"The President's budget, Among Other Things, Cuts the Home Heating Program by 14%." - Grayson. Why?

[grahamhgreen]

Why would you cut heat for the poor?

It's the thing that lets people stay warm in the winter.

Why is this at the top of the list?

Can one of the budget supporters explain this? 3d chess? Brilliant bargaining? Why?

[MotherPetrie]

1. I'd like to hear the answer to that one too.

[Jakes Progress]

2. Uh. Maybe it's a fourth dimension thing.

Or maybe it the administration just being sensible - as a woodchuck. Got that "bringing the people together" legacy and stuff to worry about. Well. When it's freezing and you have no heat, people come together.

[Recursion]

3. Because the supply of money isn't infinite?

You're always going to find things we want to spend more on.

[Lars39]

6. US citizens physical needs should come first.

[Recursion]

7. Before *anything* else? So no education funding until everyone has a house and food?

That's going to be a pretty big change in policy there.

[hfojvt]

8. maybe before tax cuts to the top 5%

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022130101

Or is it too much to ask to have a "Democratic" President who opposes the Republican talking point of "the country cannot afford all this social spending" instead of embracing it?

I know that is what I was HOPING for in 2008.

[Lars39]

27. Cut the military budget and fund both.

[Amonester]

54. End the useless war on drugs & tax consumers.

And many other alternatives, but the self-imposed blindfold is too stRong, I guess.

It should not be.

[JDPriestly]

65. Education is worthless if kids are hungry and cold at home.

It used to be that we burned wood or coal, then oil in our homes. The wood and coal was not good for our respiratory systems but at least we were warm.

Yes. Heat and feed people and then think about education.

[Arugula Latte]

15. We can cut, oh, about a trillion fucking dollars out of the corporo-military budget

without anyone missing anything. I'm pretty sure Canada won't invade us, even if we do that.

[Recursion]

17. And I'd like to raise the minimum wage to $25/hour.

Really, I would.

Now, if we can get back to actually achievable proposals for a second...

[Arugula Latte]

18. Cutting even a tiny, tiny fraction of the military budget should cover heating

and President Obama needs to get out there and say that it's ridiculous to consider cutting these meager social programs when there is untold fat and waste in the military. He could wage a PR battle.

But, of course, that won't happen.

[Recursion]

19. We've cut the military budget significantly over the past year.

Remember the whole sequester thing?

[Dragonfli]

26. Have we cut it by 14%? If not what is the actual percentage the military budget was reduced?

[Recursion]

29. Roughly 20% as projected

Though that includes the Iraq and Afghanistan drawdowns, and the Pentagon is good at backloading cuts, so it's difficult to tease out what's what. The sequester package takes defense from 4.3% of GDP to about 2% in 8 years.

[Dragonfli]

42. So 2.5% in this years budget? Great news if not just a meaningless projection

That should be enough to avoid poor people having to risk freezing to death.

[neverforget]

34. And the funding is back next year in his new Budget.

http://comptroller.defense.gov/defbudget/fy2014/FY2014_Budget_Request_Overview_Book.pdf

FY 2013 $527.5 billion
FY 2014 $526.6 billion

That's a -$900 million difference between FY 2013 and 2014. Big whoop.

[Recursion]

44. Ah, the Republican trick of comparing nominal rather than constant dollars!

I wish I were surprised to see that here at DU, alas.

2014 dollars are not 2013 dollars.

[Dragonfli]

62. Then since the 14% cut in LIHEAP is represented the same way, it is also a trick. Or

We all misread the numbers and should now assume instead that LIHEAP total dollars will remain relatively the same just as the defense dollars will?

[neverforget]

70. This is Obama's budget.

[Dragonfli]

74. The poster is accusing Obama of using a Republican trick?

I thought the Republican trick being used here was the old trick of cutting from the poor that can least afford it as a first resort.

[neverforget]

75. I guess he is....doesn't make much sense as it's Obama's budget straight from the Pentagon.

When it comes to cuts, it never changes though. The needy take the cuts while MIC feeds.

[Dragonfli]

55. That doesn't look like much of a cut, projections above must be meaningless

The answer I received above then is also meaningless.

If you've heard a number for how much the US spends on the military, it's probably in the neighborhood of $530 billion. That's the Pentagon's base budget for fiscal 2013, and represents a 2.5 percent cut from 2012. But that $530 billion is merely the beginning of what the US spends on national security. Let's dig a little deeper.
The Pentagon's base budget doesn't include war funding....
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/05/national-security-budget-1-trillion-congress

Another thing, unless I misunderstood the poster's claim, that 20% cut over 8 years (supposed 2.5% this year I guess) included savings in draw downs from wars, but war spending isn't included in the base defense budget, nor is it included in the budget overview. Defense spending with all it's trimmings is over a trillion dollars. We can and should be able to not cut needed heating assistance with a giant bloated elephant in the room like that. Just my opinion, but I actually care about the people in this country and so can't so easily dismiss the fact that many suffer and some die in the winter if they aren't wealthy and can't get assistance.

With US troops withdrawn from Iraq and troop levels falling in Afghanistan, you might think that war funding would be plummeting as well. In fact, it will drop to a mere $88 billion in fiscal 2013. By way of comparison, the federal government will spend around $64 billion on education that same year.

[aggiesal]

61. The sequester did not cut the military budget

The sequester cut the INCREASE in military budget
from the scheduled 5% to the current 2%.

[Dragonfli]

63. The poster above is calling a slower increase in spending a significant cut?

Should have known. This guy thinks that FICA is part of the budget and so is the SS trust fund, he will not back down from that.
Stubborn as hell.

[Arugula Latte]

97. Bullshit. That bloated budget could be slashed and slashed and slashed and still be WAY too much.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022725454

[grahamhgreen]

100. But it's doubled in the last ten years. All for BS wars and a security state that is obviously not

making us any safer.

[grahamhgreen]

99. You can't achieve it, if you don't fight for it.

[Cal Carpenter]

21. Holy shit

a pittance for the poor so they can have HEAT in the fucking WINTER is NOT THE PLACE TO CUT.

For fuck's sake.

If you are going to defend this shit than come out and defend it for real.

Admit that you think a military budget larger than most major countries *combined* needs to be protected while poor elderly folks freeze to death in this country. That you think the obscenely wealthy should continue to amass even MORE wealth and power.


The miniscule impact this cut will have on the federal budget vs the impact it would have on the families who benefit from it....just think about that for a fucking second. Be a fucking human being.

Unconscionable. I haven't used that word as many times in my life as I have in the last 2 weeks, seeing the way people are defending the WORST parts of the budget proposal.

Unconscionable. Indefensible.

Of course money isn't infinite (well, actually that's arguable). That's why capitalism is failing so fucking miserably. But even in this framework we have MORE THAN ENOUGH money and resources to heat the homes of the poor, provide health CARE to all, provide proper public education to ALL. Yet we chip it away and chip it away so that the richest families and corporations can keep getting richer. By exploiting the resources and labor of everyone else.

TAX THE FUCKING RICH!!! CUT THE FUCKING MILITARY BLOATED BUDGET>

AAAAARRGHGHGH>>>....

[Recursion]

22. I wish the world were as simple as you imagine it

That would make a lot of this easier.

[Cal Carpenter]

23. I repeat:

If you are going to defend this shit than come out and defend it for real.

None of this passive aggressive strawman shit.

Defend it. Why won't you defend your arguments? Are you even making arguments? Or are you just being mocking and dismissive of people who actually have real concerns about the real impacts of the actual policies being proposed?

[Recursion]

25. I have defended it. The fact that you can't process the finitude of resources is not my problem

There is X amount of money Obama can spend in the budget, and he wants the budget to pass. This is a system with multiple constraints. I neither asked for that nor like it. I will not warp my morality to meet your simplistic view of the world.

[Cal Carpenter]

30. The fact that you can't process

the words TAX THE RICH is not my problem.

You are the one oversimplifying. Your argument is:

Money and resources are not infinite, so substantial reductions in heating assistance for the poor is a logical place to cut costs.

In the face of growing inequality, where the wealthiest 1% of the US population has 42% of the nation's financial wealth, you think it makes sense to cut heating for the poor.

And then you try to tell *me* about morality?

Yeah, I think I've said all I need in this subthread. Last word is yours.

[Recursion]

32. I want to tax the rich more. Obama wants to tax the rich more.

You're still stuck on this myth that what Obama "actually wants" is the problem here.

[cprise]

50. He is only saying the money is finite

...and doesn't seem to care about what resources are available.

His whole view of the issue has been defined by the Finance sector.

[Flying Squirrel]

71. Money is only finite when it comes to the poor.

When the banksters are in trouble, they print more of it and the amount they're willing to give as a bailout is virtually limitless.

[Cal Carpenter]

76. DING DING DING ^^^^^^^^

[progressoid]

38. OFFS Even Alan (catfood) Simpson thinks it's a bad idea

LIHEAP
–
The Facts. After many years of underfunding the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), Congress funded the program at $5.1 billion in FY2009 and FY2010. Unfortunately, since then, funding for LIHEAP has been cut drastically to $4.7billion in FY2011 and less than $3.5 billion in FY2013. This represents a 30 percent decline in funding since 2010.
There are many reasons why we need to provide AT LEAST $4.7 billion this year. Here are just a few:

1.
Poverty is at historic rates: As a result of the economic downtown and the increase in poverty and unemployment, the number of low income households eligible for LIHEAP in 2013 will continue to climb. In fact, the U.S. Census recently reported that 46.2 million people live in poverty, the largest number in the 52 year history of published poverty estimates (The poverty line is $22,113 for a family of four). According to the National Energy Assistance Director’s Association (NEADA), last year LIHEAP provided vital energy assistance to 8.9 million of our country’s most vulnerable households.

2.
Energy burden continues to climb: A recent study found that more than half of U.S. households now devote more than 20 percent of their family budget toward energy costs, nearly double what they spent just ten years ago. Additionally, the energy burden for low income households is much higher often three times more than non low income households. For millions of Americans living on low and fixed incomes, a surging energy burden means less money for other necessities such as food, housing and health care. According to the U.S. Energy Information and Administration (EIA) March 2013 Short Term Energy Outlook, household expenditures this winter for heating oil and natural are projected to increase by 19 percent and 15 percent, respectively.

3.
LIHEAP Supports Veterans and Seniors: According to NEADA, the number of veteran households served by LIHEAP increased by more than 150 percent over three years from about 700,000 in FY 2008 to 1.78 million in FY 2011, which represents an increase from 12 percent of total LIHEAP recipients to 20 percent since 2008. Additionally, roughly 40 percent of the LIHEAP recipients are Seniors. With Social Security benefits increasing by only 1.7 percent this year, or an average of $19 per month, many elderly will be facing difficult decisions.

4.
LIHEAP Helps America’s Most Vulnerable: Under LIHEAP, states set eligibility rates to assist lower income families. Roughly 75% of households that are helped earn <$15,000 and 50% earn <$10,000/year. Virtually all LIHEAP households have a loved one of very modest means who is elderly, disabled, or a child under six.

5.
LIHEAP makes homes safer for children: Infants and toddlers living in inadequately heated or cooled households are at greater risk of serious developmental health problems. According to a February 2011 Children’s Health Watch study, when compared to families that don’t receive LIHEAP, families who received energy assistance were less likely to be at risk for growth problems and less likely to be hospitalized when seeking care for acute medical problems. Additionally, families receiving LIHEAP were 14 percent more likely to be housing secure than families not receiving assistance. Without adequate resources to pay utility bills, vulnerable households may resort to unsafe and dangerous heating sources such as ovens and space heaters.

6.
Cutting LIHEAP is not the way to balance the budget: While tough decisions need to be made to help us reduce our nation's overall debt, LIHEAP is an essential program that is meeting the basic needs our most vulnerable population. Alan Simpson, Co-Chair of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, testified to the Senate Budget Committee that he would not support the 50 percent reduction to LIHEAP to help reduce the deficit. That sentiment was shared by respondents to a February 2011 NBC/WSJ poll. When asked if they would cut “heating assistance to low income families” to help reduce the current federal budget deficit, a majority (65 percent) of respondents indicated that a cut to LIHEAP is “unacceptable.”

[bvar22]

46. So the essence of your argument is...

...that in the Wealthiest Nation on the Planet
we have more important things to spend our money on
than keeping our most vulnerable Americans warm during the Winter?

...and YOU personally would really like to see them stay warm,
but you are the only one here smart enough and sensible enough to understand the Reality of our budget situation?


Jeeeeeeeeezzzzzzzzzz.

[font size=3] The real measure of a society is NOT how well the RICH live,
but how well the less fortunate and the most vulnerable are treated.[/font]

[Recursion]

47. OK, bvar22, write a budget that will pass

You do it, since it's clearly so ****ing easy.

I'm sick of this unicorn and pony BS. I'll be back later.

[Dragonfli]

64. I thought he wrote this budget so it won't pass to save us from CCPI?

I guess it depends on which assertion spins best at the moment.

[tkmorris]

66. Oh bullshit. THIS budget won't pass, and everyone knows it

This budget isn't intended to pass. It's a starting point to negotiate from. This is Obama saying, "Here's what I want to see. Now y'all make a counter-proposal and we'll hammer out a compromise".

I have seen no one argue yet that budget cuts should be completely off the table. The trouble is that if you are going to propose cuts the choices you make matter and proposing to cut THIS program is just fucking stupid. ESPECIALLY when you know you are going to have to negotiate further rightward from there.

[Rex]

60. +1

Gonna lose votes over this stupid proposal. It is sad watching people desperately try and rationalize these cuts. Which are completely unnecessary. All they had to do was snip some corporate welfare programs...but we all know how that works in a plutocracy.

[grahamhgreen]

101. I wish it were as difficult as you imagine it. Doing NOTHING would mean NO CUTS!!!!!!

[Oilwellian]

53. I never used to say that word either

However that has changed...it now rolls off of my tongue like silk. It does seem to ease the inner rage I feel about the direction of this country. I know locally, our utilities just went up 25%, thanks to privatization. Cuts in the home heating program will devastate the poor in my community. And to think it's proposed in a democratic president's budget. Shameful.

[grahamhgreen]

77. "Of course money isn't infinite (well, actually that's arguable)." It sure is - we print it!

[Cal Carpenter]

78. Yeah, I know, I know

but it was the middle of a good rant so I gave myself a little artistic license there


( and I tried to make up for it by DING DING DING-ing post #71)

[sabrina 1]

31. 'find things'?? Like human beings? So the poor are merely 'things' we 'want to spend money on'?

Did you know that people die for lack of heat in the US even without these cuts? I know, I know, those old widows probably should have planned ahead and not allowed their husbands to die, or grown old and feeble, or had expectations of any right to life, liberty or any pursuit of happiness. Didn't they know, those are just pretty words never intended to be taken seriously, by serious people.

But sure, we are always going to find 'things' to spend money on. Like bailing with trillions of dollars, Wall St Criminals. Who would argue that saving those crooks from a slight drop in their standard of living was not more important than saving the life of a poor, elderly woman?

One big flaw in your comment, aside from all the obvious ones. We DON'T 'want to spend more on those 'things' you are talking about, obviously. That is why cuts to their heating aid are in the budget. So not to worry. We KNOW our priorities here in this great nation.

[Recursion]

33. Heating oil is a thing

Did you know that people die for lack of heat in the US even without these cuts?

Oh, right, I don't agree with you so I'm obviously stupid.

Jesus this is ridiculous.

[sabrina 1]

37. Yes, it's a 'thing' that saves lives. Like water, should we cut water too? What is your point

because your comment is not making any sense. If people die from lack of something we can easily afford to provide for them (Chavez thankfully ran a cheap oil program for America's poor, so thank you Chavez, our own leaders sure don't care much about their own citizens) then we are immoral at best.

Your casual dismissal of something this important is disturbing to me. We are supposed to be the party that stops the other party from harming the poor and the elderly and the disabled. If OUR party joins THAT Party in their dismissal of the needs of the most vulnerable, then I guess people will just die and no one will care.

Until then, forgive me if I think providing heat to the poor should be a PRIORITY in this country. Wer export our oil, the people's oil, allowing huge Oil Cartels to make obscene profits from OUR oil. Where are the benefits from OUR oil to OUR people? I'm not thrilled about some foreign Oil Billionaire living in obscene luxury, while our own poor are being denied the benefits of OUR oil.

[Rex]

58. There is no argument that can rationalize his claim.

The finite money canard is great - except we all know the cuts are bullshit and will haunt us in the 2014 elections. Most of them know this...but cannot stop RAH RAHing for the POTUS. I think they are addicted to it. All they had to do was cut some corporate welfare programs...but that is out of the question...you make the working class and elderly suffer BEFORE you bite the hand that feeds you.

[grahamhgreen]

80. Yes, it is. We print it.

[NCTraveler]

4. The President is showing how serious he is about cutting the deficit.

He knew it would never pass. I'm not sure how people don't get this.


If needed.

[Joshua Pistachio]

5. What if Obama previously INCREASED the program by more than 14%?

A curious person would ask what the aid was right before Obama took office.

Did Obama increase funding for this program? Did he keep it the same and now he is reducing it by 14%?

I don't have this information in a national level, but at least in New England, Obama "doubled" funding one time. then he sought to cut it by half.

An uncurious mind would praise Grayson 3 seconds after reading his statement.

Does anyone have this info? Have energy prices gone down or up? Has aid been modified accordingly? How has aid changed at a national level during Obama's tenure?

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2011/02/obama_defends_c.html

[grahamhgreen]

11. What if marshmallows fell from the sky and we burned them? Heating costs can jump 14% in months,

Why cut this?

Why not cut corporate welfare, increase taxes, or some thin sliver of the military budget?

Or why not just leave it alone? It's a tiny bit of money compared to the Billions we spend every week in Afghanistan.

Why freeze granny first?







PS: I would like to be the first to welcome your new persona to DU! Tough economy. Have compassion.

[hfojvt]

12. What if some of us

would rather balance the budget by cutting $1.3 trillion in tax cuts for the richest 5% than by cutting $0.026 trillion from aid to the poor?

So typical of a Republican to say we can afford $1,300 billion in tax cuts for the richest 5% but we cannot afford $26 billion in aid to the poor.

[randome]

13. We've had this discussion already. And you're right.

The 'cuts' are from the already increased budget of previous years.

[Kolesar]

14. after a period when gas has fallen in price by half

Our gas bill is less than 40% of what it used to be at its peak

[randome]

24. We shouldn't be reducing anything but political realities don't mirror our own.

Either way, Republicans are likely to continue to be the party that says 'No!'

[sabrina 1]

35. What if people didn't die from lack of heat in the US? Wouldn't that be wonderful and we

could cut all we wanted to. But sadly, they do and if there were raises in at least one state, and one life was saved, then cutting them back again to the levels that apparently the president deemed unacceptable, simply means go back to the 'unacceptable'.

And people will die. But we were just told above that this is just not important, that we will 'always find things we want to spend money on'. Okay then so what ARE our priorities in this country if one of them is not PEOPLE?

[dawg]

9. He's planning on approving the Keystone XL Pipeline so ...

in short order, it's going to be 4-5 degrees warmer in the winter anyway.

[hughee99]

10. Perhaps he's got a plan to reduce the cost of home heating oil by 14%.

Maybe he's banking on global warming reducing the need for heating in winter. Maybe since they're going to reject his budget anyway, he didn't put a lot of thought into which programs he would suggest cuts for that would never be put into law.

Or it could be the chess. I understand he's a master at it, but I haven't seen a lot of evidence to prove it yet.

[ChangeUp106]

16. ROPE-A-DOPE

Come on people how do you not see this? He's going to get the Republicans to vote for it and then their base will finally realize what horrible people they are and the liberal revolution will commence

[Dragonfli]

20. He Proposes cuts each year, Congress has been rejecting his cuts and providing more than he asks

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022653463#post29

We are supposed to hope that congress changes his proposal upwards as has happened with his previous proposed cuts.

He uses a formula that claims heating costs are cheaper, I don't know how that formula works, but it has not been cheaper here in WNY (not according to my bills). It doesn't appear to be getting cheaper in Mass. either.



This link was supplied to support the claim the cuts reflect cheaper energy costs.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-17/electricity-declines-50-in-u-s-as-shale-brings-natural-gas-glut-energy.html
So maybe it is a regional thing and people's bills in other places are getting cheaper
If so Bless those that live where cuts won't hurt them, screw them that live in places that will I guess.

He did raise LIHEAP funding in 2009 due to a spike in energy costs true is true, but since then he has requested decreases each budget with varying degrees of success.

[Bohunk68]

36. The cost of heating oil has been all over the

place this past winter here in Upstate NY. I use firewood. The cost of firewood has gone from $250/cord to $325/cord. Usually speaking in the springtime, after the heating season is over, any monies left over would be divided out to those on LIHEAP. This would help the following fall. I also am chair of our County Senior Citizens Council Discretionary Fund Committee. I'm glad that I had taken the measure of carrying over last year's budget surplus to this years budget. This gave us almost a 50% cushion. Because of the lack of real warming this spring, we have had to hit that fund hard. Oil deliveries are a minimum of a 100 gallons at a time. That is a minimum of $350. 8 of those deliveries and we are out of cash. We are the Last Resort for many oldsters. And we going to have more cuts. Once the door is open, it's very hard to close.

[sabrina 1]

41. Thank you for your comment and for all that you are doing to try to help the poor. I am upstate

also and it is very cold here still. So I do not doubt your budget, no matter how carefully planned, is suffering.

What a shame that people are in this position in the wealthiest country in the world, or one of them.

I hope this budget doesn't pass, not just for this, but for the cuts to SS also. That's the best we can hope for at this point. Although it will be hard for Republicans to resist an opportunity to stick it to the poor, I'm afraid.

[Bohunk68]

43. Thank you, Sabrina,

your words are appreciated. Our county, Schoharie, is still suffering from the aftermath of Huricane Irene. Recovery is still a long way off and we have lost a lot of tax base from the central valley. Our council only makes money from running the Transportation system throughout the county. We also operate two used clothing stores. No money from the Feds, State, or county other than for the Transport/Medical system. That's not a lot of money left over. But we manage so that the billionaires have MORE.

[sabrina 1]

45. I haven't been there but do remember the floods and the awful damage that was done.

I wondered what happened after the news media left. I guess what we suspected, there is money for bailouts of billionaires, but none for the American people.

That is shameful, my heart aches for you. If I am in the area I will stop in those stores and tell others about them. But wow, that is hardly going to help much when the needs are so great.

It always amazes me why people in these areas still vote Republican. Most of them are such nice people from my experience. They help each other and are generally very kind and compassionate.

Take care and we can only hope there will be enough backlash to any cuts that something will be done about it.

All that coverage of the floods and all the seeming sympathy for the people there, and it all means nothing after the cameras are gone. They don't even do follow up stories on these disaster areas. Maybe this is why!

[Bohunk68]

91. It's not just the outside media.

It's locals that are also taking advantage of one another. Our local SCCAP group did tremendous work getting aid to folks who needed it. I was one of the people who put together an umbrella aid group with help from the World Church Council, people who had done it before and had successful models. I got pushed aside by a group of people who proceeded to do it their own way and in the process provide substantial incomes for 3 directors. People who had been volunteers. That's now money not available for unmet needs going towards Admin instead and the local paper never has published that 10% of collected monies goes to admin. That's a bunch of money. A lot of people had moved out for temporary shelter and have not come back. Even though many were renters, that is still a loss to the economy. I've seen the new tax budgets and county-wide, taxes are going up. Even with the help of FEMA and the big help from the State to cover expenses of the clean up and repair of roads and municipal structures, there is still the share for the rest of us. And employment locally is a joke. Generations have moved away.

[Marrah_G]

28. Because poor people don't have LOBBYISTS

it's really THAT fucking simple.

Our congress is a corrupt institution that no longer represent's the American people.

[Rex]

59. ^^^^THIS^^^^

is the reason and like you said it is THAT fucking simple.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

39. Obama sees the future, you don't. The other graham has explained this...

so well many, many times. I think his name is graham4Hillary2016&2020!!!!

[Dragonfli]

69. I can see the future too "it's a place about 70 miles east of here, where it's lighter"

from a Laurie Anderson lyric"

Her statement makes a lot more sense than any of the performance art word salads produced by that poster IMO.

[L0oniX]

40. The curtain has been pulled back. Struggling with a nat while the military gorilla runs wild.

[bvar22]

48. It makes him look like the sensible adult.

You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their promises or excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[Nuclear Unicorn]

49. Global Warming is starting to pay dividends?

[byeya]

51. I've adopted Rep Grayson as my pretend Rep(beats Virginia Foxx) and donate what I can

quarterly to him.
He's not afraid to speak up; I like him.

[hollyrood]

52. home heating program budget cut proposal

Nothing ever changes at DU. I know, when I weary of too much grim reality at other sites, that I can always find fuzzy and rosy minded folk defending Obama's honor and brain voltage, never mind his devotion to his followers, for every last time he smites us. You people sure know how to flagellate yourselves, all to let that silly fool of a president off the hook.

[Flying Squirrel]

72. Uh, that made perfect sense. Thanks for the 'you people'

I don't get that often. Enjoy your stay..

[Dragonfli]

73. How does one "flagellate" oneself? I tried, but I lack the required flagella for propulsion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagellate
Sounds like it could be fun, but I don't think I can pull it off without becoming much much smaller while developing microtubules. Any advice on how to achieve either?

[NickB79]

56. Relax, we have plenty of branches, old papers and garbage cans

They'll be fine, just fine......

And in case it's not obvious

[ProSense]

57. Nope,

"Can one of the budget supporters explain this? 3d chess? Brilliant bargaining? Why? "

...it's not "3d chess." Here is the budget justification.

Adjust LIHEAP for Expected Winter Fuel Costs. The President’s Budget provides $3 billion for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) to help struggling families make ends meet by offsetting some of their home heating and cooling costs. While the cost of natural gas -- which is the heating fuel most LIHEAP households use -- has not risen in recent years, the price of heating oil has been on the rise. The additional $450 million over the 2012 request reflects expected home heating costs for winter 2012-2013.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/factsheet/giving-a-hand-up-to-low-income-families

Since increasing LIHEAP funding the first part of his term, the President has proposed cuts to LIHEAP since then.

EXCLUSIVE: White House to Cut Energy Assistance for the Poor
http://www.nationaljournal.com/whitehouse/exclusive-obama-to-cut-energy-assistance-for-the-poor-20110209

The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, or LIHEAP, would see funding drop by about $2.5 billion from an authorized 2009 total of $5.1 billion. The proposed cut will not touch the program's emergency reserve fund, about $590 million, which can be used during particularly harsh cold snaps or extended heat spells, three officials told National Journal.

In 2010, Obama signed into law an omnibus budget resolution that released a total of about $5 billion in LIHEAP grants for 2011. Pointing to the increasing number of Americans who made use of the grants last year, advocates say that LIHEAP is already underfunded. The American Gas Association predicts that 3 million Americans eligible for the program won't be able to receive it unless LIHEAP funding stays at its current level.

Here is the chart showing the appropriations and emergency funding (the stimulus funding was on top of that).



http://liheap.ncat.org/Funding/lhemhist.htm

LIHEAP Funding Tables
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/resource/fy-2012-total-liheap-funds

Of course, there is a case to be made that the funding should have remained at the 2009 -2011 levels.

[grahamhgreen]

84. "there is a case to be made that the funding should have remained at the 2009 -2011 levels."

That's what the chart reveals to me....

[Octafish]

67. Because Mr. Koch wants it that way.

Seeing how he and his brother cut the checks...

[madrchsod]

68. in obama`s world 14% is just a very small drop in the bucket

anyway making people colder toughens them up and when they get a low wage job it makes them more docile. after all they can`t get to uppity and demand a better life.

[treestar]

79. We've seen this outrage before

It too, had an explanation.

We are accused of following the President blindly when we point to following these outrages blindly. Find out why first. Don't just let Grayson manipulate you.

[grahamhgreen]

82. That doesn't even make sense. The explanation was that he was operating for the oligarchs!

[treestar]

85. No, there was an explanation

Something like new technologies making it cheaper so that less money went just as far.

This board no longer has credibility on these outrages. More information is always required to prove the person who founded the outrage did not exaggerate something beyond all reason.

[grahamhgreen]

89. Less is more!

[Joshua Pistachio]

81. LIHEAP funding history (graph)

[cstanleytech]

86. How about you explain instead how

to get congress to vote for an increase if he were to ask for one?

[grahamhgreen]

88. He's proposing a cut. If he did nothing, it would be better than cutting.

[cstanleytech]

92. Except we then still come back to the question of

assuming he did nothing to the level how would you get congress to approve it if they are bent on not approving the current level even?
Or do you believe the president has the power to order them to approve any budget he submits?

[grahamhgreen]

95. Congress budgets, and the Progressive Caucus budget is the BEST, hands down.

There is no reason for him to do anything other than get on the TV and send you emails explaining what we should all support the Progressive Budget!

Pres is executive, congress appropriates.

The majority want the progressive budget

[cstanleytech]

96. "The majority want the progressive budget" Tell that to congress

because right now the majority in congress probably couldnt even spell the word progressive not to mention voting for one.

[grahamhgreen]

98. The Congress knows this. The Presidents job is to make our representatives represent us. Including

himself.

[cstanleytech]

103. Could you post the part in the constitution where it says

its the presidents job to force our representatives to do anything please as atm I just cannot recall that part.

[randome]

93. From the graph above, none of the emergency funds were used last year.

Which makes it appear that fewer people are taking advantage of the program as in previous years.

[datasuspect]

87. Chad needs a beemer

buffy needs a benz

[Egalitarian Thug]

90. He wants to ensure that he cannot be held responsible for anything that is done

during his last two years, and ensuring republican majorities in both Houses is the surest way to evade all responsibility?

[MannyGoldstein]

94. So hedge-fund moguls can buy

yachts for their cats?

"Make no mistake... only by freezing people can we strengthen home heating..."

[marshall]

102. Maybe they're expecting warmer winters

We have certainly had a very warm winter, and no doubt more to come.