George, "talk" is cheap, actually solving the problems of the enviroment, poverty, etc... requires smart policies that actually produce results.

You rightfully complain about corporate welfare, but I do not hear your support for the one and only solution to this issue which is to re-write the tax code, and eliminate all subsidies completely, and create a small list of deductions universal and applicable for all businesses regardless of size. This of course will not happen, both parties line their pockets with corporate dollars and will continue to support whatever "breaks" favor their friends. Do not expect either party to pay nothing more than lip service to real tax reform.

You talk about defense expendatures. Libertarians like myself have long advocated reducing military spending and dismantling the American "Empire" Even the Pentagon has requested reduced budgets for certain programs, yet congress continues to pump more money where it is not needed. There are many military bases throughout the world that do not need to be open anymore. Democrats are all gung ho for reducing defense right up to the point cutting expendatures means shutting down a project that creates jobs in their district or closing a base in their state, sorry you cannot have it both ways.

As for fixing poverty, Open Eyes has it right, it is easy to throw money at the problem, then make ourselves feel better that we "helped" the poor. It is a way to simply avoid those very uncomfortable conversations on why people are stuck in a continous cycle of misery for generations, a phenomenon unique by the way to modern America. Prior to the launch of the "Great Society" under LBJ multi generational poverty was very rare in America, so our trillions in allocation over the last several decades have not only not solved poverty but institutionalized it instead. We have built a massive infrastructure of "Anti Poverty" agencies but ironically it has become in the best interest of the bureaucrats who work in and run the programs to the tune in some cases of six figure income to perpetuate the problem for their own personal gain. The statistics on who exactly is "poor" are being manipulated to ensure ever increasing funding for programs, even ones than have been proven to fail in their stated purpose.

Unfortunately the second someone like me asks the question "How well is the money being spent and are we getting the best results for every dollar of expenditure?" Legions of "progressive" politicians, lobbyists, activist groups show up on MSNBC/FOX/CNN/CSPAN and demonize that persion for "not caring about the poor" So no one ever bothers to ask the questions that should actually be asked, including who benefits most from federal anti poverty programs, the recepients, or the well paid folks who hand out the checks?

http://www.independent.org/issues/article.asp?id=3157

It comes down to this, a very large swath of the American public has been convinced that we can have scandanavian welfare benefits, and somehow it all can be carried on the backs of a few. That folks is a fairy tale. You see if you took a deep dive into how countries like Norway, Sweden and Denmark pay for Single Payer HC and "Free" college you find all of this is financed through a highly regressive tax system that hits their middle class citizens very hard. The middle class in these countries carries a much greater portion of the burden of funding these programs than it does in the US. So as a result they have to take a significant hit in their standard of living to fund these benefits. If were to implement comparable programs here, effective middle class tax rates here would jump to over 40%. That means giving up the 2000 square ft plus homes, the leased 30K SUV in the garage etc... Life is about tradeoffs, to believe we can have benefits fall to us like manna from heaven without sacrificing something else for them, is simply foolish.

As for energy policy I am all for ending our dependency on fossil fuels, as these are finite and dirty sources of energy. The problem I have is our rush to look for simple answers based on emotion rather than hard analysis. We have an advanced civilization that needs a lot of reliable energy to maintain. I have looked at all sides of solar and wind. On a small scale these forms of power can alleviate the demand for FFs but scaling them up as a replacement for large wholesale power generations posesses more problems with regards to land usage and reliabilty issues. Our funding should be then dirrected toward further research into sources of energy that are carbon free and can actually meet all of our needs, without forcing a decline in our standard of living, a daunting challenge to be sure, but one we can meet over time, if we work smarter, not just harder. FFs dominate because they are currently the most cost efficient way to power our society, the trick to replacing them with "green" energy is to find a solution which can be proven to be both clean and more cost efficient. Some of my Mutuals are invested in companies that do this kind of research, because I do support it as private citizen.