Blast but you came off as so much more rational than me. Still, I have to disagree. There is a point when you go past the realm of "thinking differently" and enter the realm of dead wrong. Racism, for example is not an argument where two groups suffer a difference of opinion. The basis for one half of the argument ignores too many facts and clings on to far too many imagined theories. You can use statistics to gesture vaguely towards differences in race, but only if you ignore all other factors. Turning a blind eye to education levels, poverty levels, and contributing culture will allow a person to think that different races are simply born with inferiority, but it is a lie. A lie dressed in half facts and whole fears.

True, resources are precious, but then, asking companies to re-plant what they take is step towards correcting damage done and allowing for more resources to be available even as we continue to draw from a finite supply. That as a side effect, the additional woodlands create cleaner air and a stronger environment is simply a pleasant side effect.

Now, if you completely ignore the fact that Earth’s supplies are indeed limited, then you could pretend that telling companies they no longer have to do that is good for the economy, but it is not a matter of opinion. When you take from a limited supply, and fail to replenish that supply, then you eventually run out. So it does not just cause environmental harm, but it is also economically irresponsible as it guarantees the inevitable destruction of all businesses dependent upon those resources.

The same can be said of the budget changes. While it is true that loans, even very small ones, can drive an economy; it is also true that business and non-profit organizations that run on that model have plans for those loans to pay off. Each one must be an investment, else the loan would not pay off at an acceptable rate, and the interest would eventually bankrupt the project. So, the problem is not that I disagree with the practice of taking out loans (which I do); the problem is that the loans are being taken out with no plan to pay them back. Many of the funds are being used for hand-outs with no return. Many more are being used for military equipment which is to be considered disposable; in other words whether they use it or not its final destination in now way pays back its cost. Now, money spent to save lives actually does pay back in its own way. If, for example, we had spent a billion dollars of loan money on the creation of an improved and lasting Iraqi infrastructure (i.e. roads, sewers, solar/wind fields, and schools); then we would have been investing in a healthier, happier, better educated populace. An investment that could lead to an occupied populace psychologically less inclined towards violence. A more modern, healthier, better educated Iraq would strengthen are ally, reduce long term expenses, decrease violence, weakening our enemies’ recruitment ability and save tax paying American lives. So often time the moral choice IS the economic choice. But again, the bottom line is that the current administration is taking out MASSIVE loans, with no plan to pay them back. There is no argument against that being a bad idea unless the administration is planning a long term planetary take-over which would allow them to control all currency and erase there own debt.

So yes, there are many different ways to play a game. There is always more than one way to win. Even in chess, if you opponent were to become frustrated and abandon the game, you could win without capturing the enemy king. While I do not agree with taking out loans, that is a matter of opinion, as many organizations have benefited from the practice as have been destroyed by it. My opinion, though valid to some, is still just one perspective. Part D coverage in Medicare was widely disputed for its excessive spending, but it was a great and needed kindness and I personally feel that funds would be better spent on it than elsewhere. But that is just my opinion, and the creation of that organization does lie with the current administration. My boggle, is that funds were not re-directed, it is living off of loans and deficits and therefore will die unless more responsible actions are taken to run it more effectively. Not properly, because that would be a matter of opinion, but more effectively, which really isn’t.

Using up your all your supplies while behaving as if they are infinite is not just one more one to run things well; for it isn’t a way to run things well at all. It is a failing, an error, a mistake, or, one might even say, “stupid”.

Not everyone the current administration has done is wrong. Much of it is a matter of opinion, and some of it I would say was right. But the steady stream of VERY bad mistakes is discouraging at best. Decisions have been made, one after another, which are too stupid to justify. A leadership structure cannot be so short sighted without doing it wrong. That is not an opinion, but rather the very definition of the positions they have accepted. The mistakes are too great, and too numerous to be chalked up to human error. Someone is either being very stupid, or they are aware of how damaging these choices will be, in which case their actions are crimes against millions that will negatively effect billions. If it is the latter, some might call it “evil” (in a very non-threatening/non-religious way of course).

So again, while I can agree with the potential correctness of your over-all assertion that it comes to an argument of preferred perspectives and varying tactics; it does not apply in this case. Because as surely as destroying a microwave to make it work better won’t work, there will always be some things that are wrong. Where it is NOT a matter of opinion, because someone has seriously screwed up; either because they were stupid, ignorant, or did with intent and possibly malice.