Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Road Walker who wrote (2494)	9/19/2008 1:59:17 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

A percentage of our military budget is required to try to insure our access to oil, which is currently our most vital commodity. There isn't any reason to think there would be significant cuts in the size of the military after and because of less need for oil, if we should have less (or even no) need for imported oil, or oil at all. Besides that keeping open trade isn't subsidizing anything. If we could flip a switch, and we stopped using any oil or any imported energy or fuel or non-energy product derived from fossil fuels (plastics, lubes, etc.), and at the same time put our defense budget to zero, both without any negative consequences, it still wouldn't make the defense budget a subsidy for oil. Its not just not a subsidy in some vague technical, overly precise way, it doesn't even resemble a subsidy.