> Most of those are small acts in comparison with the power that the US government has, and one of those acts was linked to the MIC that GP mentioned (DARPA is part of the MIC).
Thanks. I take back that bullet point.
Still, you've shifted the argument. If we take the commenter I responded to seriously, then "food pyramid" must be an example of what they mean by a federal program being "subpar." The food pyramid is a failure-- citizens' tax money went to fund a program that delivered inaccurate and unhelpful information back to them.
In response, I enumerated a few federal projects that popped into my head which most reasonably people would deem successful.
So I think we both disagree with the commenter's assertion that everything other than military spending is subpar by the measure their own example suggests. Even in your own assertion about gov't spending, you rely on a well-respected agency-- the CBO-- whose success at their role gives further evidence against the commenter's assertion.
> "So I think we both disagree with the commenter's assertion that everything other than military spending is subpar by the measure their own example suggests."
I don't disagree with GP, but I don't live in the US, so all I have to go on is what I'm told in the media, which I'm aware is open to manipulation. However, what I can say, based on the statistics available, which have been backed up by official sources, is that military spending seems much too high, which is a sign that the US government does not seem to have its priorities in line with what the people want (on the assumption that most of the US population is anti-war). With that in mind, the services you receive for your tax dollars can be seen as subpar as your government is spending a high proportion of the money you gave them in taxes on services that you neither benefit from nor desire.
For what it's worth, I'm from the UK and the priorities of the current UK government is far from aligned with the general public (cuts to the health, cuts to education, tax breaks for corporations that are already engaging in massive tax avoidance, etc...) as well as government programs being hugely wasteful (this was an older example, but it does make me wonder how things managed to get this bad before it was stopped https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/sep/18/nhs-records-... ). I just wanted to make it clear that I wasn't just criticising the US government, any country that has big issues surrounding wasting tax payer money is providing subpar services. There should be a way of making governments more accountable for their fiscal decisions, but I don't know how to best implement that. Suggestions welcome!
Thanks. I take back that bullet point.
Still, you've shifted the argument. If we take the commenter I responded to seriously, then "food pyramid" must be an example of what they mean by a federal program being "subpar." The food pyramid is a failure-- citizens' tax money went to fund a program that delivered inaccurate and unhelpful information back to them.
In response, I enumerated a few federal projects that popped into my head which most reasonably people would deem successful.
So I think we both disagree with the commenter's assertion that everything other than military spending is subpar by the measure their own example suggests. Even in your own assertion about gov't spending, you rely on a well-respected agency-- the CBO-- whose success at their role gives further evidence against the commenter's assertion.
edit: clarification