Cause he can spend the countries money and benifit himself whereas when he spend that money on something else his buddies and himself wont profit much
2007-11-04 20:45:03
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
6⤊
1⤋
Of course "Jimmy J" wont take E-mails , These Dopes who are 1 trick pony's "Well Clinton did /didn't" Bush gave the Auto co.s a $billion to develop hydrogen technology ,the one thing he was told was 20+ years from production. Car Co.s were cranking out Electric trucks in the 1920s because the gasoline engines at that time didn't have the horse power to haul loads up hills. In 80+ years the best we get from the auto industry are the "hybrids" The engines today are getting the same millage as the cars of the 70s ,we got more H.P instead of better millage. The oil co.s would lose $billions if millage went up even 2%. Bush is in the pockets of the oil co.s , that is why he invaded Iraq,. He had to stop Iraq from selling there oil for cheap on the world market driving down the price of a barrel oil, AND IT WORKED! LOOK At the price of oil today, There is as much oil right now as all the oil used to date! The greedy bastards have allowed the earth to be destroyed ,What do they care they will be long dead when its time to pay the piper!
2007-11-04 21:19:06
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I'll take the role of Devil's Advocate (maybe literally) here.
One: We haven't even gotten close to 2 trillion in Iraq yet. I doubt if we have gotten to 1 trillion even combined with all of the private investment. A trillion is a huge number. Were in the hundreds of billions in Iraq which is still ridiculously large.
Alternative energy is not something you can buy off the shelf. Its a gamble. It may be a worthwhile gamble with pretty good odds but it is by no means a sure thing. If we invested a billion in alternative energy research by funding think tanks, universities and what not, we would be doing pretty good. Bush invested allot more then that into tax breaks and grants to energy companies that was to be earmarked in part for alternative energy research. To me it seemed a bit like paying the fox to guard the hen house but he did technically invest at least. I think he gave them about 300 billion. In return we are seeing advances in coal energy and some research into black sand oil extraction. Not what we hoped for but it is something at least. If he invested 2 trillion into alternative energy research we would have every right to hang him for completely bankrupting us for the next 50 years on a gamble. On the other hand we might have infinite cheap energy next week if that incredible amount was spent but I doubt it. Now let me go wash my mouth out and say a few hundred hail Mary's for defending Bush. I hate to do it but truth must be said.
2007-11-04 21:40:48
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Because he wants to win the war and his administration doesn't seem to be interested in alternative energy. Although it would make absoulte sense that he should look into them becuase the Iraq war is over the controll of oil. Sure they 'liberated' everyone from the 'evil' Ba'athist party but they were better off before... like really better off. It's an awful war that he shouldn't have got involved in and now it's another Vietnam, he can't pull out or else the government he created would collapse. Too bad your soldiers can't win, you Americans would totally get your cred back from Vietnam.
2007-11-04 21:09:18
·
answer #4
·
answered by Josh 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
You do understand who Bush's vp grew to become into, do no longer you? If Bush have been impeached, Dick Cheney could have become President of the united states. no one, no longer even Cheney's mom wanted that to ensue.
2016-10-03 09:22:43
·
answer #5
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
INVEST?????
Is this what you call it now??
The destruction Of a country and a nation, the destabilization of an entire region, YOU call it Investment?
Holly cow you people have some nerve!!!!
2007-11-04 20:46:47
·
answer #6
·
answered by Kimon 7
·
5⤊
0⤋
Why didn't Bill Clinton invest $2 trillion in alternative energy? He had that big surplus.
Actually, it is up to private industry to develop new sources of energy, not the government. If the government helps them, it would be corporate welfare which the Democrats won't allow and the liberals despise.
2007-11-04 20:44:58
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
4⤋
With 2 trillion he could have fed the world, the answer is probably because there was no profit to made other than our children's children's future and millions upon millions of starving !
2007-11-04 20:57:03
·
answer #8
·
answered by dadacoolone 5
·
3⤊
0⤋
L'italia ODIA BUSH
Scimmione guerrafondaio
2007-11-04 21:04:24
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
He is not a normal person and he never thinks about his country or human life
2007-11-04 21:06:05
·
answer #10
·
answered by awgaa 3
·
3⤊
0⤋