3 ms·

There is money wasted in all parts of the gov because of inefficiencies everywhere. That doesn't mean we stunt the budgeting. That means we make sure the money

There is money wasted in all parts of the gov because of inefficiencies everywhere. That doesn't mean we stunt the budgeting. That means we make sure the money is being spent to its maximal potential so that American military dominance in the world is never meaningfully contested. And if more is needed to guarantee that, then there's more capital that can be raised. You don't solve inefficiency problems by gutting the budget. I also don't care what you personally believe about "cut 25% of the budget with no real hit to our readiness." Who are you that I or anyone here should care what you personally believe about cutting 25%? lol. Looking at your site in your profile, you're hardly even old enough to drink. You're just a kid and you're talking about stuff you don't understand. Go read the news about Hong Kong, Taiwan, the Koreas, Ukraine, and the general ethos driving China's debt-driven expansion and get back to me.

nexuist 5y ago
> You don't solve inefficiency problems by gutting the budget You don't solve them by throwing more money at the fire either. The budget has consistently risen YoY pretty much as long as I've been alive. > money is being spent to its maximal potential Historically countries that prioritize military (ex. North Korea) over education and other domestic programs do not succeed against countries with more balanced budgets. We will have to compete with brain drain if academics and entrepreneurs realize they can live better lives elsewhere. We have to be able to offer a country worth defending in order to convince people with good ideas that they should be defending us. > then there's more capital that can be raised. By raising taxes? Who would willingly want to pay more taxes to a government that isn't competent enough to safely defend its own land with the largest military in known history? > Who are you that I or anyone here should care what you personally believe An American citizen who can vote which qualifies me just as much as the next guy. > hardly even old enough to drink. Old enough to serve, old enough to pay taxes, and old enough to be drafted, which qualifies me to have a say even more. Unless you want to argue that I should be able to choose whether my tax money goes to inefficient institutions, in which case I would certainly agree in having that choice. But I think you would agree that everyone should get a say in where their money is spent. > general ethos driving China's debt-driven expansion If China was serious about challenging the US any time soon it would be making serious strides to decouple its economy from the Western world, which so far has not happened and doesn't appear to be on the horizon. In fact I would argue the US's trade war is the closest we've come to forcing a division, but it appears that things are just going to go back to normal now, and China is willing to continue having the US as its largest customer. China is obviously undergoing large scale economic growth and citizens everywhere are climbing up the poverty ladder, but that's not a sign of war nor should it be a pretense for one. Get back to me when Chinese aircraft carriers (when they build more, anyways) are sitting off the coast of NYC. Until then, this is just strongman bluffing. Every country in that region has a history of human rights abuses. Why is China the only one that we think will force us to conform to their ideals?

nexuist 5y ago

> You don't solve inefficiency problems by gutting the budget You don't solve them by throwing more money at the fire either. The budget has consistently risen YoY pretty much as long as I've been alive. > money is being spent to its maximal potential Historically countries that prioritize military (ex. North Korea) over education and other domestic programs do not succeed against countries with more balanced budgets. We will have to compete with brain drain if academics and entrepreneurs realize they can live better lives elsewhere. We have to be able to offer a country worth defending in order to convince people with good ideas that they should be defending us. > then there's more capital that can be raised. By raising taxes? Who would willingly want to pay more taxes to a government that isn't competent enough to safely defend its own land with the largest military in known history? > Who are you that I or anyone here should care what you personally believe An American citizen who can vote which qualifies me just as much as the next guy. > hardly even old enough to drink. Old enough to serve, old enough to pay taxes, and old enough to be drafted, which qualifies me to have a say even more. Unless you want to argue that I should be able to choose whether my tax money goes to inefficient institutions, in which case I would certainly agree in having that choice. But I think you would agree that everyone should get a say in where their money is spent. > general ethos driving China's debt-driven expansion If China was serious about challenging the US any time soon it would be making serious strides to decouple its economy from the Western world, which so far has not happened and doesn't appear to be on the horizon. In fact I would argue the US's trade war is the closest we've come to forcing a division, but it appears that things are just going to go back to normal now, and China is willing to continue having the US as its largest customer. China is obviously undergoing large scale economic growth and citizens everywhere are climbing up the poverty ladder, but that's not a sign of war nor should it be a pretense for one. Get back to me when Chinese aircraft carriers (when they build more, anyways) are sitting off the coast of NYC. Until then, this is just strongman bluffing. Every country in that region has a history of human rights abuses. Why is China the only one that we think will force us to conform to their ideals?