On 21 Apr 2005, John D. Giorgis wrote
> Bush's proposed budget would provide $6.7 billion in tax breaks
> for energy, but 72 percent of that would go to renewable energy
> sources and energy efficiency.
To which Nick Arnett responded
May Bush win this one!
Now, what if the US government spent that amount of money every 10
days for the next year?
(That is, roughly speaking, the opportunity cost of the US occupation
of Iraq. This uses the term "opportunity cost" as I understood it
many decades ago, not as John D. Giorgis defined it recently. To be a
valid comparison, the spending should go on for several years.)
Why do you think people (whether in the US or the whole world) are
better off spending that money on the US Iraqi venture than on this
one?
One reason against this spending could be that the form of this bill
is very bad. Increasing the spending 30 times would merely increase
its badness ... Are there ways of changing this bill so that if
increased, the spending would be less wasteful? If so, what are they?
--
Robert J. Chassell
[EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8
http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
