Obama vowed to not vote for a policy if it’s not at least deficit neutral.
If he is going to veto anything that raises the deficit, why worry about the cap?
Obama vowed to not vote for a policy if it’s not at least deficit neutral.
If he is going to veto anything that raises the deficit, why worry about the cap?
| TheRealMafoo said: Obama vowed to not vote for a policy if it’s not at least deficit neutral. If he is going to veto anything that raises the deficit, why worry about the cap?
|
Because they've already passed things that aren't deficit nuetral? I'm pretty sure anyway.
Also, we're promising a bunch of money to copenhagen for no reason.
To the tune of 100 billion a year. I don't see the government cutting 100 billion out of government to cover it.

100 million dollars??!
That's a whole lot of money, why they be doing that?
Edit:
100 billion dollars?!!
yikes..


*edit*
It looks like the numbers are $100 billion a year from all developed nations. Not quite as bad as $100b/yr from America alone. I think this is ludicrous either way as for $100 billion a year you could invest that money in more efficient tech and solve most of the problems. Heck, at $100 billion a year, you could make 100% of energy from nuclear or other clean sources.
Back from the dead, I'm afraid.
| mrstickball said: *edit* It looks like the numbers are $100 billion a year from all developed nations. Not quite as bad as $100b/yr from America alone. I think this is ludicrous either way as for $100 billion a year you could invest that money in more efficient tech and solve most of the problems. Heck, at $100 billion a year, you could make 100% of energy from nuclear or other clean sources. |
Oh was it? Ah my bad. Must of read it wrong.

| TheRealMafoo said: Where does this 100 billion a year go? |
Developing countries... to pay them to cut emissions.
Though my bad. It's 100 Billion from the national community as a whole.
Thought it was 100 for just us. Since Japan is kicking in 15 billion and their economy is pretty bad themselves... and smaller.
Which... this is a bad idea because it means that your basically giving... in many cases dictators... money for cutting emissions, by making the lives of their people worse.
Rather then be forced to increase their peoples lives to create economic progress.

Also... the deal all this money is going to is said to not be enough to curb global temperature change according to the IPCC.
So if you were to believe them (i wouldn't) the money is all wasted anwyay.
It's the only outcome they could come up with anyway. Would be embarrising if they did match their unrealistic expectations and tempeture still rose.

Stupidest pledge ever. Would be better to just burn that money up. At least it would deflate fiat currency!
Back from the dead, I'm afraid.
Really, that was the agreement? What a waste of money! How many nuclear power plants could you build with $100 Billion?

About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2025 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.