4 ms·

I disagree. It does, just not at the rate that it could.

tjr225 8y ago
This is it right here. A safety net(including healthcare, education, retirement) intended for all would be an awesome way to spend all of this money, but instead it gets squandered elsewhere.
- rukittenme 8y ago
  Where does it get squandered? 60% of the federal budget goes to retirement and healthcare. That doesn't account for all of the local budgets which almost exclusively target human welfare projects. There are only two stereotypical places I can think of it being "squandered". The first is the military which, who knows, could be NPV if you consider what the world could be like without it. Ultimately its unknowable. The second is the money not taxed. Which is a particularly frustrating mindset that I encounter on the internet. In either case, we're not "squandering" money anywhere. You may disagree with the allocation of some resources but that doesn't mean its been squandered.
  - jessaustin 8y ago
    Gosh, what would the world be like if our troops and munitions weren't murdering civilians and prolonging conflicts in a monotonically-increasing set of nations around the world? It's not "unknowable"; we just have to start voting... ...haha what was I thinking never mind. Also what does net present value have to do with any of this?
    - rukittenme 8y ago
      > Gosh, what would the world be like if our troops and munitions weren't murdering civilians and prolonging conflicts in a monotonically-increasing set of nations around the world? It's not "unknowable"; we just have to start voting... Hah! I didn't say you couldn't have an opinion on it. Only that you can't know the world that "could have been". > Also what does net present value have to do with any of this? Squander is a word which means to waste. If a government project has a net economic (or public health) benefit then by definition the money was not squandered.
      - wooter 8y ago
        > If a government project has a net economic (or public health) benefit then by definition the money was not squandered. Just want to point out that this statement doesn't account for opportunity cost. if it could go to something of greater net benefit, the difference between the two could be considered squandered.
    - lolsal 8y ago
      >Gosh, what would the world be like if our troops and munitions weren't murdering civilians and prolonging conflicts in a monotonically-increasing set of nations around the world? I imagine it'd be a lot more like the conflicts in the rest of Africa. > It's not "unknowable"; Yes it is, unless you have a time machine. > we just have to start voting... Ah see, but we already do that. The US votes to keep a massive, mighty military.
      - jessaustin 8y ago
        In the latest election, the dude who won president had tweeted things like, "stay out of Syria" and "WHAT WILL WE GET FOR OUR LIVES AND $ BILLIONS?ZERO" Lots of people knew he was lying, but lots of other people voted based on those statements. Two elections before that, the dude who won president had promised to close the Guantanamo torture site, to get out of Iraq and not to start new stupid wars. Lots of people knew he was lying, but lots of other people voted based on those statements. Two elections before that, the dude who won president talked about a "humble" USA that would not be "the world police" nor take part in "nation-building". Lots of people knew he was lying, but lots of other people voted based on those statements. Voting just isn't all it's cracked up to be!
  - tjr225 8y ago
    I absolutely believe our money is being squandered on a military industrial complex that is a net negative on the entire planet. I also believe that we need more progressive taxes, and to sit here and pretend that capitalism is flawless is simplistic and a waste of time.

This is it right here. A safety net(including healthcare, education, retirement) intended for all would be an awesome way to spend all of this money, but instead it gets squandered elsewhere.

rukittenme 8y ago
Where does it get squandered? 60% of the federal budget goes to retirement and healthcare. That doesn't account for all of the local budgets which almost exclusively target human welfare projects. There are only two stereotypical places I can think of it being "squandered". The first is the military which, who knows, could be NPV if you consider what the world could be like without it. Ultimately its unknowable. The second is the money not taxed. Which is a particularly frustrating mindset that I encounter on the internet. In either case, we're not "squandering" money anywhere. You may disagree with the allocation of some resources but that doesn't mean its been squandered.
- jessaustin 8y ago
  Gosh, what would the world be like if our troops and munitions weren't murdering civilians and prolonging conflicts in a monotonically-increasing set of nations around the world? It's not "unknowable"; we just have to start voting... ...haha what was I thinking never mind. Also what does net present value have to do with any of this?
  - rukittenme 8y ago
    > Gosh, what would the world be like if our troops and munitions weren't murdering civilians and prolonging conflicts in a monotonically-increasing set of nations around the world? It's not "unknowable"; we just have to start voting... Hah! I didn't say you couldn't have an opinion on it. Only that you can't know the world that "could have been". > Also what does net present value have to do with any of this? Squander is a word which means to waste. If a government project has a net economic (or public health) benefit then by definition the money was not squandered.
    - wooter 8y ago
      > If a government project has a net economic (or public health) benefit then by definition the money was not squandered. Just want to point out that this statement doesn't account for opportunity cost. if it could go to something of greater net benefit, the difference between the two could be considered squandered.
  - lolsal 8y ago
    >Gosh, what would the world be like if our troops and munitions weren't murdering civilians and prolonging conflicts in a monotonically-increasing set of nations around the world? I imagine it'd be a lot more like the conflicts in the rest of Africa. > It's not "unknowable"; Yes it is, unless you have a time machine. > we just have to start voting... Ah see, but we already do that. The US votes to keep a massive, mighty military.
    - jessaustin 8y ago
      In the latest election, the dude who won president had tweeted things like, "stay out of Syria" and "WHAT WILL WE GET FOR OUR LIVES AND $ BILLIONS?ZERO" Lots of people knew he was lying, but lots of other people voted based on those statements. Two elections before that, the dude who won president had promised to close the Guantanamo torture site, to get out of Iraq and not to start new stupid wars. Lots of people knew he was lying, but lots of other people voted based on those statements. Two elections before that, the dude who won president talked about a "humble" USA that would not be "the world police" nor take part in "nation-building". Lots of people knew he was lying, but lots of other people voted based on those statements. Voting just isn't all it's cracked up to be!
- tjr225 8y ago
  I absolutely believe our money is being squandered on a military industrial complex that is a net negative on the entire planet. I also believe that we need more progressive taxes, and to sit here and pretend that capitalism is flawless is simplistic and a waste of time.