4 ms·

Should be some extra money once you strip away most of what goes to the military and middlemen in healthcare.

• lenerdenator 3y ago
  Many of the things mentioned are handled at the local/state level in the US, while the military and healthcare regulation are a more national concern. Congress doesn't carve out that much money to make sure that some kid in rural Missouri actually has what he needs from schooling to compete in the global economy. Even if they did, you'd have some conservative super PAC-funded state level politician arguing against it because it's "a way for out of touch Washington bureaucrats to attack local traditional values".
  • beaeglebeached 3y ago
    I mean it works all the way down. Eliminate the taxes I have to pay for military and extraneous healthcare costs, and I could and would afford to buy a little backhoe. With that I can improve the public road easement on my property, help my neighbors run utilities, make my property more hospitable to producing goods. Just opening up that cash, even if super PAC blocks it's reuse as tax, works wonders at an individual level at improving infrastructure.
    • lenerdenator 3y ago
      Not to say that we couldn't budget better as a country, but that's far more ambitious than most of the people I encountered while in a 6-year-long relationship with someone in the rural lower Midwest. Hell, most people in those areas don't pay a meaningful amount of federal income tax, so cutting military expenditures wouldn't help there.