That is easy enough.
The Inflation Reduction Act created the $27 billion Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. EPA announced $20 billion in grants under that fund, including billions to entities such as Climate United Fund, Coalition for Green Capital, and Power Forward Communities.
EPA also says the Inflation Reduction Act Environmental and Climate Justice Program appropriated $2.8 billion for financial assistance and another $200 million for technical assistance.
Reuters reported that, before Biden left office, about $96.7 billion in IRA clean-energy grants had been obligated.
Reuters also reported that CBO estimated Biden’s clean-energy tax subsidies would increase deficits by $825 billion over ten years.
So yes, “billions” was factual.
Now, you may approve of those programs. That is a different argument. But you asked for factual support that the left spent billions of taxpayer dollars advancing its own agenda. There it is.
As it happens I do approve of programs that reduce greenhouse gas emissions along with other programs that promote clean energy etc, and America isn't alone in spending money on such. It happens around the world so AFAIC, that isn't a waste of taxpayer money. You may well think it is but that's just subjective opinion - not fact.
That is not an answer.
I did not ask whether you “buy Trump’s justification.”
You claimed Iran did not pose a significant threat, and you claimed Trump accomplished “less than nothing.” Those are the claims being challenged.
A regime enriching uranium near weapons-grade, funding hostile proxies, and operating protected nuclear infrastructure is obviously a significant threat.
And if U.S. strikes damaged or destroyed Iranian nuclear/enrichment infrastructure, then “less than nothing” is simply false.
You can argue the action was unlawful. You can argue it was strategically unwise. You can argue it did not solve the entire Iran problem. Fine.
But those are different arguments.
So pick one and defend it.
Are you claiming Iran was not a significant threat?
Are you claiming its nuclear infrastructure was not hit?
Or are you only arguing that hitting it was not worth the cost?
Those are not the same claim.
Iran was not posing a significant threat. They weren't on the verge of becoming a nuclear power or anywhere near. Heck, a nuclear bomb isn't something that can be assembled with a DIY kit. Unless these strikes caused irreversible damage to Iran's nuclear potential (and from what I've read they haven't) then nothing has effectively been accomplished. Heck, it wasn't that long ago when Trump was claiming that Iran's nuclear capability had been 'obliterated' so was he lying when he said that? Or is he lying to justify his illegal war with Iran now?
I'm saying it's less than nothing because of the consequences of a madman's decision to start an illegal war. The needless deaths of servicemen and women, 175 children's lives lost thanks to a tomahawk missile strike on a school (the feeble protestations of this clown show of an administration that the strike was Iranian, despite Iran not possessing Tomahawk missiles notwithstanding). The closing of the Strait of Hormuz leading to worldwide inflation. 300 billion dollars wasted on a war that he had no legal right to start in the first place. If this war read as a bank balance it would be massively overdrawn and well in the red.
So yeah, less than nothing is pretty apt really.
