> If the whole contraceptive/abortion debate were about saving lives, then I wouldn't even be arguing with you... but it's not is it?

I know this is getting a bit off topic from what you originally were talking about, but abortion and contraception absolutely are about saving lives just as much as giving people control over there lives. In particular, when abortion is not available, people will seek out services from those who know nothing about actually performing an abortion or will attempt to self induce an abortion, which can be devastating in an environment where information is not available.

> Okay, now you're a lot more in line with the truth -- the masterminds in charge feel they have license to prevent "negative impact on society". Doesn't that scare you? The people in charge are no better than you or I... in fact I'd say they're mostly worse. They're mostly power hungry and good enough liars to get elected.

The purpose of organizing via a government in the first place is to prevent negative impact on society, so it really comes down to specifics. Providing health care access is a net gain for everybody and can be done reasonably, but policies like wars of aggression and police militarization are a huge drain on our society and others around the world. Again, it comes down to specifics.

> I've heard both Biden and Obama use those EXACT reasons for why we need to raise revenues/taxes.

They would like to use tax revenue increases to be spent on domestic social programs, but they really can't say it will be used that way, it will all come down to actually passing some kind of legislation to raise revenue and then legislation to spend it. In the current political climate in the US, that's a tall order.

> You're going to split hairs and worry about exactly how much of our tax dollars were spent on an Indian reality show? Who cares? Those people are abusing their trust to reduce "negative impact on society" and should be booted.

I think it matters because its not really clear if the Dept. of Agriculture's program is useful without specific information and details about it.

> I didn't say Solyndra was the only loss. Once again, though, you're splitting hairs on how many million it was when the real answer should have been: No, we don't use BORROWED money to fund corporations for industries that are pet projects.

Solyndra was supposed to be making an improved form of photo volatic solar panels for use in residential construction. While Solyndra was a bust, government spending to advance practical applications of alternative energy technology is definitely a good idea, as we will require better technology of that kind in the future as fossil fuel extraction gets more expensive. To that end, I wouldn't call this a pet project.

Also, the money was a loan that was to be repaid. The bankruptcy restructuring going on now means that the loan originator (the Dept. of Energy) will lose out on some amount of that loan, but the DoE felt is was worth the risk.

As for using tax money (borrowed or not) to spend on corporations through loan or subsidy programs, whether or not it is a waste really depends on the specifics of what that spending seeks to accomplish and what actual results occur. Funding alternative energy research has a strong value, even if it means that sometimes the programs will lose out. Also, the DoE's loan program is not a major source of financial pressure on gov't revenues: military spending and the increasing cost of medicare/medicaid due to lack of health care reform are the two biggest pressures right now.

> If you doubt that billions have been wasted, you haven't been paying attention. You must not have noticed TARP, large portions of which went to save the money and jobs of wealthy bankers. yay.

While I don't agree with the TARP program, billions were not wasted, as the vast majority of TARP funds have been completely repaid[1]:

As of December 31, 2012, the Treasury had received over $405 billion in total cash back on TARP investments, equaling nearly 97 percent of the $418 billion disbursed under the program.

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program