5 ms·

The broad point above by @bilsbie is wrong. Fake made up items completely undermine the point’s credibility, and science spending in the U.S. provides a return

by dahart 2mo ago

The broad point above by @bilsbie is wrong. Fake made up items completely undermine the point’s credibility, and science spending in the U.S. provides a return on investment, it’s not losing money. That is pure political propaganda and not truth. Your new items have a touch more validity than top comment, but you’re making vast assumptions and stating opinions not shared by all, and not accounting for the economic costs of the alternatives you’re suggesting.

ericmay 2mo ago
Sorry, I don't agree with you at all and continuing to argue about it just makes me more convinced the OP was right to point out those specific items. I'm not interested in complaints about the GDP to debt ratio being too high if when someone points out wasteful expense, regardless of how minor, they and others are met with derision and arguments. At that point yea spend whatever who cares about the debt?
- SoftTalker 2mo ago
  The point is that you could cut all those "wasteful" projects (and we probably should, just on priciple) but if the savings is millions or even a few billion you aren't even making a dent. The real money is entitlements and defense (and interest on the debt). That's where you have to look to make a difference, but one of those things is mandatory and the other two are basically untouchable.
- dahart 2mo ago
  I don’t want my tax dollars wasted. We do agree on that, right? The government does waste some money. We agree on that too, right? I’m open to hearing why you think @bilsbie’s list is valid. I’m skeptical, and I’ll offer some reasons why, but please convince me, I will listen. Is there a credible source for the claim that money is being spent studying the effects of yoga on goats? I’ve looked a bunch already, and the consensus seems clear that the claim is simply not true. The empty buildings claim seems mis-stated. The actual wording from the Office of Management and Budget is “empty or underutilized” (emphasis mine). The US government’s real estate portfolio is well over a trillion dollars in holdings, and half a trillion in yearly spending, so this “underutilized” concern amounts to in the neighborhood of less than one half of one percent of spending. If that’s true, I’m absolutely amazed it’s that efficient! Corporate real estate isn’t that efficient. The government manages almost a million military and civilian buildings. Hundreds of buildings come and go every single day. Is it possible this “empty or underutilized” claim is temporary and sometimes unavoidable due to move in/out times, shuffling, and planning? Does it count if the figure includes buildings that are listed for sale and not selling? What about buildings that are held as investment and sell for more than they would have if they’d sold the moment they went empty? There are literally hundreds of thousands of people managing the country’s real estate portfolio. Do you know what they need to do to get from the presumably 99.6% utilization to guaranteed 100% utilization at all times? The smoking claim is real but dramatized for political effect - it’s simply an anti-smoking campaign & survey. Do you know the healthcare costs of smoking in the US? A quick google says direct economic costs in 2018 were ~$240 billion, with Medicare and Medicaid covering more than half of that. That’s taxpayer money, money you’re paying to cover the predictable effects of other people’s poor life choices, and that cost is literally fifty thousand times larger than the anti-smoking campaign @bilsbie complained about - five hundred of your dollars of medical care for every single penny of hipster music whatever. If the ‘hipster’ anti-smoking campaign was covered purely by taxes on the sale of cigarettes, would that make it okay for you? The $281 billion “managed to misplace” claim is a mis-characterization. This is the amount of money that didn’t have all proper paperwork, it was not all lost or misplaced. It is “payments that did not meet statutory or administrative criteria”. The music and cows claim appears to be false. Google mentions the University of Leicester (not in the US) had a “Moosic Study” in 2001 (BTW, come on, that’s funny), and the University of Wisconsin Madison did some trials in 1930 that did not cost $1M. The fish alcohol claim also appears to be false, an exaggerated carry over of a report from 1975 by Senator William Proxmire, who was the creator of the “Golden Fleece Awards”. Have you read the history of the Golden Goose Awards? It’s seriously worth the 2 minutes. https://www.goldengooseaward.org/history https://www.goldengooseaward.org/history
  - ericmay 2mo ago
    > I don’t want my tax dollars wasted. We do agree on that, right? The government does waste some money. We agree on that too, right? Yes, so why are you arguing with me? The specific claims aren't what matter (goat yoga) because you and I both know that there are small line items like these that are truly wasteful. I'm not defending the specific list, I'm arguing that we do waste small money on grants and such like what the OP wrote about and regardless of how small the dollar amount is, waste is waste.
    - dahart 2mo ago
      You did defend the specific items, you said so explicitly, you used the word “specific” in your previous comment, your first sentence said you are now “more convinced the OP was right to point out those specific items”. These specific items completely undermine your point, don’t you see that? Lies and exaggeration do not help make your case, they do damage to your cause, they suggest the problem isn’t real because you can’t come up with true examples. If there’s a real problem that matters, surely you can come up with something that’s true, and not a Gish Gallop of bad faith slop. Please - if there are valid, good faith examples “like” the list @bilsbie wrote, why don’t you list them and provide sources? Now, given that I agree with you that the government wastes money, your question why am I arguing with you is a good question, and it’s a question that you should think harder about; why do I agree with the existence of waste but disagree with your examples? You do realize that nodoby wants the government to waste money, right? Well maybe nobody but some of the contractors getting no-bid contracts. The fact that most people agree with you and I on the basic premise means you don’t need to prove that point, and what we need to do is: 1- decide what our goals are, 2- gather true, factual, and accurate information about what waste is occurring, and 3- elect officials that will do the right thing and enact policy that increases our efficiency. Now again, science funding in the US runs a pretty decent return on investment, economists seem to agree. If you disagree with that, then please provide some sources or analysis. And that includes ALL science funding, whether it sounds silly, whether it fails to produce results, and whether it’s inefficient or even wasteful. The country is getting back more money than it spends on science R&D, therefore it’s difficult to make the case that any one grant is “waste” when it’s part of a portfolio that is performing well and giving returns. Science funding runs on the very same investment concepts that venture capital does, and sure enough venture capitalists ‘waste’ money on bad investments literally all the time. That is the nature of investment, it comes with risk and it involves failure. Did you read about the Golden Goose Awards yet?
- buttercraft 2mo ago
  > someone points out wasteful expense This is the very thing under question in this thread! You have drawn a conclusion and are using your conclusion as an argument in a circular manner rather than engaging with what other people are arguing. "Other people disagree with me, therefore I am right" is the dumbest thing ever.

by dahart 2mo ago

ericmay 2mo ago

Sorry, I don't agree with you at all and continuing to argue about it just makes me more convinced the OP was right to point out those specific items. I'm not interested in complaints about the GDP to debt ratio being too high if when someone points out wasteful expense, regardless of how minor, they and others are met with derision and arguments. At that point yea spend whatever who cares about the debt?

SoftTalker 2mo ago
The point is that you could cut all those "wasteful" projects (and we probably should, just on priciple) but if the savings is millions or even a few billion you aren't even making a dent. The real money is entitlements and defense (and interest on the debt). That's where you have to look to make a difference, but one of those things is mandatory and the other two are basically untouchable.
dahart 2mo ago
I don’t want my tax dollars wasted. We do agree on that, right? The government does waste some money. We agree on that too, right? I’m open to hearing why you think @bilsbie’s list is valid. I’m skeptical, and I’ll offer some reasons why, but please convince me, I will listen. Is there a credible source for the claim that money is being spent studying the effects of yoga on goats? I’ve looked a bunch already, and the consensus seems clear that the claim is simply not true. The empty buildings claim seems mis-stated. The actual wording from the Office of Management and Budget is “empty or underutilized” (emphasis mine). The US government’s real estate portfolio is well over a trillion dollars in holdings, and half a trillion in yearly spending, so this “underutilized” concern amounts to in the neighborhood of less than one half of one percent of spending. If that’s true, I’m absolutely amazed it’s that efficient! Corporate real estate isn’t that efficient. The government manages almost a million military and civilian buildings. Hundreds of buildings come and go every single day. Is it possible this “empty or underutilized” claim is temporary and sometimes unavoidable due to move in/out times, shuffling, and planning? Does it count if the figure includes buildings that are listed for sale and not selling? What about buildings that are held as investment and sell for more than they would have if they’d sold the moment they went empty? There are literally hundreds of thousands of people managing the country’s real estate portfolio. Do you know what they need to do to get from the presumably 99.6% utilization to guaranteed 100% utilization at all times? The smoking claim is real but dramatized for political effect - it’s simply an anti-smoking campaign & survey. Do you know the healthcare costs of smoking in the US? A quick google says direct economic costs in 2018 were ~$240 billion, with Medicare and Medicaid covering more than half of that. That’s taxpayer money, money you’re paying to cover the predictable effects of other people’s poor life choices, and that cost is literally fifty thousand times larger than the anti-smoking campaign @bilsbie complained about - five hundred of your dollars of medical care for every single penny of hipster music whatever. If the ‘hipster’ anti-smoking campaign was covered purely by taxes on the sale of cigarettes, would that make it okay for you? The $281 billion “managed to misplace” claim is a mis-characterization. This is the amount of money that didn’t have all proper paperwork, it was not all lost or misplaced. It is “payments that did not meet statutory or administrative criteria”. The music and cows claim appears to be false. Google mentions the University of Leicester (not in the US) had a “Moosic Study” in 2001 (BTW, come on, that’s funny), and the University of Wisconsin Madison did some trials in 1930 that did not cost $1M. The fish alcohol claim also appears to be false, an exaggerated carry over of a report from 1975 by Senator William Proxmire, who was the creator of the “Golden Fleece Awards”. Have you read the history of the Golden Goose Awards? It’s seriously worth the 2 minutes. https://www.goldengooseaward.org/history https://www.goldengooseaward.org/history
- ericmay 2mo ago
  > I don’t want my tax dollars wasted. We do agree on that, right? The government does waste some money. We agree on that too, right? Yes, so why are you arguing with me? The specific claims aren't what matter (goat yoga) because you and I both know that there are small line items like these that are truly wasteful. I'm not defending the specific list, I'm arguing that we do waste small money on grants and such like what the OP wrote about and regardless of how small the dollar amount is, waste is waste.
  - dahart 2mo ago
    You did defend the specific items, you said so explicitly, you used the word “specific” in your previous comment, your first sentence said you are now “more convinced the OP was right to point out those specific items”. These specific items completely undermine your point, don’t you see that? Lies and exaggeration do not help make your case, they do damage to your cause, they suggest the problem isn’t real because you can’t come up with true examples. If there’s a real problem that matters, surely you can come up with something that’s true, and not a Gish Gallop of bad faith slop. Please - if there are valid, good faith examples “like” the list @bilsbie wrote, why don’t you list them and provide sources? Now, given that I agree with you that the government wastes money, your question why am I arguing with you is a good question, and it’s a question that you should think harder about; why do I agree with the existence of waste but disagree with your examples? You do realize that nodoby wants the government to waste money, right? Well maybe nobody but some of the contractors getting no-bid contracts. The fact that most people agree with you and I on the basic premise means you don’t need to prove that point, and what we need to do is: 1- decide what our goals are, 2- gather true, factual, and accurate information about what waste is occurring, and 3- elect officials that will do the right thing and enact policy that increases our efficiency. Now again, science funding in the US runs a pretty decent return on investment, economists seem to agree. If you disagree with that, then please provide some sources or analysis. And that includes ALL science funding, whether it sounds silly, whether it fails to produce results, and whether it’s inefficient or even wasteful. The country is getting back more money than it spends on science R&D, therefore it’s difficult to make the case that any one grant is “waste” when it’s part of a portfolio that is performing well and giving returns. Science funding runs on the very same investment concepts that venture capital does, and sure enough venture capitalists ‘waste’ money on bad investments literally all the time. That is the nature of investment, it comes with risk and it involves failure. Did you read about the Golden Goose Awards yet?
buttercraft 2mo ago
> someone points out wasteful expense This is the very thing under question in this thread! You have drawn a conclusion and are using your conclusion as an argument in a circular manner rather than engaging with what other people are arguing. "Other people disagree with me, therefore I am right" is the dumbest thing ever.