On 11/5/2013 5:38 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
There is lots of waste in federal spending, for starters. For example, Sequestration, last January, was supposed to collapse the economy. But what was not spoken of by the Dem Party media, was that all programs were budgeted to rise in funding by 10 percent.


?? What's your source for that, Faux News? The biggest planned increase was 7%/yr in Defense. Medicare has been around 6%/yr.

With sequestration they only rose 3 percent. Yes the DoD. Why? The costs of low intensity warfare, asymetrical war fare, are vastly different. If we are sinking subs with nuclear tipped icbm's in them, and silent capabilities, that is one thing. If we are chasing down Habeeb the Magnificent in the mountains, this is different, and a different price tag as well.

Billions and billions are wasted in the US Department of Energy. It, despite billions in R+D over 4 decades, has not produced Jack Shit, in energy.

It's not supposed to produce energy, it's supposed to regulate energy production and fund research. At 30B$/yr it's not a very big budget item. We should really be spending a lot more on development of liquid thorium salt power reactors. That's about the only good short term possibility for cutting CO2 emissions.

What has come forth was fracking, produced not by a national bureacracy but instead by geologists finding a better way to do things for profit$$$$.

Fracking's been done for decades. Capitalism is good at finding economies. I don't think it's good at creating new technologies. Nuclear power, GPS, the internet, satellites all had to be developed by the government before private investment would move in and try to turn a profit.

We could offer a 20 or 100 billion dollar prize for a new clean energy source and award the winner.

Aren't you the one complaining that the government invested in Solyndra. The government's the only organization that will develop something new, like thorium power reactors, because there's too much risk and too much legal and regulatory uncertainty for private investors. But there's plenty of clean energy sources that just take money to put them in place. The problem is they can't compete economically with fossil fuel because fossil fuel is subsidized and doesn't have to pay the environmental costs that it imposes.

Brent

The contestents would have to get bank or private equity funding to accomplish this. We can do the same for medicine and outer space too.
-----Original Message-----
From: meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net>
To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tue, Nov 5, 2013 1:15 am
Subject: Re: Our Demon-Haunted World

On 11/4/2013 8:15 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:

Briefly, tea baggers want a more limited govt cost wise.

Why? What do you want to cut?  the military? (not according the signs I see at 
rallies)
Welfare to the unfortunate?  Support for education?  Social security? Medicare? 
 In other
words you want to limit govt cost to the rich that would redistribute some of 
that wealth
to others.  Of course all TPers will be for Obamacare since OMB has predicted 
it will
reduce healthcare costs.

Roll things back to the 2005,2007 annual budget.

Is that including the 400B$ a year off-budget supplementary appropriations for 
war in Iraq?

We also want the Constition upheld.

Like what?  Abortion rights?  Privacy?  Gay marriage?  All the TP leaders on TV 
want to
let states take away individual rights - if they can't pass a law to take them away at the federal level.

Hayek is well liked by the Tea baggers, road to sefdom was passed
around.

Not to the head of Republican Libertarian Caucus in CA, who told me Hayek's not 
a real
libertarian when I quoted the below to him.

Brent

-----Original Message-----
From: meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net>
To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Mon, Nov 4, 2013 8:07 pm
Subject: Re: Our Demon-Haunted World

             On 11/4/2013 4:31 PM,      spudboy...@aol.com wrote:

As Telmo indicated , Rand, railed against unlimited state
        power,
which is what Marxism and Fascism are all about. Her
individualism,  stuff is
central to her philosophy, but breaks down to the argument
that being forced to
donate is no donation at all, but extortion from unlimited
state
power. Mieses and Hayek observed this in action, and it was
the
conclusion that one reason the German public kept silent
during the Holocaust,
was they were bought off by "social services access." This
was the conclusion
of a German citizen of Turkish origin, an academic. I might
be able to look
up          this academic, if needed?

Hayek would be reviled by the Tea Baggers and libertarians as a
"socialist":

"But there are two kinds of security: the certainty of a given
minimum of
sustenance for all and the security of a given standard of life,
of the relative
position which one person or group enjoys compared with others.
There is no reason
why, in a society which has reached the general level of wealth
ours has, the first
kind of security should not be guaranteed to all without
endangering general
freedom; that is: some minimum of food, shelter and clothing,
sufficient to preserve
health. Nor is there any reason why the state should not help to
organize a
comprehensive system of social insurance in providing for those
common hazards of
life against    which few can make adequate provision. "
      --- Frederick Hayek, "The Road to Serfdom"



Secondly, has anyone here when referring to US healthcare
    (Yeah I know
that is a separate thread) knows what Medicaid and Medicare
are? Thirdly, does
anyone know that Scalia took, fellow, justice, Elena Kagan,
deer hunting a few
months ago? Scalia may believe in a devil, but he does make
nice nice
with his political opposite, and gay cohort on the US
Supreme          Court.
Sounds like a regular storm trooper to me! Strumabteilung,
as the Germans
called it.

Lastly, has anyone ever met a real, live, Tea Partier, or
   Tea Bagger,
how ever you wish to term it?

No, but I know several libertarians, with one of whom I've
publicly   debated global
warming.

   Brent



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything
List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to