Shuffling the money around doesn't close the deficit.

It can help by shifting money to things that will actively reduce costs over time or increase revenue.

Like? Keynesian economics (like the stimulus package) sound nice, until you realize that all you're doing is pulling money out of the economy, absorbing some of it as revenue, putting it back into the economy, and taxing it as it goes through. You're not creating any more wealth, you're just taking money from some and giving it to others.

I'm talking about focusing on things like renewable energy research, alternative energy production, bolstered internal affairs of the US, etc. Things that, once done, will cut expenditures or generate revenue for the US.

Oh, you mean things like Solyndra? The energy of the future? It cost taxpayers over half a billion dollars, and we have nothing to show for it. If the tech is viable and self-sustaining, investors will come. If investors aren't putting money into it, it's likely that the business model or the tech isn't sustainable. Injecting millions of tax dollars into an industry won't make it magically sustainable.

Theoretically, yes. The issue in this case is that investors are also controlled by the easy way, rather than the best way. For them, who cares that oil and coal are devastating to the environment, finite, or any of the other myriad problems with them? They're cheap, and by the time the effects get too severe, the people on top'll be dead or rich enough to shrug off the fallout. Solyndra wasn't the best plan, no, but it did show success in photovoltaic power. Had it not been for a preciptious drop in the cost of alternative products, the system would have done quite well. Regardless, the idea lived on in the amount of Solar systems around the US today.

[quote]Theoretically, yes. The issue in this case is that investors are also controlled by the easy way, rather than the best way. For them, who cares that oil and coal are devastating to the environment, finite, or any of the other myriad problems with them? They're cheap, and by the time the effects get too severe, the people on top'll be dead or rich enough to shrug off the fallout.[/quote] They're cheap. Yes. And economically sustainable, and efficient. Frankly, the effects on the environment don't justify slashing the industry's tendons. Solar and wind are cleaner. That's a given. But they aren't economically viable, yet. Pumping federal funds into them isn't going to transform the landscape of the energy market. When the model becomes self-sufficient, investors will be crowding each other to fund it. Until then, there's no use injecting tax dollars into it. [quote]Solyndra wasn't the best plan, no, but it did show success in photovoltaic power. Had it not been for a preciptious drop in the cost of alternative products, the system would have done quite well. Regardless, the idea lived on in the amount of Solar systems around the US today.[/quote] Solyndra was a terrible idea. It was a combination of the ideas that the government can 1) make models sustainable through rigorous funding, and 2) that the government can "stimulate" the economy by redistributing it. When solar power is ready, the industry will take off.

1) They wouldn't be slashing the tendons. They'd be shifting slowly away from the current systems to a better, less destructive model. So from 100% Fossil-fuel powered to 80%. From there to 60. And so on. But without the government funding it until it becomes "self-sufficient", it won't ever get there. 2) What it was was a promising idea that the government wanted to see happen. The model was doing well, showing promise and success, but then fell through with something unforeseen happening that reduced costs to their competitors. It was less trying to "stimulate" the economy so much as trying to expedite and refine a very promising lead.

[quote]1) They wouldn't be slashing the tendons. They'd be shifting slowly away from the current systems to a better, less destructive model. So from 100% Fossil-fuel powered to 80%. From there to 60. And so on. But without the government funding it until it becomes "self-sufficient", it won't ever get there.[/quote] The state shouldn't be in the business of setting these ratios. When the "green" models are ready, they'll be able to compete with the other sources of energy. If government funding could make these industries viable, Solyndra would be a powerhouse by now. It isn't, and neither are any other clean energy producers - not to the degree of traditional sources. The state can't magically make these things viable. They'll be able to compete, but it will have to be on their own merit. [quote]2) What it was was a promising idea that the government wanted to see happen. The model was doing well, showing promise and success, but then fell through with something unforeseen happening that reduced costs to their competitors. It was less trying to "stimulate" the economy so much as trying to expedite and refine a very promising lead.[/quote] And it fell on its face. Half a billion dollars wasted, and a painful realization that tax dollars can't inflate a worthless model.