3 ms·

Right, but I doubt Congress would spend that money helping the environment. Look at what they spend money on right now: * $1,280 per coffee cup: https://www.us

by da02 8y ago

Right, but I doubt Congress would spend that money helping the environment. Look at what they spend money on right now: * $1,280 per coffee cup: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/10/22/air-force-spends-over-300-000-metal-coffee-mugs-raising-questions/1729890002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/10/22/ai... * $1.2 trillion to “modernize” the US nuclear arsenal and production facilities: https://billmoyers.com/story/the-trillion-dollar-question-the-media-have-neglected-to-ask-presidential-candidates/ https://billmoyers.com/story/the-trillion-dollar-question-th... * $38 billion in "defense aid" to a foreign country: https://www.sun-sentinel.com/florida-jewish-journal/fl-jj-us-congress-votes-defense-aid-israel-law-20180926-story.html https://www.sun-sentinel.com/florida-jewish-journal/fl-jj-us...

adventured 8y ago
The US nuclear arsenal should be modernized and maintained. China and Russia have no plans to stand still as it pertains to their weapons. It would be remarkably foolish for the US to not properly maintain its nuclear deterrent. Nuclear weapons are the most cost effective means that exist to deter large-scale wars between major military powers. $40 billion per year for 30 years would be an amazing bargain to help to continue to maintain peace between the US, China, Russia, UK, France, India, etc. Outside of the fantasy scenario where everyone simultaneously gets rid of their nukes and nobody else ever develops them.
- throwaway2016a 8y ago
  Suppose we agree. In fact, I think I can agree with that... Why is it $40 billion a year? I'm not a Musk fan per say but it is the closest analog... you can buy almost 2 SpaceX's (the entire company) a year for that and I highly doubt modernizing the nuclear infrastructure is that much more complicated than R&D on a brand new space company. Some of us don't necessarily disagree we need to spend money on defense. But we think the amount being spent is way more than should be reasonably necessary to get the job done. People like to criticize people who want to cut military budgets never asking if maybe we should just fire a bunch of people at the top who are inflating all the costs and replace them with people incentivized to get us more for less money.
  - mawburn 8y ago
    Because if you don't spend all your budget, you won't get more next year. How are you going to spend all your budget if you're paying fair price for things? This is a totally reasonable way to run government budgets and not insane at all! /s

by da02 8y ago

adventured 8y ago

The US nuclear arsenal should be modernized and maintained. China and Russia have no plans to stand still as it pertains to their weapons. It would be remarkably foolish for the US to not properly maintain its nuclear deterrent. Nuclear weapons are the most cost effective means that exist to deter large-scale wars between major military powers. $40 billion per year for 30 years would be an amazing bargain to help to continue to maintain peace between the US, China, Russia, UK, France, India, etc. Outside of the fantasy scenario where everyone simultaneously gets rid of their nukes and nobody else ever develops them.

throwaway2016a 8y ago
Suppose we agree. In fact, I think I can agree with that... Why is it $40 billion a year? I'm not a Musk fan per say but it is the closest analog... you can buy almost 2 SpaceX's (the entire company) a year for that and I highly doubt modernizing the nuclear infrastructure is that much more complicated than R&D on a brand new space company. Some of us don't necessarily disagree we need to spend money on defense. But we think the amount being spent is way more than should be reasonably necessary to get the job done. People like to criticize people who want to cut military budgets never asking if maybe we should just fire a bunch of people at the top who are inflating all the costs and replace them with people incentivized to get us more for less money.
- mawburn 8y ago
  Because if you don't spend all your budget, you won't get more next year. How are you going to spend all your budget if you're paying fair price for things? This is a totally reasonable way to run government budgets and not insane at all! /s