24 ms·

Ending wasteful spending of our tax dollars on gov contractors and letting them slide with huge overcharges, partly due to use-it-or-lose it budgeting, would he

Ending wasteful spending of our tax dollars on gov contractors and letting them slide with huge overcharges, partly due to use-it-or-lose it budgeting, would help in a big way. Ending this shit budgeting practice would also be big. Nevermind how much of our tax money goes towards the MIC. Rather see our money go towards these programs to help one another, over bombs to tear people apart.

_heimdall 3y ago
Optimizing spending and cutting waste only gets so far, and its only a short term fix. At the end of the day the system needs to include a sustainable model for one of the population to be subsidized by everyone else, in this case that segment is single parents. With many western countries also seeing a large growth in the retired population, that leaves a segment of the population heavily subsidizing the elderly and single parents, along with all other government programs and similar groups that need help (like the poor, students, those too sick to work, etc)
- ryandrake 3y ago
  > one of the population to be subsidized by everyone else When you frame it that way, you're setting it up to fail, asking "everyone else" to pay tax dollars to support "one". How about instead: one of the population (namely ultra-wealthy people and businesses) subsidizing everyone else. Now, it's the larger "everyone else" who is benefitting, at the expense of a small group who should hold less democratic power due to its size. I'm not saying you're doing this but phrases like the one quoted above are sometimes used to divide the "everyone else" group against each other, in order to erode support for programs that ultimately benefit them.
  - _heimdall 3y ago
    I totally get that framing can make a difference, unfortunately in politics it often seems to be the largest factor. If the system is that fragile, though, it does make me question if its the right answer. People that can should be willing to help subsidize those in need because they see it as the right thing to do, not because they're convinced by a story that may be more spin or even a hit of gas lighting "for the greater good." That said, with regards to dividing "everyone else" with such phrases, I wish politicians hadn't done so well leveraging phrases that best explain a program as divisive language. It is one part of the population subsidizing others, and there shouldn't be anything wrong with that. Politicians get involved, though and such phrases become weapons to keep "everyone else" divided and unaware how similar we all are. If you want to stay in power, just keep your people fighting themselves so they never look up.

_heimdall 3y ago

Optimizing spending and cutting waste only gets so far, and its only a short term fix. At the end of the day the system needs to include a sustainable model for one of the population to be subsidized by everyone else, in this case that segment is single parents. With many western countries also seeing a large growth in the retired population, that leaves a segment of the population heavily subsidizing the elderly and single parents, along with all other government programs and similar groups that need help (like the poor, students, those too sick to work, etc)

ryandrake 3y ago
> one of the population to be subsidized by everyone else When you frame it that way, you're setting it up to fail, asking "everyone else" to pay tax dollars to support "one". How about instead: one of the population (namely ultra-wealthy people and businesses) subsidizing everyone else. Now, it's the larger "everyone else" who is benefitting, at the expense of a small group who should hold less democratic power due to its size. I'm not saying you're doing this but phrases like the one quoted above are sometimes used to divide the "everyone else" group against each other, in order to erode support for programs that ultimately benefit them.
- _heimdall 3y ago
  I totally get that framing can make a difference, unfortunately in politics it often seems to be the largest factor. If the system is that fragile, though, it does make me question if its the right answer. People that can should be willing to help subsidize those in need because they see it as the right thing to do, not because they're convinced by a story that may be more spin or even a hit of gas lighting "for the greater good." That said, with regards to dividing "everyone else" with such phrases, I wish politicians hadn't done so well leveraging phrases that best explain a program as divisive language. It is one part of the population subsidizing others, and there shouldn't be anything wrong with that. Politicians get involved, though and such phrases become weapons to keep "everyone else" divided and unaware how similar we all are. If you want to stay in power, just keep your people fighting themselves so they never look up.