This year, the lame duck Obama administration has nothing to lose. They can really up the ante. Maybe a trillion?
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Recent Comments
gelcarrion0t on “You Can’t Hide Yo… gelcarrion0t on Doubling Energy Costs gelcarrion0t on Australia Permanent Drought Up… gelcarrion0t on “New computer modeling… Morgan Wright on Climate Destroying Shrimp Christopher Simpson on 1896 : Japan Hit By Earthquake… energywise on What’s At Stake? Robert Cherba on Too Hot To Live gelcarrion0t on Too Hot To Live Nicholas McGinley on “The world began to end…
Incoming conservatives in the house are talking about cutting a mere 100B/yr from discretionary spending. It’s quite clear they could find that in the various climate scams alone.
If they won’t cut enough then we can get the Tea Partiers in there to cut more. I don’t know who gave Hillary permission to pledge even one penny.
$100 billion/yr divided by 100 million taxpayers = $1000/yr per taxpayer.
-Scott
They can take it out of Hillary’s pay!
Or maybe they could make a 700 billion dollar donation to the economic system with no strings attached a la bush. Or maybe they could cause a trillion dollar war over non-existent WMDs. Yeah 100 billion for poor people is just ridiculous lets keep giving all the money to the people who know what to do with it like the military industrial complex…
did Obama vote yes on that 700 B?
That’s a big 10-4.
How about if we do something really different, and cut everyone off?
So because of all the wasteful spending that came before, your point is we should follow it with more? That 100B will never
see the hands of the poor anywhere on earth. It’s destined for champagne and caviar for UN delegates and their cronies.
…and it helps to know what you’re talking about. The initial outlay “a la Bush” as you called it was about half of the Tarp allotment. It went to buy preferred shares. This re-capitalized lenders who are bound by law to hold a specific percentage of assets against liabilities. They had become insolvent largely due to the “Mark to Market” rule, which obscured the true value of assets. That ISN’T a deal with “no strings attached”. CNBC just did a study on this: Much of this money has already been returned and nearly all of it will be. Many of my conservative friends will say we should let losers fail, and usually I would agree. But if you watched the implosion of Lehman, and recognize that all these institutions were holding assets secured by one another, simply letting them fail may well have collapsed our entire banking system. Like it or not, rightly or wrongly, our entire country depends on the ability of our financial system. Everyone benefited from the first few hundred billion used to prop up 11 banks and a handful of insurers. What happened after that is anybody’s guess.
That’s such a tiresome meme.
Did Bush act alone? Didn’t the dims hold a majority in congress? You do know the president doesn’t control the purse stings of this country. You knew that, right? Did anyone here previously support such madness? As regard to WMD, what is mustard gas?
100 billion wasn’t going to go to poor people. It was “to assist poor countries to cope with climate change”. Let me translate that for you. Hillary promised to funnel $100 billion to massively corrupt governments that keep their people impoverished.
We both know that evidence was provided to convince congress to move on Iraq and that the evidence turned out to be faulty. A weapon of mass destruction mustard gas technically is not. Secondly we probably sold them the damn gas in the 1980s.
Look I for one was very much in support of the invasion of Iraq until I found out how flawed the intelligence was. Until things like richard clarke’s book came out and so on.
Wrong, mustard gas is “technically a WMD”, it falls under Chemical in the NBC of WMD. Check, NBC, …Nuclear, Biological, Chemical.
Was the intelligence flawed? Yep, and not just ours. Is it possible that Sadaam moved his stuff? Yep, remember the first Iraqi war. He sent his entire air force to his most hated enemy(other than the U.S.) Iran. Does any of that matter? Not one bit. We ended a tyranny. We secured U.S. interests. While the area is still very unstable, it is more stable than it would otherwise be. We initiated democracy in a nation that has never seen it before. We freed an entire ethnic group; the Kurds.
At the end of the day, the world is a better place than it otherwise would be if we hadn’t gone there. To obsess over WMD’s or other tangential issues does a disservice to and discredits the men and women who went over there, did the job necessary and did it well.
How does this play into the policies of today? Because of the constant drone and whining of the left, obsessed with bashing Bush, we are now paralyzed in our policies regarding Iran and the destabilizing of the mid-east. Thanks for that. It pretty much ensures an extreme outcome. By all means, continue to put partisanship over citizenship. Its working out so well.
Clinton and the UN starved half a million Iraqi children to death because of Saddam’s WMDs
I think they still have some wild cards up their sleeves that could grab us by the balls.
What to think of: a UN “Permanent Emergency Session” Sought for Kyoto
By Chris Horner on 11.26.10 @ 9:33AM
The Scientific Alliance (UK) newsletter is out and contains a remarkable follow-on to last week’s admission by German IPCC official/economist Otto Edendorfer that “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy”, that climate change policy is instead about how “we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth….” (really?).
As summarized in pertinent part by the SA:
“Although I am loathe to characterise all true believers in man-made climate change as primarily left-ish politically…the narrative which comes from that part of the political spectrum [is] driven by a certainty that something has to be done and that people cannot be allowed to decide for themselves.
[George Dvorsky, a director of the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies] summarises his preferred way forward as follows ‘Given the failure of Copenhagen, I’m inclined to believe that semi-annual conferences are not the way to go. Instead, I’d like to see the United Nations assemble an international and permanent emergency session that is parliamentary in nature (i.e. representative and accountable) and dedicated to debating and acting on the problem of anthropogenic climate change (a sub-parliament, if you will). The decisions of this governing board would be binding and impact on all the nations of the world.’” (italics in the original)
With Son-of-Copenhagen kicking off Monday in Cancun, the coming two weeks should be rife with such outbursts as the Kyoto enterprise grinds ever closer, one hopes, to its inevitable, de facto (and ‘permanent’) collapse.
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/11/26/un-permanent-emergency-session
#60, but a long way to Anthony at #18.
http://botd.wordpress.com/?lang=en