Yea…but he’s making himself and his friends MILLIONS. Isn’t that the most important thing.
3 Likes
What if we could divert the funds from somewhere else?
Our annual military budget is $693,058,000,000. The cost to convert the entire country to renewable energy would be $423,925,000,000. When you amortize that cost over the 20 years it would take to pay for itself, that comes to $21,196,250,000 per year, which is a little more than 3% of our annual military budget.
Since the Pentagon considers global climate change a strategic threat to national security, maybe they can spare that 3% of their annual budget to address the problem.
Naw! That would make too much sense! Why invest 3% of our military budget on an investment that would pay for itself in 20 years when we can continue to buy tanks and aircraft that top military officials have declared obsolete?
4 Likes
It’ll probably get shut down. I don’t know what I said that can be scientifically proven to be wrong, though.
I think the military is pretty darn important. I believe I’d rather find the funds elsewhere.
We spend more on our military then the next 11 countries COMBINED. I’m all for a strong military…but the military spending programs are just a haven for fraud and abuse. So easy to hide BILLIONS. a lot of waste.
1 Like
It would seem that the water levels would be rising everywhere and not in isolated areas if rising water levels were due to climate change. Is it? Honest question. I don’t know the answer myself.
By zealous, I mean “our grandchildren won’t survive if we don’t immediately do something”. That’s a stretch too far for me.
I never said the military wasn’t important, just that their budget is bloated, and that they’re squandering taxpayers’ money on obsolete equipment rather investing in our future.
1 Like
How about redirecting the money from oil and gas subsidies? Can we get your support for that?
What about redirecting money from federal farm subsidies? Would that work for you? I don’t know about you, but I’m tired of seeing my tax dollars go to corporate farms and to pay farmers to not farm.
Lol, I don’t know. We still need oil and food. I’m sure I could come up with something I’d be ok with not funding. But it would probably trigger emotions out of some. So I’ll digress.
I don’t disagree that there’s waste. But I also know most military personnel aren’t paid all that awesome. So I’d be hesitant to cut funding. Usually the low man on the pole takes the hit.
You think we wouldn’t be getting oil or food without government subsidies?
Do you know anything about how your tax dollars are spent, or is this all coming from errant assumptions?
1 Like
I believe global warming is a reality and sea levels are rising. I also believe it has happened before, many times and we are powerless to stop it. I think the tipping point has already been reached. We are powerless to stop China, Russia, India , Indonesia, Brazil and any industrializing third world country from polluting and even all the proposed solutions are too little, too late, expensive, make us feel good boondoggles.
Not what I said exactly.
But no, I do not know the entirety of the government’s funding for oil or food. Are some subsidies used to find more efficient ways of finding oil? That would be ok. So I’m not certain all of the funding is bad there or for farming either. I’m certain there’s waste. Like any government endeavor.
Having worked in the field, a lot of money is (or was) spent on converting highly erodible crop land to forests to reduce erosion. An annual rent is paid. So, is that considered a farm subsidy?
My point is, I don’t consider all government money that goes to farming or oil inherently evil. I honestly don’t have a breakdown of how everything is funded. Again, I’m sure some is probably not necessary.
Where’d you get that? According to the CBO:
“According to a Congressional Budget Office testimony, roughly three-fourths of the projected cost of tax preferences for energy in 2016 was for renewable energy and energy efficiency. An estimated $10.9 billion was directed toward renewable energy; $2.7 billion, went to energy efficiency or electricity transmission. Fossil fuels accounted for most of the remaining cost of energy-related tax preferences—an estimated $4.6 billion.”
By the way, no hard feelings towards any of you guys. Respect your beliefs. Just wanted to get that in before it’s closed! Have a great Christmas if we don’t argue again before then 
It is…just that some areas are more effected by it…like bays. You can see the effect with standard tides.
I worded it wrong. Not YEARLY spending…but over all since we’ve been subsiding oil. Well over $600 billion dollars to subside oil has been spent already. On an industry that has been one of the most profitable in world history.
It’s NOT a belief. It’s called science. Backed up by thousands of peer review research papers world wide.
It’s a belief. A strongly held one in your case. Merry Christmas!
2 Likes
Only if you don’t believe in science.
1 Like