@8GMR5G7

J>J  Персональный ответДа, но только если расходы будут идти на экологически безопасные решения

J>J  Персональный ответAs answered before, which I am going to copy and paste, because I've already typed this all, I am also going to add some things, which will be in between two 'apostrophes', and things I cut out will be in quotation marks within another set of "quotation marks", and parts I replace with other words will be in between two /slashes/, because I am even going as far as to quote my own work, because it has an original source, so, "Yes, because the richer you are, the higher 'the' tax costs you can pay for, and so if richer people were to pay MORE taxes, then not only would citizens with poor'er' wealth need to pay less, or even no taxes, but if we increased taxes for the rich so that their taxes costed them /the same percentage of their money out of the amount they earn as the percent an average citizen of average wealth spends on THEIR/ taxes out of the total amount of money 'that' they earn, decreas/ing/ the amount of taxes that citizens of average wealth spend by 1.5 times, 'and' decreas/ing/ the amount of taxes that citizens of poor wealth spend out of the total THEY earn by 75%, and homeless citizens who pay taxes, 'well,' no longer having to pay taxes (because some homeless citizens have jobs, which means they have money to spend, and when they spend that money, the pay taxes as a result), and when they do get homes, only having to spend /10% of what/"" citizens of average wealth spend on taxes/./ If all of these requirements were met, then free education might be just within our reach." Doing this will also cause similar tax-related events to occur, such as, just as examples, roads not costing the majority of citizens as much to create or re-pave, the majority of citizens not paying as much to keep the government and the military going without much issue, doctors being able to get a hold of better, safer, steadier, more precise, more advanced equipment, etcetera (for the examples of tax-related effects, not the list of attributes the better equipment doctors could get).

J>J  Персональный ответYes, though I do not think we need to ban them (not completely banned, just very limited and start the percentage lower and increase it gradually), but more importantly increase recycling so that way more people can recycle more often (also increase taxes on companies that make products that contain less than 50% of biodegradable materials to incentive them to make biodegradable products, try to replace most of—if not all—plastic with more biodegradable material) and increase consumer incentives to recycle these products. -Originally from some Democrat, they typed this, I just copied and pasted it so that I could use it as my answer.

J>J  Персональный ответNo, we should invest in cleaner alternatives such as wind, hydroelectric, thorium, and geothermal because if a nuclear meltdown were to happen, big negative events such as moderate amounts of casualties and cancer from nuclear radiation would occur, and those are just examples of SMALL nuclear meltdowns! Remember Chernobyl? Yes, it was caused from user error, but very large and very catastrophic nuclear meltdowns similar to that one could still occur in many of the nuclear power plants dotted around the planet, in fact, in some areas afflicted by the Chernobyl disaster, people are still being affected by small amounts of nuclear radiation; too small to cause instantaneous negative impacts, but enough to cause permanent damage over time. Most nuclear reactors cool down using water, but needs so much water that only pipelines coming from the ocean can carry enough water to keep these things cool and prevent meltdowns caused from one problem, and due to global warming caused from the heating of Earth from it's previous ice age (yes, this is still happening), and that's the main cause of global warming, combined with in part greenhouse gasses, and this is also putting jellyfish populations on the rise, and because of how many there are, how thick and gooey they are, how thick the are, how many of them generally travel in extremely large groups, how easily they clump up after death, and after dying, all of the previous problems stated are amplified, (with the exception of travelling in large groups for, obvious reasons), making it really easy for a jellyfish or group of jellyfish to clog up a nuclear reactor's cooling pipe, thus causing even more nuclear meltdowns to occur much more often.

J>J  Персональный ответYes, but only upon completion of their sentences and parole/probation, and only if they weren't convicted of violent crimes such as murder, unless, of course, they were proven to be innocent, either during the initial trial, any subsequent trials, or mid-sentence.

J>J  Персональный ответIncrease, because with higher spending on the military, troops can undergo better training, getting access to better-made equipment, consisting of, each having additional benefits, being deadlier weapons that jam less, stronger, more durable armor, and more effective, more controlled equipment. These things will also help us defend against attacks more easily.

J>J  Персональный ответNo, but instead increase the funding and training for police departments everywhere around the U.S. to help lower the total countrywide crime rate.