Where should USA funding go?

[marharth]

I won't say anything much until this gets going since most people here dislike my political views.

 

The question is simple, where should funding go?

 

Medical purposes, to help businesses, for scientific research?

 

To make it simple try to use percentages and text explaining.

[Keanumoreira]

Education and security.

 

Nuff said.

[RealmEleven]

One cannot improve oneself unless one is honest with oneself. No amount of money can change this, because allowing any freedom to not accept tangible reality allows the individual to live out a delusion. Put another way, any lack of honesty in the individual makes it acceptable for that individual to simply lie about the things that need changing, so that no need for change is ever acceptable to that individual.

 

The same goes for societies and entire nations. As long as any form of deception is acceptable and legal within the community (as opposed to forming the basis for the strategies and tactics of war on the fields of contention outside that community), then there can be no going forward (without being dragged back an equal amount in other areas). This is because the legality of telling lies outside of court (as long as they are not for profit), also makes it legal to hide all the social problems by simply lying about the pertinent, verifiable facts.

 

Until people are regarded by law as being under oath at all times (especially in parliament or on the campaign trail), no amount or specific distribution of money will ever be able to solve our social problems.

 

[EDIT] Says he, falling out of his tree and mis-spelling "pertienent" - fixed[/EDIT]

 

[PS]Some free mental health advice for anyone contemplating hypothetical ideals: The stepping stones to delusional thinking all share one thing in common; the word, should. This is the modal verb from shall (as would is from will). "Should" is of the subjunctive tense (hypothetical, not real) which is commonly confused with the indicative (factual) - and that common confusion in usage lends itself to the convention by which the mind can be tricked into adopting a delusion by confusing an ideal with reality. You have been warned. PS]

Edited May 1, 2011 by RealmEleven

[Vagrant0]

First... Infrastructure (roads, bridges), put simply, they won't last another 20 years.

 

Second... Infrastructure (updating sources of electricity and the ways it reaches people), even with the initiative towards "green power" the system if outdated, overtaxed, and in many cases on the verge of catastrophic failure. The country has not built any new (cleaner) oil refineries since the 1970's, and has not built any new power plants (other than smaller local generators and sun farms which contribute little to the grid) in about that same time.

 

Third... Education very few schools are able to meet the guidelines for No Child Left Behind, and most of those live in richer areas that were doing well enough already or are privately funded. As is, the standards for NCLB are no match for what most of the developed world has. 6th graders in some countries are learning calculus while in US they're still learning to read, add, and learn all 50 states (nevermind the rest of the world).

 

 

 

As for where to get the funding, the best place to start would be setting the pay of all congress and top tier government to the national minimum wage and leave the only option for a wage increase as part of a referendum at the next election to the tune of a 5-25 cent increase per hour. A drop in the bucket... but it'll force them into a mindset of how to budget their money and maybe the country as well.

[csgators]

They should lower taxes and leave me alone.

 

Simple answer and most people will think it's not a good one but to me it is not the federal governments job to fund much of anything besides defense. If society (we the people) think something is important than the market will fund it, it's the nature of free markets. If we had a free market that is.

Edited May 1, 2011 by csgators

[marharth]

They should lower taxes and leave me alone.

 

Simple answer and most people will think it's not a good one but to me it is not the federal governments job to fund much of anything besides defense. If society (we the people) think something is important than the market will fund it, it's the nature of free markets. If we had a free market that is.

The issue with the free market, is that you have to buy from certain corporations now if you live in certain areas.

 

Not to mention the market is not free if a big company can do whatever they want, and get laws passed to protect them.

 

Not only that some things should not be bought with money.

 

If you make make bigger profit by making people suffer you will do it. That's how businesses works.

 

If there is a large profit motive in anything legal, businesses will rush to it.

[csgators]

The issue with the free market, is that you have to buy from certain corporations now if you live in certain areas.

 

 

No, you don't. Seriously. At least until Obamacare kicks in.

 

Not to mention the market is not free if a big company can do whatever they want, and get laws passed to protect them.

 

Not a free market, agreed.

 

Not only that some things should not be bought with money.

 

Money is the representation of your labor. So if not with your own effort, what then should things be purchased with?

 

If you make make bigger profit by making people suffer you will do it. That's how businesses works.

 

Business makes money by providing something of value. If profits can be made that means there is a good or service that people want. Why is it evil to provide people with what they want? If people want to suffer, it will be provided.

 

If there is a large profit motive in anything legal, businesses will rush to it.

 

Yes, thankfully. Otherwise we wouldn't have these neat computer things to carry on this debate with. :thumbsup:

 

Edit: Also on that last point, as more companies rush to whatever is making big profits, that thing will get cheaper and the profits will dry up for all but the best.

Edited May 1, 2011 by csgators

[marharth]

The issue with the free market, is that you have to buy from certain corporations now if you live in certain areas.

 

 

No, you don't. Seriously. At least until Obamacare kicks in.

 

Not to mention the market is not free if a big company can do whatever they want, and get laws passed to protect them.

 

Not a free market, agreed.

 

Not only that some things should not be bought with money.

 

Money is the representation of your labor. So if not with your own effort, what then should things be purchased with?

 

If you make make bigger profit by making people suffer you will do it. That's how businesses works.

 

Business makes money by providing something of value. If profits can be made that means there is a good or service that people want. Why is it evil to provide people with what they want? If people want to suffer, it will be provided.

 

If there is a large profit motive in anything legal, businesses will rush to it.

 

Yes, thankfully. Otherwise we wouldn't have these neat computer things to carry on this debate with. :thumbsup:

 

Edit: Also on that last point, as more companies rush to whatever is making big profits, that thing will get cheaper and the profits will dry up for all but the best.

I posted in your other topic, lets continue this there.

[Retribution]

Not to welfare, and not to food stamps. I can't stand it when I see a fatty buying soda pop and junk food with food stamps.

[marharth]

Not to welfare, and not to food stamps. I can't stand it when I see a fatty buying soda pop and junk food with food stamps.

I do agree that food stamps should be used on better foods, and should be restricted to use on healthy foods only but...

 

Food stamps help the economy and act as a stimulus. People will use food stamps almost as soon as they get them, so it gets money going faster.