If cutting these programs had a meaningful impact on either our tax bills or the national debt, I would be more willing to have the conversation about what should be funded by the government and what should be done by private local charity. I support the idea that government funding should be the absolute last resort, the only thing left after all other options have been totally exhausted. I also believe that the government which governs least, governs best. But that means that when something stops being funded, the taxpayers should immediately feel it and have more cash on hand.
But somehow, the government funds less and less, but takes in more money and takes on more debt, and their salaries and pension funds get bigger.
I’m not opposed to that. But I don’t think that the government should be the first place to look. I think that individuals in the local area (and presumably care about their neighbors) should be the first source of money. Not the government threatening force.
Half the buildings in my small town are owned by 2 families. One owns the largest private employer in the county, the other owns the largest dealership in the area and is also our state senator. There is no provate charity for this stuff because there is no money going to said charities. The wealthiest hoard everything and make sure there are as few scraps for the rest of us as possible.
Rugged individualim is completely incompatible with modern life.
yup. that money wouldn’t get to the charities without the strong arm of the government. i have helped run the largest fundraiser in the area for 30 years. we bring mid 6 figures every year for the homeless shelters and cover two months operating expenses. the rest comes from grants.
to all you ancap/libertarian/bullshit types thinking oh the government shouldn’t do this, the money you invest getting someone out of poverty, you get back societally tenfold just from them being wealthier down the road. that is why this is the government and society’s job, not individuals’. they will have a shitton more money to spend in a year and a shitton more money than that the next year and so on, with compounding effects on the economy. the only better investment is educating children (given current political realities), possibly universal healthcare or ubi. but now we’re splitting hairs and getting into utopias if we’re talking statesia.
If cutting these programs had a meaningful impact on either our tax bills or the national debt, I would be more willing to have the conversation about what should be funded by the government and what should be done by private local charity. I support the idea that government funding should be the absolute last resort, the only thing left after all other options have been totally exhausted. I also believe that the government which governs least, governs best. But that means that when something stops being funded, the taxpayers should immediately feel it and have more cash on hand.
But somehow, the government funds less and less, but takes in more money and takes on more debt, and their salaries and pension funds get bigger.
so like, a lot of this stuff gets done (in the US at least) by charitable CORPORATIONS (gasp! a dirty word!) and funded through government grants.
I’m not opposed to that. But I don’t think that the government should be the first place to look. I think that individuals in the local area (and presumably care about their neighbors) should be the first source of money. Not the government threatening force.
Half the buildings in my small town are owned by 2 families. One owns the largest private employer in the county, the other owns the largest dealership in the area and is also our state senator. There is no provate charity for this stuff because there is no money going to said charities. The wealthiest hoard everything and make sure there are as few scraps for the rest of us as possible.
Rugged individualim is completely incompatible with modern life.
yup. that money wouldn’t get to the charities without the strong arm of the government. i have helped run the largest fundraiser in the area for 30 years. we bring mid 6 figures every year for the homeless shelters and cover two months operating expenses. the rest comes from grants.
to all you ancap/libertarian/bullshit types thinking oh the government shouldn’t do this, the money you invest getting someone out of poverty, you get back societally tenfold just from them being wealthier down the road. that is why this is the government and society’s job, not individuals’. they will have a shitton more money to spend in a year and a shitton more money than that the next year and so on, with compounding effects on the economy. the only better investment is educating children (given current political realities), possibly universal healthcare or ubi. but now we’re splitting hairs and getting into utopias if we’re talking statesia.