LOL! yet another foaming at the mouth gub'mint worshiper chimes in .......Goddamn, another totally dumb **** with the meme that the government can do nothing right. What stupid asses you people are. I suppose that you think that the Corp of Discovery was a total waste of money as it came in ten times over budget, and way late.LOL, do you always get this angry when someone points out how flawed your idiotic arguments are? If so, you must spend your days in a constant state of agitation since I have yet to see you make an argument that isn't more full of holes than a ton of swiss cheese.
Only government worshiping central planners think that "tax revenue" is a necessity for technology to advance, here's a hint : no amount of government "investment" will make any difference if the market isn't interested in consuming the fruits of said "investment", if consumers want "cleaner" technology private enterprise will provide it at a price consumers are willing to pay for it, if the market doesn't want it no amount of government "investment" and authoritarian posturing will make them want it.
On the bright side your childish tail wagging the dog arguments are amusing....
Although there is plenty of evidence of global warming, little is going to be done to avert disaster util it actually occurs.
Its the whole OCD thing....
Resoundingly laughable........and every bozo progressive in here ( the alarmists ) will be screaming bloody blue murder this summer about tax reform. These people are mental cases.
You got it backwards. It takes a punitive tax to force people into what the government wants to sell, be that "green energy", Obama care or whatever. And it was not the government (as in Kennedy) that produced the hardware & technology to get man to the moon. That was not even the objective. The objective was to show our cold war rivals that nothing is out of rocket range. The man on the moon was for public consumption because the public at that time had no stomach for strategic dominance and the expensive sabres that had to be rattled to get there without actually fighting a real war....which happened later anyways in the many proxy wars that still go on.LOL, Where do the resources for "government investment in technology" come from? Try not to swallow your tongue while you're thinking about the answer, K?Yeah but only if you believe that a weak economy generates the innovation and market incentives that lead to lower pollution production and goods & services.
If he had equivocated with that point, the remark MIGHT have been 3% less stupid. He did not. Fact is, the market is not designed to reduce carbon footprints, and reduce the size of the plastic island in the pacific.
Uh-huh and where do you figure the necessary resources & technology will come from to "reduce carbon footprints" if not from "the market"?
Government investment in technology. It's how we got to the moon, dipshit. .
"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a ‘dismal science.’ But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance." --- Murray N. Rothbard
OK I think I see what your dumb ass is saying. You agree that green technology is necessary to save the environment. In order to fund investment in green technologies, we need tax revenue. And the best way to get tax revenue is to pollute the environment further.
Your a ******* genius.
The Soviet Union collapsed because their economic model was unsustainable and because the Afghan War bankrupted them. They beat themselves. And solar farms and windmills would've kept us out of the middle east, and would've likely alleviated a great many of the weather consequences, flooding, pestilence and other side-effects of manmade global warming over the past 50 years. There's a huge opportunity there that was missed. We can still recoup some of the benefits now if we subsidize a jettison from the stone age.
