4 ms·

I’m not saying it has to be spent, or that it has to be spent on what I said. The scale is the thing. Austerity since 2008 seems like it leads to much worse out

I’m not saying it has to be spent, or that it has to be spent on what I said. The scale is the thing. Austerity since 2008 seems like it leads to much worse outcomes.

hunterb123 5y ago
I understand, my point was, the never ending war gave them the opportunity to funnel to Boeing, Lockheed, Raytheon, etc. Making "universal" programs is the same thing as Afghanistan, you won't get anything out of it in the end and it'll end up costing you trillions. The best government program is near to no program. Don't print more, let it hold it's value, don't steal from the people. Then you'll have oodles of wealth to help the true people in need, either through private companies or through limited government programs with oversight. Stop giving them tax payer fund spigots, they can't be trusted.
- taurath 5y ago
  Governments around the world are able to provide more services to all of their citizens, being less rich than us. I think the “government is always the problem” mindset ignores the downsides of the alternative that we’re living through now, with the only proscribed thing to do being a zero example “doubling down” on less government. If you want your country to have healthcare, at the very minimum you do the Swiss system.
  - hunterb123 5y ago
    My point was OUR government can't be trusted with the money. You think the same people playing games with lives over seas just to funnel money to defense contractors is going to truly implement the system promised? That being said, no I don't believe in socialist programs, Sweden was a pretty good example they aren't feasible, it crushed their economy and they are slowly reversing course. I think there should be safety nets, but the government should not be in charge of your life. There's a reason America is the economic powerhouse it is today, limited programs, less taxes. Our private healthcare system is expensive but leads the world in innovation (cancer treatments, experimental drugs, vaccines, etc.) The American people pay for that R&D while the world gets it basically for free. I don't have an issue with universal healthcare, but we should lower costs first, not throw more tax payer money to hospitals and pharma.
    - taurath 5y ago
      I don’t think American government is special compared to a lot of other places that provide more services. Often we have less corruption. What we do have is a lot of corporate de facto control of government IE the pharmaceutical industry - this comes out of a desire to have minimal government. The American healthcare system is not better because we spend more money, it’s better because we have good universities and lots of immigrants. Agree we should lower costs - deregulation does not lower costs in this case.
- ineptech 5y ago
  > The best government program is near to no program. 1000x no! We need government to work - that's not negotiable - the question is not whether it works well enough to make you happy, it's what it should work on. The US didn't go to the moon or build the interstate highway system by saying, "Politicians suck, I hope the private sector solves this."
  - hunterb123 5y ago
    While the space programs gave us a lot of technology early on and were definitely needed, private sector entities such as SpaceX have shown they can do it more efficiently. I'd say NASA was a massive outlier in terms of government program effectiveness. I wish they would get more funding tbh, instead they get cuts :( I'm all for R&D spending, defense spending, infrastructure spending, etc. But time and time again OUR recent government has shown they cannot be trusted with the funds and programs they suggest. They make these massive bills and none of the money makes it to anything meaningful. I'm for SPECIFIC programs, not UNIVERSAL slush funds. Name the bridges you want to repair, repair them. Don't try to steal $5 trillion while funneling it to "green companies" without fixing a single pothole.
- nextaccountic 5y ago
  > Making "universal" programs is the same thing as Afghanistan, you won't get anything out of it in the end and it'll end up costing you trillions. You will get.. infrastructure, healthcare, education. How is this nothing?

I’m not saying it has to be spent, or that it has to be spent on what I said. The scale is the thing. Austerity since 2008 seems like it leads to much worse outcomes.

hunterb123 5y ago

I understand, my point was, the never ending war gave them the opportunity to funnel to Boeing, Lockheed, Raytheon, etc. Making "universal" programs is the same thing as Afghanistan, you won't get anything out of it in the end and it'll end up costing you trillions. The best government program is near to no program. Don't print more, let it hold it's value, don't steal from the people. Then you'll have oodles of wealth to help the true people in need, either through private companies or through limited government programs with oversight. Stop giving them tax payer fund spigots, they can't be trusted.

taurath 5y ago
Governments around the world are able to provide more services to all of their citizens, being less rich than us. I think the “government is always the problem” mindset ignores the downsides of the alternative that we’re living through now, with the only proscribed thing to do being a zero example “doubling down” on less government. If you want your country to have healthcare, at the very minimum you do the Swiss system.
- hunterb123 5y ago
  My point was OUR government can't be trusted with the money. You think the same people playing games with lives over seas just to funnel money to defense contractors is going to truly implement the system promised? That being said, no I don't believe in socialist programs, Sweden was a pretty good example they aren't feasible, it crushed their economy and they are slowly reversing course. I think there should be safety nets, but the government should not be in charge of your life. There's a reason America is the economic powerhouse it is today, limited programs, less taxes. Our private healthcare system is expensive but leads the world in innovation (cancer treatments, experimental drugs, vaccines, etc.) The American people pay for that R&D while the world gets it basically for free. I don't have an issue with universal healthcare, but we should lower costs first, not throw more tax payer money to hospitals and pharma.
  - taurath 5y ago
    I don’t think American government is special compared to a lot of other places that provide more services. Often we have less corruption. What we do have is a lot of corporate de facto control of government IE the pharmaceutical industry - this comes out of a desire to have minimal government. The American healthcare system is not better because we spend more money, it’s better because we have good universities and lots of immigrants. Agree we should lower costs - deregulation does not lower costs in this case.
ineptech 5y ago
> The best government program is near to no program. 1000x no! We need government to work - that's not negotiable - the question is not whether it works well enough to make you happy, it's what it should work on. The US didn't go to the moon or build the interstate highway system by saying, "Politicians suck, I hope the private sector solves this."
- hunterb123 5y ago
  While the space programs gave us a lot of technology early on and were definitely needed, private sector entities such as SpaceX have shown they can do it more efficiently. I'd say NASA was a massive outlier in terms of government program effectiveness. I wish they would get more funding tbh, instead they get cuts :( I'm all for R&D spending, defense spending, infrastructure spending, etc. But time and time again OUR recent government has shown they cannot be trusted with the funds and programs they suggest. They make these massive bills and none of the money makes it to anything meaningful. I'm for SPECIFIC programs, not UNIVERSAL slush funds. Name the bridges you want to repair, repair them. Don't try to steal $5 trillion while funneling it to "green companies" without fixing a single pothole.
nextaccountic 5y ago
> Making "universal" programs is the same thing as Afghanistan, you won't get anything out of it in the end and it'll end up costing you trillions. You will get.. infrastructure, healthcare, education. How is this nothing?