3 ms·
We could * Not cut taxes on the very wealthy by $4,000,000,000,000 over ten years * Not give $500,000,000,000 to military and police expansion in the immed
by unethical_ban 1y ago
We could
* Not cut taxes on the very wealthy by $4,000,000,000,000 over ten years
* Not give $500,000,000,000 to military and police expansion in the immediate future
* Not have one person dictating global trade policy with the US that impacts our relationships and competitiveness for the next 30 years
NASA is not something we should skimp on.
- jpadkins 1y agoThe constitution clearly sets up one person as having sole control of foreign policy. There is a lot of wisdom in having a single vision / strategy when dealing with external entities. If you disagree, the constitution also has a clear process for updating it.
- unethical_ban 1y agoRead up on the responsibilities of the Senate again, please. They approve treaties. The president only has the power (allegedly) to do the tariffs moves he is doing based on a 1970s emergency powers act. Anyway, that was just one example of "ways to be fiscally responsible that don't involve cutting science research"
- Iwan-Zotow 1y agoWho are "we" kemosabe? BBB was proposed by freshly elected president to a freshly elected Congress, and it was passed and signed. I don't like it much, but people (yes, millions of americans) had spoken
- unethical_ban 1y ago"We" being the US government. I'm not arguing anything about its popularity, I'm arguing its wisdom. My point is that there are other ways to pretend to be fiscally responsible than to cut NASA funding.