Windmills are not inefficient. As a Democrat who is interested in science, believes in a involved federal government that drives us into the modern age (as Galbraith said we would have in this year), more progressive scientific advancement, and infrastructure. The government can easily borrow access funds without causing inflation by using surplus capital created by large corporations with perpetual positive net income. What are the downsides to this?
>b-but muh taxes will go up Yeah? And? In a large industrial or post industrial economy you need a large income tax as an automatic stabilizer. It prevents the economy from overheating by overtaxxing when wages are high and undertaxxing when things are low. High consistent government spending balances the taxes by boosting aggregate demand. And let me ask you this; What would this "tax money" have been spent on? Oh yeah, hookers and coke, yeah i think the environment is a better spot for it.
>b-but muh abiotic oil theory! Oil is actually renewable Yes I agree, but it's still shit for the environment and I would rather not live in a world of smog. I want the environment protected.
>You leftist cuck Reminder that one of the first environmentalists, even before Teddy Roosevelt (who was based), was Madison Grant, Hitler's hero. Madison Grant wrote "passing of the great race" talking about Nordicism and how America's supremacy is brought about by it's Nordic elitism. About as far-right as you can get.
Lets pull the United States out of wars, which is actually an investment (neoconservatives bank on the military bringing in more resources than it costs through corporate contracts, and control of the petrodollar), and change are investment to something more ETHICAL. The CIA's black budget is massive, imagine if instead of trying to overthrow socialist countries and take their oil, we became socialist ourselves and invested our war money into ourselves and the future?
