• Sundray@lemmus.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      35
      ·
      3 days ago

      And the billionaire class could pay for it all without even noticing the expense; their refusal to do so is strictly due to their twisted “ethics” preventing them from “rewarding” the “lazy.” 😡

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Whitey on the Moon

      A rat done bit my sister Nell.

      (with Whitey on the Moon)

      Her face and arms began to swell.

      (and Whitey’s on the Moon)

      I can’t pay no doctor bill.

      (but Whitey’s on the Moon)

      Ten years from now I’ll be paying still.

      (while Whitey’s on the Moon)

      • obrien_must_suffer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        That guy had a point. And I don’t have an answer. Maybe reallocate some of the defense spending that was already insane at that time?

      • Prox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        2 days ago

        OR, how about we stop flinging nerds into space and we still don’t feed the hungry?

        -Current US regime

      • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        No we house people on the moon. If there was an actual colony on the moon I would 100% go there. Earth sucks, it’s got all this pointless outside that I never use.

        • anomnom@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          it’s got all this pointless outside that I never use.

          Besties all the air, water, and carbon based life forms you need to eat anyway.

      • arrow74@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        Disagree, we as a nation put a small percentage of our resources into space exploration just for the sake of a dick measuring contest with another nation.

        We could absolutely end poverty.

        Of course I think we could have both, but what’s the point of putting a man on the moon if your citizens can’t even afford access to healthcare

        • MudMan@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          2 days ago

          Again, unrelated.

          I mean, you as a country put some money on parades and libraries and… I don’t know, presumably education? I don’t make any assumptions about the US. Definitely on the military.

          It’s not a zero sum game. Even American leftists have bought into this idea that public resources are extraordinarily limited and can’t be shared without severe means testing.

          Research and development tends to be fairly profitable in the long run. You don’t feed the poor because you have no political will, not because you have a space program. That’s a conservative talking point.

          • arrow74@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            2 days ago

            Right so this was addressed in the “of course we can have both” section of my comment.

            So to reiterate, of course we can have both scientific research and provide for our citizens. It’s my view that we should ensure our citizens are provided a basic standard of living and assign the remaining budget from there.

            The budget is quite massive and we should have no issue providing for both the people and research/scientific exploration. I would personally assign great value to these types of things. Honestly we can do both at the same time and we can easily do both by reallocating a small percentage of the defense budget but it won’t happen. The budget increase given to Homeland Security is sickening.

            • MudMan@fedia.io
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              2 days ago

              Okay, so then it’s unrelated.

              Why bring it up when talking about how effective progress in aerospace was at all? If you can have both why prompt it specifically in the one area that is a conservative talking point?

              Bring it up when talking about Homeland Security in that case.

              • arrow74@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                2 days ago

                This is why I fear Lemmy will fail. I see this every other thread. If someone says something that is even slightly off the topic of the original post people just complain about how it’s unrelated, shutting down the very conversation that makes sites like these interesting.

                I jumped into this conversation after the original comment. I thought they had a point. Sure their point was only loosely related, but I thought it was interesting conversation and worth a discussion. But no that would be too much fun.

                • MudMan@fedia.io
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  But it’s not because it’s off-topic.

                  It’s because it’s a reactionary trope based on a flawed premise that some people parrot for no good reason.

                  If you or the first poster on this had gone on about how much they like helicopters that would have been quite nice.

                  I didn’t say “that seems unrelated” because it’s off topic, I said it because the ability to create a social safety net and the ability to do research, even for the sake of international prestige, are in fact unrelated and the only reason to relate them is being hostile to both or trying to deflect from the lack of funding by shifting the blame to actually useful or productive things that do get funded.

                  I think that’s fun. That’s a fun observation.

                  • arrow74@lemmy.zip
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    2 days ago

                    Seems like back pedaling but I’ll bite.

                    I said it because the ability to create a social safety net and the ability to do research, even for the sake of international prestige, are in fact unrelated and the only reason to relate them is being hostile to both or trying to deflect from the lack of funding by shifting the blame to actually useful or productive things that do get funded.

                    As I said you can absolutely have both, but allowing poverty and human suffering to exit while focusing on these other things will always cast a shadow on them.

                    Like I said the starting point should be providing a basic standard of living for your citizens. Then you fund everything else. The US generates enough wealth to do both. The US generates enough wealth to fund hundreds of different programs, but I think a country’s first duty before all else is providing for its citizens. That statement doesn’t negate funding for anything else it just establishes a priority.