two physicists and a former governor walk into a bar... (Afghanistan, money)

[Goodnight]

Originally Posted by Eeyore1954

I really think most of what these secretaries do is not much more than being a figurehead but assuming they really are running a large organization which is more important
1) Having a advanced degree in science
2) Or experience managing a large organization such as a state.

They are both important, the secretary needs to have some knowledge of the business they are running, Moniz went well beyond that point.


People keep indicating that Perry was Governor of a very successful state, while that is true it is certainly not the most difficult state to run with their large supply of natural resources. I don't see that Perry was responsible for any innovation or had to guide them through tough times.

[PedroMartinez]

Originally Posted by Quick Enough

"Really makes ya sleep comfortably at night, with trump's pick at the helm of all this, doesn't it?

NO. It make me realize how loony and desperate some on the left really are.

Let's play your little childish game.

No, actually, this isn't a joke. Moniz, a physicist; Chu, a Nobel priez wining physicist; and Carter, a student, a peanut farmer and former governor....

No, actually, this isn't a joke. Moniz, a physicist; Chu, a Nobel priez wining physicist; and Bill Clinton, a student former governor...., and nothing else.

No, actually, this isn't a joke. Moniz, a physicist; Chu, a Nobel priez wining physicist; and Obama , a student, and Community Organizer er, state Senator who voted "Here" over 100 Times and did NOT finish out his term, A U.S. Senator who did NOTHING of any great achievement but hold down a seat, and did NOT finish out his term,

WOW be childish can be fun!


Being YOU are on an expert on the Dept of Energy:

How many programs do they oversee?

How many of those programs achieve what the mission of the program is supposed to achieve?

How many of those programs are efficient?

"During the early Cold War years, the AEC focused on designing and producing nuclear weapons and developing nuclear reactors for naval propulsion. The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 ended exclusive government use of the atom and began the growth of the commercial nuclear power industry, giving the AEC authority to regulate the new industry.

How many nuclear power plants have we brought on line in the past 8 years?



"BudgetPresident Barack Obama unveiled on May 7, 2009, a $26.4 billion budget request for DOE for fiscal year (FY) 2010, including $2.3 billion for the DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE). The budget aims to substantially expand the use of renewable energy sources while improving energy transmission infrastructure. It also makes significant investments[clarification needed] in hybrids and plug-in hybrids, in smart grid technologies, and in scientific research and innovation.[10]
As part of the $789 billion economic stimulus package in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Congress provided Energy with an additional $38.3 billion for fiscal years 2009 and 2010, adding about 75 percent to Energy's annual budgets. Most of the stimulus spending was in the form of grants and contracts.
For fiscal year 2013, each of the operating units of the Department of Energy operated with the following budgets:[11]
Division Funding (in billions) Nuclear Security $11.5 Energy and Environment $9.5 Science $4.9 Management $0.25 Other $0.85 Total $28https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...ment_of_Energy

"$2.3 billion for the DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy"

Where do we stand on this effort? Are we MORE efficient and where are the "renewable energies"

"It also makes significant investments[clarification needed] in hybrids and plug-in hybrids, in smart grid technologies,"

What has these "significant investments" gotten us?

And then we have the so -called "Stimulus Act, you remember,, the one that was "FOR SHOVEL READY JOBS"

"in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Congress provided Energy with an additional $38.3 billion for fiscal years 2009 and 2010, adding about 75 percent to Energy's annual budgets. Most of the stimulus spending was in the form of grants and contracts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...ment_of_Energy

A 75 % INCREASE!

"Most of the stimulus spending was in the form of grants and contracts."

What have we gotten for these "grants"?

What "contracts" were awarded?

What did they do?

Did they ACHIEVE WHAT THE CONTRACT WAS supposed TO ACHIEVE?

Wasn't 1 of their objectives for us to become "energy independent" ?

How many BILLIONS have been spent on this?

ARE WE energy independent?

How close are we to becoming energy independent.

What did the EPA to do help us become energy independent?

"The Department of Energy (DOE) requests $32.5 billion for FY 2017,an increase of $2.9 billion from the FY 2016 Enacted level of $29.6 billion

https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/...tinBrief_0.pdf

So, from 2009 their budget has increased from $26.4 BILLION to in 2017 $32.5 BILLION.

A $6 BILLION increas in just8 years.

What have we gotten for it?

Don't get me wrong, I believe there is some good that come out of the EPA ( some of what they do has to do with nuclear weaponry. Put that back in the hands of the military where it belongs) BUT, it has become mostly a HUGE taxpayer boondoggle.

Take the "good" programs and and assign them to other agencies.

I haven't seen a beating like this since


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OkB5gCqWUhQ

[middle-aged mom]

Originally Posted by pknopp

We can't afford trillions on any of the pointless wars. 15 years is far more than enough.

I know nothing about nuclear weapons.

Having said this I do know that nothing lasts forever and everything eventually requires major repairs, updating and eventual replacement as newer technology is more efficient.

Pentagon says the long term spending plan is intended to make it more efficient which is not the same as more neuclear weapons.

A long term intention to spend is not the same thing as actually spending. Only Congress can authorize spending down the road.

[pknopp]

Originally Posted by Mr. Joshua

Why do you say this?

I live in realities.

[pknopp]

Originally Posted by middle-aged mom

I know nothing about nuclear weapons.

Having said this I do know that nothing lasts forever and everything eventually requires major repairs, updating and eventual replacement as newer technology is more efficient.

Pentagon says the long term spending plan is intended to make it more efficient which is not the same as more neuclear weapons.

A long term intention to spend is not the same thing as actually spending. Only Congress can authorize spending down the road.

Excuses don't impress me.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by michiganmoon

And this nuclear stockpile that you speak of, will be much larger, as Obama broke his campaign promise and signed into law $1,000,000,000,000.00 worth of upgrades to our nukes over the next 30 years.

The US is Set to Spend $1 Trillion Upgrading Nuclear Weapons

Oh well...Trump is lucky he didn't do this or the media and left would tar and feather him!

The article you spoke of does not speak of making the stockpile larger. It speaks of enhancing it. That more than likely has to do with technology, not size. If you can actually find information on increasing the number of nukes, then do so otherwise you have posted something that is at the least, unconfirmed, at the most, a lie.

[Quick Enough]

Originally Posted by Eeyore1954

I really think most of what these secretaries do is not much more than being a figurehead but assuming they really are running a large organization which is more important
1) Having a advanced degree in science
2) Or experience managing a large organization such as a state.

I always found it amazing how Obama "hired" all those czars.

If his appointees were so "qualified", why did he need them?

Oh, I forgot, Guisner KNEW a lot about taxes when he was appointed to head the IRS!

[Travelassie]

Originally Posted by kat in aiken

Get your facts straight - the GOP wants Koch to run the country, it is trump who wants putin to run the country.

ROFL, as if fabricated left wing liberal talking points rolled down the trough for consumption and regurgitation by the gullible masses qualified as "facts".

[kat in aiken]

Originally Posted by Mr. Joshua

Why do you say this?

Is it that he knows more than the generals do?

[kat in aiken]

Originally Posted by Travelassie

ROFL, as if fabricated left wing liberal talking points rolled down the trough for consumption and regurgitation by the gullible masses qualified as "facts".

Hint: it was a joke. As are many of the comments made about liberals here. Laughable.

Although, I do understand why each side would think such things about the other side.