No sir, you got that all wrong. This is where I said you were messed up.
To be fair, you didn't exactly qualify how/why I was "messed up". Now that you've given some context, I can make more sense if it.
You tried to make a case for "I think it's better to be pissing away money on figuring out how to become self sufficient than to piss it away finding better and better ways to destroy your neighbor."
So you're making a valid case for using tax payer funds to invest in US industry INSTEAD of wars.
Now, I disagree with tax payer funds being used to BET on unproven industries. But I understand your comment and respect it. That's something we can simply just not be on the same page. And it's ok.
But where you failed was that you don't recognize the fact that the one isn't being done OVER another. It's in addition too!
If you were to say, hey stop spending money on Iraq and invest it here INSTEAD, that's one thing. But that's not what's happening.
I largely agree with you... But that's a pretty idealistic scenario considering the political climate of the last few decades. Everyone wants to talk about being fiscal without actually doing the hard (and politically dangerous) work of cutting back.
They just want to take MORE money from tax payers to fund BOTH!
Yes, it's much easier to get re-elected by borrowing from China and mortgaging the future away than it is to gut the various social programs/military. One way or another things will need to be paid for, it's frustrating that politicians are so spineless and keep pushing that burden on to future generations.
And why is that? Think about the core of that question. So instead of making it MORE complex, lets simplify it!
Because running a complex economy/advanced country isn't simple. Can things be made "simpler", absolutely... but it's not easy. It's not often that you can please the liberal new yorker and the conservative texan at the same time.
If it's part of the Military budget, fine. That's on them. But to just take tax payer dollars and GIVE it to these companies, even AFTER YOU WERE WARNED NOT TO because they were going to fail, then have them fail. That is unacceptable.
The government is outright GAMBLING with our money. That is NOT their job!
What exactly is the difference between the military gambling away your money or the department of energy? They're both part of the government, they're both stimulating huge swaths of the private sector in relatively the same way... Is it because you're used to the military gambling with your money?
The renewable energy sector is heavily subsidized in many countries, for the industry to have a chance in the US, it needs to have similar opportunities. No one says anything about the fact that the military needs obscene budgets so that they can "stay ahead", why is the goal of energy independence such a low priority?
And many respected people disagree with that.
If government spending was the answer we should have the best economy in HISTORY right now! As we've spent more in the last 4 years and EVER!
Absolutely... but the people that believe the other theories aren't running the show. At the end of the day, there's no real way to know who's right. Lots of speculation, but no one really knows what would have happened without the stimulus. Or if kicking the economy in the nuts and drastically cutting things would have made the turn around much faster (I suspect not, but I'm no economist)
But had McCain won... Would things really have been that different? Do you honestly think he wouldn't have pushed through pretty much the same kind of stuff?
It didn't matter who was president, the economy was in a nose dive, due to years of abuse, greed and malinvestment. I'm highly skeptical this problem could have been fixed in 4 years with a properly functioning congress, the fact that they were so dysfunctional and hell bent on putting party politics first over the well being of Americans only compounded the issues.
You're trying to compare a couple individual projects against BILLIONS spent on an unproven industry.
At what point do you say, ok this isn't going to work?
If the hoover damn proved to be a failure, would you build 5 more?
And you're trying to convey that all of those projects are failures. The fact remains that a very small percentage of those projects (and overall dollar figures) are in financial trouble. Most of them are doing alright considering the economic climate and that it's still a relatively new/niche market.
Energy prices aren't going down, it's only a matter of time before it's more cost effective to generate your own. Renewables are here to stay.
You're once again going from one extreme to another.
Saying we shouldn't deplete our military isn't saying we should evaluate our budgets and spending.
But it's also not saying we should completely eliminate our about to invoke FEAR on our enemies.
Publicly announcing that we want to be a nuclear free nation while other nations are striving for building MORE nuclear weapons is ridiculous!
You must have a supreme threat of power over those whom oppose you. Doesn't mean you have to attack them, but they must second guess their intentions to attack you through your ability to respond.
I thought people loved debating in extremes in the politics section? I never said the military needed to be depleted, but the constant fear-mongering that goes on is disgusting, and truly disappointing that more Americans don't see right through it.
There have been 2 nukes dropped, those will be the last two ever dropped. We're never going to see two major nuclear powers go to war. Might be little conflicts, but there will never be an all out war. The stakes are too high, and everyone including the "crazy" middle east knows this.
China's plans are economic domination, not military domination. They're building the military capability to keep the US out of their backyard.