Rusty Shackleford Posted June 3, 2017 Share Posted June 3, 2017 How is it a "waste of money" when America wasn't required to spend a single dime? I get that people don't put a lot of thought into these accounts, but at least try. K? More implied slander because you disagree. Typical liberal thought process. Link to comment
knapplc Posted June 3, 2017 Share Posted June 3, 2017 How is it a "waste of money" when America wasn't required to spend a single dime? 1 Link to comment
knapplc Posted June 3, 2017 Share Posted June 3, 2017 This is just sad. The environment should not be a political issue. Link to comment
Rusty Shackleford Posted June 3, 2017 Share Posted June 3, 2017 How is it a "waste of money" when America wasn't required to spend a single dime "As the New York Times reported Thursday, the U.S. has promised to supply up to $3 billion in aid for developing nations by 2020 to help them meet their emissions-cutting goals." Link to comment
knapplc Posted June 3, 2017 Share Posted June 3, 2017 How is it a "waste of money" when America wasn't required to spend a single dime? "As the [/size]New York Times reported Thursday, the U.S. has [/size]promised to supply up to $3 billion in aid for developing nations by 2020 to help them meet their emissions-cutting goals."[/size] That's volunteered money, not required money. Again, America was not required to spend a single dime. There are no penalties if America decides not to spend that money. You understand that, right? 1 Link to comment
Rusty Shackleford Posted June 3, 2017 Share Posted June 3, 2017 How is it a "waste of money" when America wasn't required to spend a single dime? "As the [/size]New York Times reported Thursday, the U.S. has [/size]promised to supply up to $3 billion in aid for developing nations by 2020 to help them meet their emissions-cutting goals."[/size] That's volunteered money, not required money. Again, America was not required to spend a single dime. There are no penalties if America decides not to spend that money. You understand that, right? Yes. And President Trump made sure we would not spend a single dime. Well done Mr. Presedient, glad you agree. Link to comment
NM11046 Posted June 3, 2017 Share Posted June 3, 2017 Trump pulled out of the Paris Agreement and saved us a fortune that wouldn't have made any difference in the grand scheme of things. Thank you Mr. President, making America great again one day at a time. Both sides need to realize that the Paris Agreement was VOLUNTARY. It's a toothless agreement. The US got to set it's own goals that it wants to meet. So there's no fortunate to be saved or lost. In fact, not much of anything has changed with regards to the environment. Here's a good article from MIT about the pros and cons of the Paris Agreement. The part that makes the US look stupid is foreign policy. Trump could have stayed in the agreement and then set whatever goals he wanted. Instead the US looks ridiculous on the world stage and opens the door for another nation to take the lead in global affairs. This. The biggest issue is the big "F You" Donnie gave the World when he opted to whip it out to show how big his is with this issue. By choosing to make a big deal about opting out he has single handedly hurt our ability to negotiate, partner and work with other nations in the future. I know that "MAGA" folks believe we are the best, we can go it alone, we don't need the rest of the world and the rest of the world simply exists to benefit from our greatness, but it's simply not the case. We are taking HUGE steps backwards right now - at a time where America is already struggling to be the greatest at anything. This man will set us back hundreds of years. 1 Link to comment
RedDenver Posted June 3, 2017 Share Posted June 3, 2017 How is it a "waste of money" when America wasn't required to spend a single dime "As the New York Times reported Thursday, the U.S. has promised to supply up to $3 billion in aid for developing nations by 2020 to help them meet their emissions-cutting goals." $3 billion over 4 years is a tiny fraction of the US budget, so hardly saving a "fortune". (That would be $750 million/yr as compared to a $3.8 trillion/year budget or 0.02%) More importantly, Trump could have changed that amount without withdrawing from the Paris Agreement. And instead of being able to move on to other things and focusing on them, the Trump admin is going to be dealing with the fallout of this for weeks or months. It's just stupid politically. 1 Link to comment
Rusty Shackleford Posted June 3, 2017 Share Posted June 3, 2017 How is it a "waste of money" when America wasn't required to spend a single dime "As the New York Times reported Thursday, the U.S. has promised to supply up to $3 billion in aid for developing nations by 2020 to help them meet their emissions-cutting goals." $3 billion over 4 years is a tiny fraction of the US budget, so hardly saving a "fortune". (That would be $750 million/yr as compared to a $3.8 trillion/year budget or 0.02%) More importantly, Trump could have changed that amount without withdrawing from the Paris Agreement. And instead of being able to move on to other things and focusing on them, the Trump admin is going to be dealing with the fallout of this for weeks or months. It's just stupid politically. That's 3 Billion that we save, amount compared to actual US wealth is irrelevant. Saving US money is saving money. The fallout for what, making a smart political move? The biggest problem is the left spinning it to make him look like a monster, something they have gotten quite efficient at. Link to comment
knapplc Posted June 3, 2017 Share Posted June 3, 2017 The biggest problem is that this move further marginalizes the United States, pisses off our allies and trade partners, and makes it more difficult to negotiate from a place of mutual benefit. Trump is clearly demanding "better deals" for America - why should other countries work with us? We have a lot of money & resources, but the other 194 nations on Earth could get by without us just fine if Trump is going to behave like a greedy child. The more they realize that, the less they're going to be willing to work with us. Trump will not get a "better deal," he'll get doors slammed in his face. This isn't Trump the Great Negotiator, this is Trump the Guy Who Reneges on Contracts with Regular Americans. 1 Link to comment
commando Posted June 3, 2017 Share Posted June 3, 2017 How is it a "waste of money" when America wasn't required to spend a single dime "As the New York Times reported Thursday, the U.S. has promised to supply up to $3 billion in aid for developing nations by 2020 to help them meet their emissions-cutting goals." $3 billion over 4 years is a tiny fraction of the US budget, so hardly saving a "fortune". (That would be $750 million/yr as compared to a $3.8 trillion/year budget or 0.02%) More importantly, Trump could have changed that amount without withdrawing from the Paris Agreement. And instead of being able to move on to other things and focusing on them, the Trump admin is going to be dealing with the fallout of this for weeks or months. It's just stupid politically. That's 3 Billion that we save, amount compared to actual US wealth is irrelevant. Saving US money is saving money. The fallout for what, making a smart political move? The biggest problem is the left spinning it to make him look like a monster, something they have gotten quite efficient at. ahh...remember the good old times when it was the right spinning clinton and obama into the monsters? they were so efficient at it that they haven't stopped yet. every time trump wants to spin away from trouble he mentions the old boogie monsters of obama or clinton. Link to comment
RedDenver Posted June 3, 2017 Share Posted June 3, 2017 How is it a "waste of money" when America wasn't required to spend a single dime "As the New York Times reported Thursday, the U.S. has promised to supply up to $3 billion in aid for developing nations by 2020 to help them meet their emissions-cutting goals." $3 billion over 4 years is a tiny fraction of the US budget, so hardly saving a "fortune". (That would be $750 million/yr as compared to a $3.8 trillion/year budget or 0.02%) More importantly, Trump could have changed that amount without withdrawing from the Paris Agreement. And instead of being able to move on to other things and focusing on them, the Trump admin is going to be dealing with the fallout of this for weeks or months. It's just stupid politically. That's 3 Billion that we save, amount compared to actual US wealth is irrelevant. Saving US money is saving money. The fallout for what, making a smart political move? The biggest problem is the left spinning it to make him look like a monster, something they have gotten quite efficient at. You're missing the point. Trump could have saved the $3 billion and STAYED in the Paris Agreement. In other words, Trump withdrew from the agreement and gained nothing by doing it but hurt US relations with other countries. How is that a good deal in any way? Link to comment
Danny Bateman Posted June 3, 2017 Share Posted June 3, 2017 How is it a "waste of money" when America wasn't required to spend a single dime? "As the [/size]New York Times reported Thursday, the U.S. has [/size]promised to supply up to $3 billion in aid for developing nations by 2020 to help them meet their emissions-cutting goals."[/size] That's volunteered money, not required money. Again, America was not required to spend a single dime. There are no penalties if America decides not to spend that money. You understand that, right? This is what galls me about the response of the broader GOP. All I've heard is about how regulations hurt the economy, how it's a bad deal, a waste of money... It's all empty rhetoric. Trump could've done whatever he wanted while remaining in the agreement. Let's not pretend this was a fiscal move. This was about undoing something else Obama did. Plain and simple. Link to comment
NM11046 Posted June 3, 2017 Share Posted June 3, 2017 The biggest problem is that this move further marginalizes the United States, pisses off our allies and trade partners, and makes it more difficult to negotiate from a place of mutual benefit. Trump is clearly demanding "better deals" for America - why should other countries work with us? We have a lot of money & resources, but the other 194 nations on Earth could get by without us just fine if Trump is going to behave like a greedy child. The more they realize that, the less they're going to be willing to work with us. Trump will not get a "better deal," he'll get doors slammed in his face. This isn't Trump the Great Negotiator, this is Trump the Guy Who Reneges on Contracts with Regular Americans. But when he doesn't get a better deal he can just choose to not pay employees, vendors etc and declare bankruptcy right? That's how he does business ... Link to comment
NM11046 Posted June 3, 2017 Share Posted June 3, 2017 Rusty are you excited about coal? Link to comment
Recommended Posts