7 ms·

So there isn't a magic number? Any criticism of spending at all is the same as criticizing a single dollar? Got it. So we mustn't criticize policies and spend

So there isn't a magic number? Any criticism of spending at all is the same as criticizing a single dollar? Got it. So we mustn't criticize policies and spending vel0city agrees with. I'll add that to the rulebook to make sure no one else wonders aloud if perhaps that money could be of use right now (or used better in general).

vel0city 2y ago
What number would you have been good with? $5? That $20 could have been useful. Imagine how much more money the average taxpayer would have if the government didn't spend that 0.001% of it's budget. You'd be complaining about any amount. Or do you think they wouldn't have complained if it was only $600M? Just be honest and state what you really feel: the government shouldn't spend any money assisting communities with migrants other than to get them out.
- astroid 2y ago
  Hard to say, given I just found out about this situation. I think it's higher than $20 for sure, but probably less than half than a billion. I think a more in depth analysis of the circumstances that led to the need to spend that money in the first place would be in order. Can you tell me why I am supposed to answer your questions, but you have successfully dodged all of mine while levying personal attacks however? Seems .... a tad imbalanced, dont you think? Go ahead vel0city, tell us what number you think the threshold is for questioning governments spending of the money they took directly out of our paychecks? You have to have one in mind at this point. How could you not? How else could you backup your claim? EDIT: Actually I should ask - are you an American citizen? Do you have a dog in this fight? Is this money even coming out of your check? If not, it would explain why you think these budgets are beyond reproach, given that it would mean it's not your friends, family, or neighbors being effectively sacrificed, nor is it your money being spent in that case.
  - vel0city 2y ago
    [dead]
  - seadan83 2y ago
    Blame Congress. (1) they control budget and can add the additional funds. They also know that half a billion is being "diverted" from acute disaster relief. The budgeting is on them. (2) Congress needsto amend the asylum law to allow asylum claims at ports of entry or not at all. That congress has a law disallowing asylum claims at ports of entry is why people are crossing deserts and then surrendering to the first authority they see. On another side, government budgets are not zero sum. Saying we should spend on X before we spend on Y is also saying you don't think money should go to X. A personal household budget is zero sum, government not so.
    - astroid 2y ago
      There is plenty of blame to go around, and Congress is certainly at the top of that list. It's a pretty long list though. Zero sum or not, the attitude you have about budget discussions is why we are about to print ourselves into a depression. If you can't discuss prioritizing spending based on whatever criteria applies to the situation, you simply can't discuss budget concerns. I do not take the view that the budget our taxes pay for is beyond reproach. I have no problem evaluating it from the perspective of 'money is not infinite, and no specific agencies spending is so inherently special that it can not be discussed under the context of where potential waste or inefficient spending happened, and how it can be adjusted to avoid that in the future." 'X seems like a better use of the money and more representative of what the taxpaying public wants it spent on, to ensure things are prioritized properly while properly representing 'We The People' -- as such it may be worth looking back to determine if this money was allocated in a manner that provides the most benefit to the taxpayers while maintaining consistency with the agencies core responsibilities' -- there is nothing wrong with this type of discussion/analysis, and anyone trying to claim there is has there own agenda they want to impose on you. Your line of thinking leaves absolutely no room to discuss the budget in a meaningful way, because 'having priorities' is not allowed under that framework. It's a dialectical trap meant to make people fall in line. I'll pass, thanks.
      - seadan83 2y ago
        > Zero sum or not, the attitude you have about budget discussions is why we are about to print ourselves into a depression. I'll ignore (beyond pointing it out here) that you are putting words into my mouth and conducting a personal attack. I did mostly want to draw contrast that government budget is unlike household and not zero sum. Whether we print ourselves into depression is unclear. Particularly since there are other levers and continues to be economic growth. I agree spending cannot be 100% for every need. > I have no problem evaluating it from the perspective of 'money is not infinite, and no specific agencies spending is so inherently special that it can not be discussed under the context of where potential waste or inefficient spending happened, and how it can be adjusted to avoid that in the future." I agree. Though saying we should not spend anything on X until we spend all on Y is not the same as saying we are spending too much X (in part given that we need to spend on Y)

vel0city 2y ago

What number would you have been good with? $5? That $20 could have been useful. Imagine how much more money the average taxpayer would have if the government didn't spend that 0.001% of it's budget. You'd be complaining about any amount. Or do you think they wouldn't have complained if it was only $600M? Just be honest and state what you really feel: the government shouldn't spend any money assisting communities with migrants other than to get them out.

astroid 2y ago
Hard to say, given I just found out about this situation. I think it's higher than $20 for sure, but probably less than half than a billion. I think a more in depth analysis of the circumstances that led to the need to spend that money in the first place would be in order. Can you tell me why I am supposed to answer your questions, but you have successfully dodged all of mine while levying personal attacks however? Seems .... a tad imbalanced, dont you think? Go ahead vel0city, tell us what number you think the threshold is for questioning governments spending of the money they took directly out of our paychecks? You have to have one in mind at this point. How could you not? How else could you backup your claim? EDIT: Actually I should ask - are you an American citizen? Do you have a dog in this fight? Is this money even coming out of your check? If not, it would explain why you think these budgets are beyond reproach, given that it would mean it's not your friends, family, or neighbors being effectively sacrificed, nor is it your money being spent in that case.
- vel0city 2y ago
  [dead]
- seadan83 2y ago
  Blame Congress. (1) they control budget and can add the additional funds. They also know that half a billion is being "diverted" from acute disaster relief. The budgeting is on them. (2) Congress needsto amend the asylum law to allow asylum claims at ports of entry or not at all. That congress has a law disallowing asylum claims at ports of entry is why people are crossing deserts and then surrendering to the first authority they see. On another side, government budgets are not zero sum. Saying we should spend on X before we spend on Y is also saying you don't think money should go to X. A personal household budget is zero sum, government not so.
  - astroid 2y ago
    There is plenty of blame to go around, and Congress is certainly at the top of that list. It's a pretty long list though. Zero sum or not, the attitude you have about budget discussions is why we are about to print ourselves into a depression. If you can't discuss prioritizing spending based on whatever criteria applies to the situation, you simply can't discuss budget concerns. I do not take the view that the budget our taxes pay for is beyond reproach. I have no problem evaluating it from the perspective of 'money is not infinite, and no specific agencies spending is so inherently special that it can not be discussed under the context of where potential waste or inefficient spending happened, and how it can be adjusted to avoid that in the future." 'X seems like a better use of the money and more representative of what the taxpaying public wants it spent on, to ensure things are prioritized properly while properly representing 'We The People' -- as such it may be worth looking back to determine if this money was allocated in a manner that provides the most benefit to the taxpayers while maintaining consistency with the agencies core responsibilities' -- there is nothing wrong with this type of discussion/analysis, and anyone trying to claim there is has there own agenda they want to impose on you. Your line of thinking leaves absolutely no room to discuss the budget in a meaningful way, because 'having priorities' is not allowed under that framework. It's a dialectical trap meant to make people fall in line. I'll pass, thanks.
    - seadan83 2y ago
      > Zero sum or not, the attitude you have about budget discussions is why we are about to print ourselves into a depression. I'll ignore (beyond pointing it out here) that you are putting words into my mouth and conducting a personal attack. I did mostly want to draw contrast that government budget is unlike household and not zero sum. Whether we print ourselves into depression is unclear. Particularly since there are other levers and continues to be economic growth. I agree spending cannot be 100% for every need. > I have no problem evaluating it from the perspective of 'money is not infinite, and no specific agencies spending is so inherently special that it can not be discussed under the context of where potential waste or inefficient spending happened, and how it can be adjusted to avoid that in the future." I agree. Though saying we should not spend anything on X until we spend all on Y is not the same as saying we are spending too much X (in part given that we need to spend on Y)