Jenksismyhero Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 (edited) QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Mar 30, 2015 -> 11:21 PM) See that big, bold word there? While you are right, you CAN be, it just doesn't happen. Everyone has a hand out for something. If you are pro environment, then the government will fund focus groups, start a committee, fund a boatload of studies, create a new agency with a huge budget to watch over the environment, and make sure that the budget never shrinks. If I were in office i'd have no problem enacted legislation to curb emissions, prevent dumping into public water ways, making liability easier to prove, upping fines, etc. None of that costs money. I'm not saying there would be zero cost, but you can still be fiscally conservative about it. Fiscal conservative doesn't mean spend $0, it means spend money on necessities and let the market/private sector take care of the rest. Edited March 31, 2015 by Jenksismybitch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrimsonWeltall Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 31, 2015 -> 04:03 PM) If I were in office i'd have no problem enacted legislation to curb emissions, prevent dumping into public water ways, making liability easier to prove, upping fines, etc. None of that costs money. I'm not saying there would be zero cost, but you can still be fiscally conservative about it. Nope, you're a Commie now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 The party of out of my bedroom and out of my wallet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabiness42 Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 There would be plenty of money to spend on social issues without raising taxes if Senators of both parties would worry more about the overall efficiency of the government rather than getting money for their own states. A few years ago, I was assigned to do a management analysis of my agency's three call centers. I determined that the one of them was redundant and unnecessary, and that the agency could save $3M a year by closing it. I was then told that the ranking member on the Senate committee responsible for the budget for my agency was from that state, so there was zero chance of that savings ever being realized. I know $3M a year doesn't sound like a lot, but there are likely hundreds of other similar ways that government is wasting money by keeping unnecessary facilities/jobs in certain states, so it adds up to billions pretty quickly. You could build a lot of roads and give a lot of people health insurance with those billions and never raise anybody's taxes by a single penny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkey Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 QUOTE (Tex @ Mar 31, 2015 -> 04:03 AM) Are you suggesting our environment isn't worth watching over? Industry did so well policing itself before strong laws were passed in the 1960s. What kind of drugs are you on to make some of the leaps that you do? Why don't you share? I am suggesting that almost every socially liberal thing people want to nowadays costs money. And lots of it. Everyone sees papa government as an open wallet and goes for their piece. Green energy? yeah, how many failed startups have there been in the last few years alone, with ties to politicians, big money donors or relatives that stiffed the fed for money? Solyndra? There are others. http://dailysignal.com/2012/10/18/presiden...nergy-failures/ While Jenks is right, you can enact things that cost little or no money, that won't last for long. It will never be good enough, people will want more done, and more costs money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted March 31, 2015 Author Share Posted March 31, 2015 QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Mar 31, 2015 -> 11:46 AM) What kind of drugs are you on to make some of the leaps that you do? Why don't you share? I am suggesting that almost every socially liberal thing people want to nowadays costs money. And lots of it. Everyone sees papa government as an open wallet and goes for their piece. Green energy? yeah, how many failed startups have there been in the last few years alone, with ties to politicians, big money donors or relatives that stiffed the fed for money? Solyndra? There are others. http://dailysignal.com/2012/10/18/presiden...nergy-failures/ While Jenks is right, you can enact things that cost little or no money, that won't last for long. It will never be good enough, people will want more done, and more costs money. Well you certainly aren't leaping here. Here is your exact quote "create a new agency with a huge budget to watch over the environment". I tok a drug induced leap to ask you if that expense was worth it? Now read your response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts