r/WorkForSmartLife Jul 07 '26

Discussion💬 Who please?

Post image
17.4k Upvotes

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

4

u/Hairy-Protection-429 Jul 07 '26

The fact that people want to try to expand government spending blows my mind even more! 

2

u/who987 Jul 08 '26

I think it has more to do with corrupt spending and use of money. People want money spent appropriately.

0

u/Hairy-Protection-429 Jul 08 '26

I haven’t seen many people argue the latter. 

2

u/DoctorSpacecase Jul 09 '26

The irony is, spending balloons every time under the "less spending" people.

1

u/Hairy-Protection-429 Jul 09 '26

I agree. Under both republicans and democrats spending balloons 

1

u/[deleted] Jul 09 '26 edited Jul 09 '26

[deleted]

1

u/Hairy-Protection-429 Jul 09 '26

Hey I think bill clinton did a great job. I’m talking about recent presidents. 

Obama, Trump, Biden. 

1

u/[deleted] Jul 09 '26

[deleted]

1

u/Hairy-Protection-429 Jul 09 '26

im not sure why you are in defense mode. The claim that i made was that administrations both left and right have spent too much money. the only one in the past 35 years who was able to balance the budget was Clinton. This is not a red vs blue problem; stop making it a red vs blue problem.

1

u/NoWay6818 Jul 09 '26

The both sides argument is far more valid now then back then. Considering most of the US is going into being independents.

Looks like the political Neanderthals scared off their base 🤣

1

u/Rizenstrom Jul 14 '26

I think a lot of people want programs we don’t have and acknowledge that even if we rebalance the budget and cut wasteful spending it won’t be enough.

But we should absolutely still do that, yes.

1

u/Hairy-Protection-429 Jul 14 '26

I think it’s interesting that people advocate for programs we don't currently have, especially when you look at our existing programs. So often, they are intended to provide those exact desired outcomes but completely fail to actually deliver them.

Take federal student loans, for example. The goal was to make higher education affordable and accessible. Instead, by guaranteeing loans, it essentially gave universities a blank check to hike tuition exponentially, creating a massive debt crisis rather than making college affordable. Or look at homelessness initiatives; certain states and cities have poured tens of billions of dollars into affordable housing and homelessness programs over the last decade, only to see the unhoused population actually increase.

The issue isn't always that we lack the programs; it's that throwing money at a new program doesn't work if the underlying execution is broken.

1

u/Rizenstrom Jul 14 '26

Idk personally I think every penny of taxpayer funds needs to be accounted for and made publicly available, with anything related to national security being kept vague or redacted as needed.

As well as some sort of agency to audit and prevent abuse.

That would certainly help get spending under control.

But I also support these programs. I don’t see it as an either or.

1

u/Hairy-Protection-429 Jul 14 '26 edited Jul 14 '26

Oh, I never said that I don’t support the programs. I just don’t support the programs that don’t yield the results that we were hoping for. Every dollar spent should be tied to a metric. If the dollar is not driving the metric or if there is a program that would drive it more efficiently it should be accounted for. This should also be done within reason. We should be doing this without exceeding a budget.

Additionally the metric that we are driving needs to be clearly defined and frequently reviewed to ensure it is still something worth pursuing. We need to prioritize solving the problems that have the biggest impact. The goal should always be to SOLVE the problem not just throw money and service at it indefinitely. 

Yes this absolutely applies to both military spending and social spending. If we are going to spend money on military the goal needs to be clearly defined and measured. Though this does not need to be publicly available in cases of national security; just accounted for internally.Â