The theme seems to be “reduce operating spending, increase capital spending”. We’ll see how that will blow over with the opposition.
The theme seems to be “reduce operating spending, increase capital spending”. We’ll see how that will blow over with the opposition.
Then give it to firefighters, climate scientists and forestry. The military is reactive not preventative.
Sure, you can dislike the military spending.
That doesn’t mean the budget isn’t investing more in the public than it is withdrawing.
I dislike the increase in spending on military because the returns to the public are minimal, the US has proven that, decades running.
Again, that’s a fine and valid critique of the budget.
This position however, does not seem valid when the budget is putting in more than it removes from actual public services, 51 billion v 13.
That part wasn’t a critique of the budget, it was a critique of your pitch for efficiency. You pivoted the discussion, I followed.
Maybe re-read what you reaponded to?
It’s pretty nonsensical to claim that because you’re providing a public good you can’t do so more effectively.
Nah I’m good dude, don’t have the energy, you can have this one.
Phew, I was thinking the same. I have no idea what you are trying to say.
Cheers.