06-02-2017, 05:39 PM
(06-02-2017, 04:43 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: $400m/yr is a lot regardless if you're an average person or not. Plus the plan was for that $400m/yr to double to $800m/yr by 2020.
You say only 1/3rd, as if one country paying for 1/3rd of a group of 195 countries isn't silly. Why should the US pay anything? I know what the money is "intended" for, but unless you're really naive, South Sudan or Uzbekistan isn't going to use that money to put solar panels on everyone's roof.
The US CAN carry a decent sized burden by doing their own part to reduce emissions. That and giving other people money, though, are quite different matters.
It's funny you apparently didn't read my post at all and just homed in on my Haiti example. I am for cutting ALL waste in the government. Be that government contractors, or the shitty F-35 program (which I have always wanted gone). Once again you keep pretending like just because we waste money elsewhere, we should keep wasting money in more places. Never do you consider that we should just not waste money in EITHER spot.
The issue is your comparing wasting money with trying to enact change. Claiming this is a "waste" is purely subjective, claiming it won't be spent correctly is speculative. I was pointing out the "waste" because there is always going to be things people don't believe are necessary in government spending. Understanding that, this "waste" has a larger global and political relations impact at a lower cost than an inflated arms project, which we get into quite often, is the key here. We send all sorts of aid to foreign countries because there are chain reactions involved as far as political relations go, consider this another one with a big PR side to it. Falling back into isolationism isn't a good look for the country that was built on being the shining beacon of hope for the world.
