3 ms·
1. The simplest answer is that federal spending has always been out of control. 2. This assumes a 100% effective government. If it's only 70% effective, you ca
by BurningFrog 2y ago
1. The simplest answer is that federal spending has always been out of control.
2. This assumes a 100% effective government. If it's only 70% effective, you can cut spending by 30% without affecting the noble goals you list.
3. This is the Luigi argument. Get rid of health insurance and we'll all be happy! What exactly to replace it with is TBD.
4. The main argument against high corporate taxes is that it leads to companies moving to countries with lower taxes. The US still has higher such taxes than most and suffers from that, but the optics of lowering further are too bad, so we live with it.
- guax 2y agoIn #2, doing the DOGE way you cut by 30% but the efficiency is now lower than 70%. Government is now less effective, costs less, wastes more. Cuts in education, research and consumer protection will cost a lot long term. For #3 there is like dozens of models from different countries around the world. The U.S. could start by looking into those.
- BurningFrog 2y agoI you ask the locals about the health care systems in those different countries - I am from one - they'll tell you that it has it's own set of serious problems. A lot of the savings in those systems come from simply not providing certain costly treatments that are common in the US. That's not to say the US system is the greatest etc, but many Americans have a really idealized view of the alternatives.