It works out to around $238,000 per hour
(NRSC) How much does it cost to rent the Senate floor (and 30 United States Senators) for 24 hours? By the looks of it, more than $100 million. Â Last night, the majority of Democrats engaged in a so-called, “talk-a-thon” to protest climate change and advocate for policies that hurt American energy development. Â Yes, this is the same Democrat majority that has controlled Washington since 2009.
As the Los Angeles Times reports, “There has been little talk of legislation to tackle climate change in Congress since 2010, when a bill to reduce carbon emissions died in the Senate. But as they rev up for the midterm elections, Democrats are heeding the call of California billionaire Tom Steyer, who has pledged $100 million to back candidates with a program to curb climate change.” Â The Washington Post is even more blunt: Â “…There is another more political reason for the decision by Senate Democrats to devote their time to the issue right now. And that issue is campaign cash. Â Environmental groups spent about $20 million on ads and other activities to help Democrats in 2012 and gave about $742,000 directly to candidates during the cycle… Then there’s the billionaire businessman Thomas Steyer. …Steyer hosted a recent fundraiser at his San Francisco home that netted the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee $400,000 and where Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and the six other Democratic senators in attendance openly discussed plans for tonight’s talkathon, according to reports.”
$100 billion for just about 15 hours, or $6 million per hour.  To accomplish…. nothing.  As USA Today lamented, “The Democratic effort is cause for some confusion because these senators are calling for action in a chamber they control but without any specific legislation to offer up for a vote, or any timetable for action this year.”
So, if you consider $100 million, 15 hours, 28 Warmist Democrat Senators, that’s around $238,000 per hour to do nothing more than yammer on an on, all while insulting people with opposite views as “deniers”, equating them with those who do not believe in the Holocaust.
The problem for Senate Democrats is that being beholden to extremists exposes another vulnerability for Senators already in danger of losing their seat like Mark Udall, Mark Begich, Kay Hagan, Mark Warner, Mark Pryor, Jeanne Shaheen and especially newly named Energy & Natural Resources Chair Mary Landrieu. The Democrats’ talk-a-thon makes clear that Landrieu is the Chair in name only, and instead is beholden to whatever Harry Reid wants. Mary Landrieu always brags about being a committee chairman – we all know she talks a good game, problem is – Mary Landrieu just never delivers results.
None of those Senators were in attendance during the sleepover. I’d be surprised if they were even near Washington Monday night. I’m sure they had “prior engagements”.
And then all the sleepover attendees jumped in their fossil fueled vehicles to head home, where the appliances were not unplugged while they were away.
This shows how much intelligence these people have. You get in a room that is not accessible to the public, you speak at a time that people are sleeping, you have a marathon that would put people to sleep, then your subject is one that is basically so bogus that the average individual knows you are lying to begin with and the only answer is for increased taxes and intrusion of the government into our lives and global control of our economy. That is fairly stupid.
Just a bunch of rich Elites pissing on the peasants. The House of Lords will lose a lot of DEMs this fall. Now if some of the GOP RINO Lords will lose their gravy train and go home maybe this country can get back to business, growth and jobs.
Climate Change theatrics is a diversion from the Dem failures and scandals, of course they are not serious just play acting.
Why do you want to limit the free speech rights of those that accept the science behind the theory of AGW?
The Supreme Court has ruled that campaign contributions are a form of free speech for individuals, corporations, labor unions and other organizations.
This means that people can donate to politicians who think as they do.
Of course the National Republican Senatorial Committee wants the Dems to be quiet and not raise any money.
Comprehension issues again?
No one is advocating that people should be denied speech on the subject. What is being commented upon is the cost of that speech to the taxpayers as well as the other issues that are deserving of more attention.
So you admit that the sleepover was more about raising funds for elections rather than the actual issue of AGW?
How interesting.
So once again we see that AGW is not about climate change, it is about power over people. It is not a scientific discussion (because the science is lacking) but a political and policy based issue.
Finally, if you want to say that the Dems have right to raise money, no conservative is denying that. (Well, you have decried Citizens United in the past, but we are used to that hypocrisy from you.) What is interesting is that it is against House and Senate rules to make speeches to raise money within the House and Senate. In essence, you are admitting that the Democrats broke the rules by which they agreed to abide and you support their actions.
Here again we see the blatant hypocrisy from liberals.
She provides guidance on selecting right in-ground pool filter for your swimming pool.
The third category of pool filters for in-ground swimming pools consists of diatomaceous
earth or DE pool filters. Avoid using a pressure washer or
stiff brushes to clean the cartridges.
“So you admit that the sleepover was more about raising funds for elections rather than the actual issue of AGW?”
No more than any Ted Cruz publicity stunt. I’m certain if the Democratic Senators involved broke Senate rules the Republicans will call them on it.
“So once again we see that AGW is not about climate change, it is about power over people. It is not a scientific discussion (because the science is lacking) but a political and policy based issue.”
It’s obviously a scientific discussion AND a political and policy issue. The science is not lacking; you and yours just deny that the evidence exists. If it were only a scientific discussion the far-right would have no interest at all – it is only the policy implications that concern the deniers (far-rightists, all). Deniers work back from their ideology (gov’t is bad – limits on behavior are bad) to conclude that AGW is a hoax. That’s why you are impervious to evidence. There is no evidence that could ever convince a denier that AGW is real. None.
And finally, all liberals are hypocrites… just because. We get it. Is it hypocritical to criticize Dems for doing what Repugs do? Of course it is. Is it hypocritical for Repugs to decry and vote against gay rights but to accept their own gay spawn, or to pick up men in bathrooms for sex? Of course it is. Is it hypocritical for law and order de facto leaders of the conservative movement to send their maids to buy them illegal drugs? Sure. Or for Repug family values Senators to use prostitutes? Of course. Is it the height of hypocrisy to protest for smaller government but to collect Federal transfer payments preventing us from shrinking the government? Undoubtedly. Sorry, Charlie, but not even conservatives are perfect. Grow up, there are flawed souls all around.
If any of you would ever want to discuss the science around AGW let me know. Otherwise…
And the last time Cruz tried to raise money on the Senate floor was when?
And liberals will dismiss it.
That’s the problem. People of your ilk always say it is a science discussion and then try and make policy decisions. As we have seen here with you, you aren’t interested in discussing the science and in fact, do everything you can to avoid discussing the science of the matter and scientific principles. Your response to anything that goes against what you believe is to attack the messenger.
Once again you demonstrate a tremendous failing at reading and comprehension skills.
And once again since you can’t make a logical point, you resort to name calling.
You got beat to death with the fallacy of this argument in other threads. The fact that you aren’t willing to see that you are wrong shows that you are simply trolling and have no real interest in debate.
Good Lord Jeffery, do you have your head buried in the sand that much? There are people on this board who have been debating the science and you dismiss the science while attacking who said or wrote it.
Your typical response to people and the science showing you are wrong is to say “kiss my ass” or “suck it.”
You aren’t interested in a debate. You are simply interested in being a childish troll.
Blick, I’m very doubtful that R’s will replace D’s this 2014 election. I’ll be very surprised if it happens. Sure, the R’s showed up for the 2010 election, but they failed on the 2012 one when it mattered.
Many on the center and center right do not see our dying country as anything of importance. Almost all of the people from the center to the far left view our further demise as positive and are willing to do anything to make that happen. Those on the right couldn’t bother with even putting in an absentee ballot.
I’d like to know how one man can contribute $100 million to a couple of politicians? Isn’t that like, illegal or something? Oh silly me, I forgot he’s a Socialist, so it’s all good.
J “…it’s ok for for Republicans to vote against gay rights…” What “gay rights” are you talking about, J? And don’t say marriage, because there is no right to marriage.