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.
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.
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.
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 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.
But it’s not zero sum. You don’t have to do this linearly. It’s not social safety net first, everything else after. It’s both at the same time. That’s not how funding prioritization works.
And again, even if it was, there are plenty of things to deprioritize before you deprioritize research or space exploration.
This is the problem with even having this conversation here. Why bring it up here at all? This is not the thing where you go “oh, but don’t we have other priorities” unless you’re actively opposed to this being a priority because holy crap, are there worse priorities to go after.
Honestly, this argument is so American it’s not even worth it.
Oh, and for the record, I’m not backpedaling. If anything I was pulling punches up front because hey, a lot of people get swayed by conservative propaganda arguing that useful stuff shouldn’t get funded because they defunded other useful stuff. I was being nice.
I think I’m done being nice, which means “don’t talk to Americans about politics, it’s a waste of time” policy is back online.
If you want to have a conversation about it… well, still no. But repeating the argument that has been addressed multiple times and accusing the other guy of poor reading comprehension isn´t it.
That one is because of being from the Internet. Not blaming the US for that one.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Seems like back pedaling but I’ll bite.
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.
But it’s not zero sum. You don’t have to do this linearly. It’s not social safety net first, everything else after. It’s both at the same time. That’s not how funding prioritization works.
And again, even if it was, there are plenty of things to deprioritize before you deprioritize research or space exploration.
This is the problem with even having this conversation here. Why bring it up here at all? This is not the thing where you go “oh, but don’t we have other priorities” unless you’re actively opposed to this being a priority because holy crap, are there worse priorities to go after.
Honestly, this argument is so American it’s not even worth it.
Oh, and for the record, I’m not backpedaling. If anything I was pulling punches up front because hey, a lot of people get swayed by conservative propaganda arguing that useful stuff shouldn’t get funded because they defunded other useful stuff. I was being nice.
I think I’m done being nice, which means “don’t talk to Americans about politics, it’s a waste of time” policy is back online.
I’ve said this was easily possible 3 times now, but you seem to have decided to read what you want. Regardless of what’s being said.
Might be for the best to follow your own policy if you fail to read and comprehend the nuances of the conversation.
I know you said it.
I responded.
If you want to have a conversation about it… well, still no. But repeating the argument that has been addressed multiple times and accusing the other guy of poor reading comprehension isn´t it.
That one is because of being from the Internet. Not blaming the US for that one.