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.
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.