DDA
Member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2016
- Messages
- 137
- Reaction score
- 23
- Location
- Greater Manchester, UK
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Private
I do not believe the government should subsidize any business, ever.
If the US cut its massively bloated defence budget by at least two thirds it would still have by far the largest military in the world and enough taxpayer revenue to have the best public healthcare system in the world too plus extra for a lot more besides
Armaments expenditures 2013 were more than the next 13 countries combined
View attachment 67196001
Its odd that the US taxpayer doesn't seem to mind this level of waste for the military yet screams bloody murder at the prospect of paying for universal healthcare :roll:
..what a thing to say.
So not only do you believe that the government shouldn't engage pioneer new developments in products or services (even ones which the private industry won't touch), but you wouldn't even be willing to support business who are willing to do these things either.
NASA....
But did Solyndra kill anybody or am I missing something?
Sure money was wasted, but NASA could have been a waste of money too. In fact there are plenty of things NASA do, such as experiences, which turn out useless but they're done because they might help us all. And besides, we're now seeing private ventures into them. Even if the government starts something, it doesn't mean others can't compete later if it turns out to be a success, look at the US post office and now all the private delivery services. All I'm saying is why not let the government at least try, especially in the more new fields, sure it could have some risks but if they're onto something, boom!! A brand industry for jobs
I see nothing wrong with his position. The government should not be assisting business develop new products or spending public funds to develop new products themselves.
I can assure you, it certainly looks like a phobia to non American eyes, otherwise, you'd get you act together and have universal health care...instead of running for the hills at the mere mention of the public option. I feel sorry for all those people who die every year who don't have health care, go bankrupt because of help related issues or stick doing a job they hate because they won't have health care otherwise.
Maybe if people in the US wasn't so damn scared of the gov, they could make it do things which everyone likes
I see nothing wrong with his position. The government should not be assisting business develop new products or spending public funds to develop new products themselves.
Actually...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Express_Statutes
You can not directly compete against the postal service and business have been closed that violated such laws in the past.
Yes you can...you just won't make any money
There really is no sense in reading past the first paragraph of your post. It is more than evident that you haven't a clue what you're talking about. I never said nor did I imply any of what you are implying. Have a nice day...what a thing to say.
So not only do you believe that the government shouldn't engage pioneer new developments in products or services (even ones which the private industry won't touch), but you wouldn't even be willing to support business who are willing to do these things either.
Also you'd be against the gov doing anything in transport, health care or any of the other services generally service millions of people (although not profitable) The UK and EU do many of these things but the people are very happy and the services generally do a good job.
If the results were better, it was cheaper and the people were happy, why on earth would you not want to do it other than for purely ideological reasons...?
Do you think the military should be privatized or something as well?
One need only look at Germanys renewables fiasco to see where a governments idealogical overcommittment to useless renewables technologies can lead
800,000 households cut off last year because they could no longer pay their extortionately high subsidised green energy cost. A further 1.1 million households are expected to follow suit this year
I see nothing wrong with his position. The government should not be assisting business develop new products or spending public funds to develop new products themselves.
There really is no sense in reading past the first paragraph of your post. It is more than evident that you haven't a clue what you're talking about. I never said nor did I imply any of what you are implying. Have a nice day.
link please...Mostly I see people singing the praises of the Germans, the outages you speak of, ones every 4 years they say, and that's in more rural areas
So what do you say to all those countries which are happy with their public health care, do you think that they should move towards the US instead.
What do you think about NASA, medicare and medicate, all should go?
What about building roads and maintaining parks?
Should the gov even have an army?
I don't even support the existence of the state. :2razz: However, since it's here and isn't going anywhere anytime soon, I'm opposed to them having a standing army, I'm opposed to them building roads, and I'm opposed to the government having ownership of any more property than they need to function.
There really is no sense in reading past the first paragraph of your post. It is more than evident that you haven't a clue what you're talking about. I never said nor did I imply any of what you are implying. Have a nice day.
No...Solyndra just pissed away tax dollars to reward political favors. The US budget for renewables this year is 46 billion. That doesnt take into account the DOE budget and its investment in renewables. The world budget is around 214 billion. Our spending is not inadequate...especially considering the overall limited return on investment.NASA....But did Solyndra kill anybody or am I missing something? Sure money was wasted, but NASA could have been a waste of money too. In fact there are plenty of things NASA do, such as experiences, which turn out useless but they're done because they might help us all. And besides, we're now seeing private ventures into them. Even if the government starts something, it doesn't mean others can't compete later if it turns out to be a success, look at the US post office and now all the private delivery services. All I'm saying is why not let the government at least try, especially in the more new fields, sure it could have some risks but if they're onto something, boom!! A brand industry for jobs
I think space exploring and welfare have nothing to do with the purpose of government.
I don't even support the existence of the state. :2razz: However, since it's here and isn't going anywhere anytime soon, I'm opposed to them having a standing army, I'm opposed to them building roads, and I'm opposed to the government having ownership of any more property than they need to function.
I am very active in that section. I do not deny climate change, and have only come across two or three who do. Most of us see climate change is real, but disagree that man's contribution is more than natures. If you wish to come across as someone with intelligence and sensibility, please make sure you see the nuances.However, one thing I've noticed in this particular section of the site (Environment & Climate Issues) that there is huge group of people who not only deny climate change, but also any efforts which would combat the effects.
I don't like wind or tidal but love the idea of solar and geothermal. Wind is ugly on the landscape and unpredictable. Then as it ages, the maintenance costs will get incredible. I am cautious about Tidal because I know so little about it, but suspect it isn't friendly with the larger sea life.Now I understand why people wouldn't be happy with the carbon tax element which is usually pushed, but why push against the physical element to it? Such as building, wind farms, solar, tidal and alternative forms of energy, plus also things like coastal defenses, building regulations and other measures which would defend against a rising ocean.
Wow, do you realise what you believe would mean the death of millions probably billions of mostly poor people. And doesn't that bother you?
No...Solyndra just pissed away tax dollars to reward political favors. The US budget for renewables this year is 46 billion. That doesnt take into account the DOE budget and its investment in renewables. The world budget is around 214 billion. Our spending is not inadequate...especially considering the overall limited return on investment.
I am sort "old school" at 58. The gang of hooligans I hang out with at the golf course are all sort old school themselves. (50-80 years old) We love talking about, and sharing info on the new technologies that are out there. We see better things coming in the future. But, we also want to do it in a way that doesn't cost jobs, and doesn't need endless years of taxpayer subsidizing. If a product works, the people will use it.
I don't see why it would mean the death of anyone.
Interesting...assuming for a second climate change was true after all, what do you think should be done? I can't imagine that business would be willing to spend money on things which have no financial benefits to them.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?