Contract with America: 2012

[Rasputin_Vol]

Why do we need more nukes? We already have enough to destroy the world for the most part (5100 according to what I've read). I don't really see the point.

4. Build more nukes, more refineries, more drilling, more coal

:ermm:

 

[lawgator1]

I think he meant nuclear reactors in regards to energy.

But the military is one of the top 3 most wasteful spending areas.

$77 Billion Raptor F-22 Fighter Jets That Have Never Gone to War - ABC News

3 wars and still sitting in a hanger? When is the time to roll these out?

Why people cry about things like NPR that wouldn't scratch the debt but don't mention defense is beyond me.

Because the defense contractors have basically funded the GOP since 1950.

 

[Pepe_Silvia]

I think he meant nuclear reactors in regards to energy.

But the military is one of the top 3 most wasteful spending areas.

$77 Billion Raptor F-22 Fighter Jets That Have Never Gone to War - ABC News

3 wars and still sitting in a hanger? When is the time to roll these out?

Why people cry about things like NPR that wouldn't scratch the debt but don't mention defense is beyond me.

I'll mention both. Cut funding to NPR and the arts and drastically reduce spending on defense.

 

[BenGrimm]

I'll mention both. Cut funding to NPR and the arts and drastically reduce spending on defense.

NPR accounts for .002% of annual debt. 2% of its funding comes indirectly from the government via broadcasting grants. There is no part of any budget where NPR is specifically listed.

If we cut .002% from defense we could fully fund 50 NPRs.

 

[MG1968]

NPR accounts for .002% of annual debt. 2% of its funding comes indirectly from the government via broadcasting grants. There is no part of any budget where NPR is specifically listed.

If we cut .002% from defense we could fully fund 50 NPRs.

it's such a small amount, can't we just leave that in the budget?

that's the problem, a hundred thousand little things that add up to big money

if you cut from the defense budget, don't spend the money elsewhere, reduce the overall budget by that amount.

 

[Pepe_Silvia]

NPR accounts for .002% of annual debt. 2% of its funding comes indirectly from the government via broadcasting grants. There is no part of any budget where NPR is specifically listed.

If we cut .002% from defense we could fully fund 50 NPRs.

Is this supposed to be a convincing argument for continuing NPR's government funding?

Regardless of how much of federal spending it accounts for, it's an unnecessary expense that should be cut out. All broadcasting grants should be eliminated.

And wasn't it you that earlier in this thread implied that cutting NPR's government money would "dumb down the country?" So NPR losing 2% of its funding would kill it?

 

[mreed90]

I guess I read that out of context but to me nukes are nuclear weapons. I'd be fine if we used a lot more nuclear power. It's clean and the odds of a meltdown are pretty slight. The spent fuel rods (nuclear waste) is the only down side. We need to do anything to lessen dependence on coal and oil, finite resources and difficult to obtain. If things are going to be cut then cut defense, it's wasteful. Cutting art museums and the npr is like killing one ant from a colony.

 

[MG1968]

I guess I read that out of context but to me nukes are nuclear weapons. I'd be fine if we used a lot more nuclear power. It's clean and the odds of a meltdown are pretty slight. The spent fuel rods (nuclear waste) is the only down side. We need to do anything to lessen dependence on coal and oil, finite resources and difficult to obtain. If things are going to be cut then cut defense, it's wasteful. Cutting art museums and the npr is like killing one ant from a colony.

there's plenty of easily attainable coal, natural gas, and oil in the US to supply our energy needs and become a net exporter. Nuclear is part of the solution, but the current administration is convinced that heavily subsidized energy like wind and solar are the only hope for the future.

 

[BenGrimm]

Is this supposed to be a convincing argument for continuing NPR's government funding?

Regardless of how much of federal spending it accounts for, it's an unnecessary expense that should be cut out. All broadcasting grants should be eliminated.

And wasn't it you that earlier in this thread implied that cutting NPR's government money would "dumb down the country?" So NPR losing 2% of its funding would kill it?

It would survive. My concern is that it would become driven by sponsors and ratings. Worse case scenario is that it becomes a sensationalist news org like Fox or MSNBC.

 

[Pepe_Silvia]

It would survive. My concern is that it would become driven by sponsors and ratings. Worse case scenario is that it becomes a sensationalist news org like Fox or MSNBC.

Losing 2% of their funding would make that big a difference?

 

[mreed90]

there's plenty of easily attainable coal, natural gas, and oil in the US to supply our energy needs and become a net exporter. Nuclear is part of the solution, but the current administration is convinced that heavily subsidized energy like wind and solar are the only hope for the future.

Not the only hope but they should be included. Nothing wrong with green energy. None of us will live to see the day that fossil fuels are either gone or obsolete but that day will come. We need to prepare for it somehow. Should green energy be subsidized like it is now? I don't know but the oil companies do not need subsidizes either, when they are making record profit.

 

[MG1968]

Not the only hope but they should be included. Nothing wrong with green energy. None of us will live to see the day that fossil fuels are either gone or obsolete but that day will come. We need to prepare for it somehow. Should green energy be subsidized like it is now? I don't know but the oil companies do not need subsidizes either, when they are making record profit.

what subsidies are you speaking of? Provide a link while you're at it.

 

[mreed90]

what subsidies are you speaking of? Provide a link while you're at it.

History of U.S. Oil Subsidies Go Back Nearly a Century - Yahoo! News

I don't know if that is considered a "liberal" news site but it's one a few I found. I'd always read and heard they received them.

 

[MG1968]

History of U.S. Oil Subsidies Go Back Nearly a Century - Yahoo! News

I don't know if that is considered a "liberal" news site but it's one a few I found. I'd always read and heard they received them.

those aren't subsidies, those are writeoffs that every business can take advantage of

the author of the article makes it sound as if the deduction for equipment depreciation is unique to the oil companies, but it isn't

nice try, though

 

[mreed90]

those aren't subsidies, those are writeoffs that every business can take advantage of

the author of the article makes it sound as if the deduction for equipment depreciation is unique to the oil companies, but it isn't

nice try, though

Didn't have to be a conceding jerk about it, like everyone else in the politics forum. Could have just ended it after the second paragraph and been done with it.

 

[TennxxVol]

there's plenty of easily attainable coal, natural gas, and oil in the US to supply our energy needs and become a net exporter. Nuclear is part of the solution, but the current administration is convinced that heavily subsidized energy like wind and solar are the only hope for the future.

Plus the new EPA mandates are impossible to implement by the deadline which means a great deal of our coal fired plants will close and new projects will be canceled.

I would like to see some research done on fusion.

I guess I read that out of context but to me nukes are nuclear weapons. I'd be fine if we used a lot more nuclear power. It's clean and the odds of a meltdown are pretty slight. The spent fuel rods (nuclear waste) is the only down side. We need to do anything to lessen dependence on coal and oil, finite resources and difficult to obtain. If things are going to be cut then cut defense, it's wasteful. Cutting art museums and the npr is like killing one ant from a colony.

We have enough coal, oil and natural gas to last for centuries, shutting those down without viable alternatives is tantamount to national energy suicide.

Maybe Weezer or someone can explain to me why the spent fuel rods can be rerefined and used again, I've never understood that.

Registering Tim Tebow and Tom Brady to Vote in Minnesota - YouTube

Hank Williams Jr. Calls Obama 'Muslim' Who 'Hates The Military' - The Hollywood Reporter

That's a bit of a stretch, but the Fed has certainly has been a steadying hand on the economy, the last decade not withstanding.

From the end of the Civil War until the Fed was created, the U.S. was continually fluctuating back and forth between boom/bust cycles, it seemed.

Recessions in the last 100 years have been less frequent/milder.

We never had anything near as bad and long lasting as the great depression before the Fed.

The boom bust cycles were mostly caused by the European central banks interfereing in our economy so we enacted an American central bank of which about 60% of the stock was gobbled up by the European central banks.

We had a recession less than ten years later and less than ten years later a crash that led to our longest and deepest recession in our history.

FDR's son in law wrote that it was a calculated shearing of the American people and was caused by the fed and other central banks.

Andrew Jackson was successful in ending the charter of the the central bank of his time and was able to pay off the national dept totally in three years.

In the fiscal year 2010 we paid $400 b in interest alone on our national debt, if we have 100 m taxpayers in this country that comes to $4,000 each and is growing at an alarming rate.

Let me ask you this, if we want to borrow, as a nation, a trillion dollars, do we not print treasury bills, trade them to the Fed for fed reserve notes and then pay back the fed (with interest) that trillion dollars?

So in that case the stockholders of the fed end up with a trillion dollars when they started with $0.00.

We have been doing this for a century, does that make sense to you?