would we have enough money to successfully get away from fossil fuels?
2007-11-04 06:14:15 · 11 answers · asked by jacks_insanity 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
There's no doubt that NASA has been responsible for many innovations over the course of it's existence, but how many satellites do we need in space? How many times do we need to send and lose a billion dollar probe on Mars?
I do believe we should at the very least cut NASA's funding, get out of Iraq, end Corporate Welfare which cost US taxpayers $92 BILLION dollars in 2006 alone, and reduce Pentagon spending by the amount recommended at TrueMajority.org (I believe it's only $5 billion) and focus our attention on clean, renewable energy resources such as solar, wind and hydro power. Forget about the naysayers who believe and will tell you the US economy will collapse. Think of all the jobs that will be created in research and development of new products, the manufacturing of those products and then the installation and maintenance of those products. Jobs, Jobs and more JOBS!
2007-11-04 08:45:56 · answer #1 · answered by It's Your World, Change It 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
No.That issue was settled in "The Report From Iron Mountain" decades ago.To misdirect people from the globalist agenda it was decided to throw away billions of dollars on space exploration and keep the world embroiled in nonstop wars.
2007-11-04 07:28:46 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
If we wanted to get away from fossil fuels, we could have done it. We were warned in the 70's. Brazil has almost accomplished that.
2007-11-04 06:23:58 · answer #3 · answered by pgb 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
No. If we simply stop funding the Iraq war, we will then just have to start paying off that massive debt.
If we remove funding for NASA, we lose some of the most important research that would directly affect the development of alternative energy.
2007-11-04 06:19:36 · answer #4 · answered by afreshpath_admin 6 · 2⤊ 3⤋
NASA is helping us and using little of the Governments money. Including in energy.
Wars are expensive, get rid of them. And corrupt people working in the government.
2007-11-04 06:23:43 · answer #5 · answered by geessewereabove 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
No , nasa is a useful expense ,
But yes USA should stop spending on wars,
2007-11-04 07:19:11 · answer #6 · answered by ? 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
No, the money would need to be spent on more powerful police force to enhance the underpaid military. Servicemen would not reenlist.
There are other types of fuel available, true. We just need more of it.
2007-11-04 06:53:44 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
no
besides -- last I checked, it only takes one side to start a war and you aren't in control of what that other side decides to do.
not to mention that getting away from fossil fuels won't have the effects you imagine, or, rather, will have the side effect of having us build another 200 nuclear generators.
2007-11-04 06:23:05 · answer #8 · answered by Spock (rhp) 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
I would think so and what a good thing it would be!
2007-11-04 06:36:30 · answer #9 · answered by sally sue 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
No.. and we couldn't support you either....
2007-11-04 06:23:38 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 5⤋