is a break from decades of Republican party opposition to raising debt limits. "Number one, the debt ceiling should be thrown out entirely," Trump told CBS News in a Thursday phone interview. "Number two, a lot of the different things they thought they'd receive [in a proposed spending deal] are now going to be thrown out, 100%. And we'll see what happens.” “We'll see whether or not we have a closure during the Biden administration,” he added. “But if it's going to take place, it's going to take place during Biden, not during Trump." On the brink of a government shutdown, Trump has put Republican Speaker of the House Mike Johnson in a bind after his criticisms pushed Johnson to scrap a government spending bill that would have allocated three months of federal funding to keep the government open. Republican leaders then introduced a slimmed-down bill that, at the behest of Trump, would suspend the debt ceiling for two years until Jan. 30, 2027. With 38 Republicans voting ‘no’ on the bill, it, too, failed.

Mike Johson held the pen that struck the cancer funding from the CR that passed. Was it a shrewd political move by Chuck to put it on the floor now? Yes. Was it a bad move for MJ to scratch it from the CR? Also, yes. Nancy Mace has been on Fox news now TWICE stating that the "trimmed down" bill had the same spending as the original, minus the procedural pages. I'm just giving you facts, even though I know you have no intention of consuming them. I did a little research on the research funding myself, and the bill that Johnson sent back in spring funded it for 7 more years. Apparently, this is a continuation, and from my experience with bureaucracy and funding, it's much wiser to reconsider it every single year. I'm not aware if the text in the CR version was also 7 years, but if it were only 1 year, then Chuck did a masterful job of ensuring that if the research wasn't going well, then the funds would be guaranteed wasted money.