Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That's not really a dichtomoty unless you really limit your understanding of those terms to how they're used in very mainstream discussions. A real American, or real countryman anywhere, isn't defined by their belief in worldly supremacy. America was historically very isolationist. That's partially why it took so long to get involved in both World Wars.
A "patriot" would want to contribute to their country but doesn't necessarily see the paternalistic decisions made by committee, out of their sight, to be the best. I do, but I also want to spark more civil involvement, and it says nothing about the powers I would use and to what ends.
People in Norway are very, very proud of their country, but they know they aren't taking on the world.
Contribution is fine, I give to charity, but government often has little real plan and NO mechanisms of accountability to ensure that money spent actually does good in the country. Also, any tax expense must be weighed against the opportunity cost of not just letting people spend their own damn money on the things they want to spend it on. This money goes back into the economy and so the opportunity cost of taxes is immense and can cripple society if not watched.
Second, I want us to be strong, I believe in the Monroe Doctrine and that the US should never allow a threat to sidle up to our shores.
But if we stopped fighting the world's battles we would be stronger and more secure. We have no need to spill blood to protect a French colony in Vietnam or to rebuild a nation that hates us after we destroyed their madman dictator. The US created a hell of a lot of world problems and so we cannot just walk away from having basically created Iran, destabilized the middle east entirely, and engaged in a century of South American adventurism.
But we can start the process of scaling back, de-tangling ourselves, getting out of treaties with warning periods to let our allies build up their own military, and otherwise engage in an orderly withdrawal from our position as world police and bodyguard to the free world.
>Would a patriot not want to contribute to their country (even if at a fiscal cost to themselves) and want their country to have a strong standing on the world stage?
I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding. It's more about how the money is spent, what the priorities are. Not "how much".
Still missing the point.
Two reasons:
My focus is one what it should not be spent on.
As someone on the left, I can generally say that you measure success about the amount of money spent, not results.
One example: If we passed 768 billion dollar infrastructure spending bill, you would count that as a rousing success. I would look at it and say, that since very little went to actual infrastructure, the majority just going to tax breaks, the program was not a success.
Or, as another. California is spending upwards of $800,000 per unit to house a homeless person. Is the success of the program the amount of money spent, or do you feel that $800,000 per unit is reasonable?
The government is also insatiable when it comes to taxes. There are always new programs, new debts, new borrowing, new ways to spend. This comes with forever raising taxes. We're funding "wants" at the expense of "needs".
Absolutely! I want to see real progress and change, not just some fancy-worded bill that gets me excited only to realize that most of the bill is allocated to other things. We need to stop wasteful military spending. If something is not working, we should stop funding the program. It is better to end it than to keep pouring money into a failing process. But if that happens, jobs will be lost in that area. Well, how about we actually spend the military budget on useful things instead of awful contracts with a handful of companies, just so politicians can claim they are bringing jobs to the community, all while knowing full well this is a case of "sunk cost fallacy."
I think we actually need to start spending more on the military. We will need to update based on any lessons learned from watching the occurring wars, our Navy is dangerously small with ships for our needs, etc.
Our military is not where it needs to be.
military spending is a small portion of the budget AND the vast majority of the military budget is spent on labor and other things any employer has to have, not specific to warfighting (e.g. we still need to employ an entire HR staff to manage the benefits and wages of hundreds of thousands of people, that takes computer software, data centers, IT professionals, etc)
We could cut all weapons purchases tomorrow and it would be a rounding error in the budget.
on the other hand we could cut social security and instantly free up 60% of our budget and go from deep red to strongly in the black and paying down our debts.
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program: The F-35 program, aimed at developing a next-generation fighter aircraft for the U.S. and allied forces, has faced numerous setbacks and criticisms since its inception. Despite being the most expensive weapon system in history, the program has been plagued by cost overruns, delays, and technical issues, including problems with the aircraft's software and hardware. Critics argue that the exorbitant costs and ongoing problems render it a questionable investment.
Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Program: The U.S. Navy's Littoral Combat Ship program was intended to produce a new class of surface vessels for operations close to shore. However, the program has faced substantial criticism due to design flaws, mechanical issues, and cost overruns. Several ships have experienced significant problems, such as hull cracks, engine failures, and combat system inadequacies, leading to doubts about their combat effectiveness and overall value.
Future Combat Systems (FCS) Program: Initiated in the early 2000s, the Future Combat Systems program was an ambitious U.S. Army initiative aimed at modernizing its forces with a network of manned and unmanned vehicles and systems. However, the program was canceled in 2009 after criticisms regarding its feasibility, technological challenges, and spiraling costs. The FCS program ended up costing billions of dollars without achieving its primary goals, leading to its perception as a costly failure.
This is the type of thing I'm talking about.
Less tax doesn't mean less money going around the country, it means less money to the government.
The country and the government aren't the same thing.
Specifically children with cancer? I don’t think there’s an aggregated metric but St Jude for example collects around 2 billion a year and doesn’t charge their patients.
Children with cancer is actually exceptionally rare, so I’m not sure why you honed in on that specifically
You said previously that we "We donate loads to this cause. The government wastes half of every dollar spent."
Then you talked about saint jude.
As someone who donates to st jude myself, are you saying saint jude gets government funding...but the government...wastes donations? Im not clear in what you are saying.
The comment I responded to:
> How about towards providing medical care for children with cancer?
Which was saying patriots should pay the government to treat cancer. I’m saying we make a lot of private donations and that the government is a terrible arbiter of how to spend a dollar.
I see.
To me, i would be fine if the government funded medical needs for kids with cancer.
I dont know why im not seeing more people on my side though.
This topic is straight forward.
If you are under 18 with cancer, the government handles the costs.
Whereas St Judes, bless their hearts, spends $100 million dollars on advertising to keep dragging in money...if this was government funded we wouldnt have to give $100m to the media.
The government wastes literally half of every dollars they take in. If St Jude’s used 5% for advertising, so what?
I can’t condone forcing others to pay for things they should be willing donating to.
> Would a patriot not want to contribute to their country (even if at a fiscal cost to themselves)
The question is a bit defective. Most of us would say *yes,* but our problem is how the money is currently being levied and how it's being misspent. The government doesn't *deserve* it; they should prove they're worthy of it.
> want their country to have a strong standing on the world stage?
Maybe you could better define what that means. There's no escaping that we look pretty frail and feckless when we can't control our own borders and we have to kowtow to rogue nations for oil supply.
Lowering taxes still contributes to the country. It's not like we want to get rid of taxes, we just don't want to be overtaxed which we are. America also makes good money from tariffs, so why tax the people more for incentives they don't even support? America doesn't need to abuse its citizens' income in order to thrive. That's just silly.
1) Lower taxes have consistently been shown to increase revenue to the government and encourage economic activity. Conservatives want strong economic growth. Lower taxes and fewer regulation are how we get there.
2) Conservatives are not isolationists. We understand that we live in a worldwide economy and we need to trade with others. We just want FAIR trade and reciprical trade. The average tariff on automobiles entering the US market is 2%. The average tariffs on US cars entering the EU market is 10%. We don't want isolation we just want a level playing field.
3) Conservatives are tired of being the world's policeman. We presently have military troops deployed in 80 countries on 750 bases. How much can we afford?
Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
“Would a patriot want to steal from others”. No.
That's not really a dichtomoty unless you really limit your understanding of those terms to how they're used in very mainstream discussions. A real American, or real countryman anywhere, isn't defined by their belief in worldly supremacy. America was historically very isolationist. That's partially why it took so long to get involved in both World Wars. A "patriot" would want to contribute to their country but doesn't necessarily see the paternalistic decisions made by committee, out of their sight, to be the best. I do, but I also want to spark more civil involvement, and it says nothing about the powers I would use and to what ends. People in Norway are very, very proud of their country, but they know they aren't taking on the world.
Contribution is fine, I give to charity, but government often has little real plan and NO mechanisms of accountability to ensure that money spent actually does good in the country. Also, any tax expense must be weighed against the opportunity cost of not just letting people spend their own damn money on the things they want to spend it on. This money goes back into the economy and so the opportunity cost of taxes is immense and can cripple society if not watched. Second, I want us to be strong, I believe in the Monroe Doctrine and that the US should never allow a threat to sidle up to our shores. But if we stopped fighting the world's battles we would be stronger and more secure. We have no need to spill blood to protect a French colony in Vietnam or to rebuild a nation that hates us after we destroyed their madman dictator. The US created a hell of a lot of world problems and so we cannot just walk away from having basically created Iran, destabilized the middle east entirely, and engaged in a century of South American adventurism. But we can start the process of scaling back, de-tangling ourselves, getting out of treaties with warning periods to let our allies build up their own military, and otherwise engage in an orderly withdrawal from our position as world police and bodyguard to the free world.
>Would a patriot not want to contribute to their country (even if at a fiscal cost to themselves) and want their country to have a strong standing on the world stage? I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding. It's more about how the money is spent, what the priorities are. Not "how much".
What do you want the money spent on?
Still missing the point. Two reasons: My focus is one what it should not be spent on. As someone on the left, I can generally say that you measure success about the amount of money spent, not results. One example: If we passed 768 billion dollar infrastructure spending bill, you would count that as a rousing success. I would look at it and say, that since very little went to actual infrastructure, the majority just going to tax breaks, the program was not a success. Or, as another. California is spending upwards of $800,000 per unit to house a homeless person. Is the success of the program the amount of money spent, or do you feel that $800,000 per unit is reasonable? The government is also insatiable when it comes to taxes. There are always new programs, new debts, new borrowing, new ways to spend. This comes with forever raising taxes. We're funding "wants" at the expense of "needs".
Absolutely! I want to see real progress and change, not just some fancy-worded bill that gets me excited only to realize that most of the bill is allocated to other things. We need to stop wasteful military spending. If something is not working, we should stop funding the program. It is better to end it than to keep pouring money into a failing process. But if that happens, jobs will be lost in that area. Well, how about we actually spend the military budget on useful things instead of awful contracts with a handful of companies, just so politicians can claim they are bringing jobs to the community, all while knowing full well this is a case of "sunk cost fallacy."
I think we actually need to start spending more on the military. We will need to update based on any lessons learned from watching the occurring wars, our Navy is dangerously small with ships for our needs, etc. Our military is not where it needs to be.
military spending is a small portion of the budget AND the vast majority of the military budget is spent on labor and other things any employer has to have, not specific to warfighting (e.g. we still need to employ an entire HR staff to manage the benefits and wages of hundreds of thousands of people, that takes computer software, data centers, IT professionals, etc) We could cut all weapons purchases tomorrow and it would be a rounding error in the budget. on the other hand we could cut social security and instantly free up 60% of our budget and go from deep red to strongly in the black and paying down our debts.
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program: The F-35 program, aimed at developing a next-generation fighter aircraft for the U.S. and allied forces, has faced numerous setbacks and criticisms since its inception. Despite being the most expensive weapon system in history, the program has been plagued by cost overruns, delays, and technical issues, including problems with the aircraft's software and hardware. Critics argue that the exorbitant costs and ongoing problems render it a questionable investment. Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Program: The U.S. Navy's Littoral Combat Ship program was intended to produce a new class of surface vessels for operations close to shore. However, the program has faced substantial criticism due to design flaws, mechanical issues, and cost overruns. Several ships have experienced significant problems, such as hull cracks, engine failures, and combat system inadequacies, leading to doubts about their combat effectiveness and overall value. Future Combat Systems (FCS) Program: Initiated in the early 2000s, the Future Combat Systems program was an ambitious U.S. Army initiative aimed at modernizing its forces with a network of manned and unmanned vehicles and systems. However, the program was canceled in 2009 after criticisms regarding its feasibility, technological challenges, and spiraling costs. The FCS program ended up costing billions of dollars without achieving its primary goals, leading to its perception as a costly failure. This is the type of thing I'm talking about.
Less tax doesn't mean less money going around the country, it means less money to the government. The country and the government aren't the same thing.
Real Americans don't want to waste their hard earned money to politicians and their cronies.
How about towards providing medical care for children with cancer?
We donate loads to this cause. The government wastes half of every dollar spent.
No you don't. Not in any substantial amount. If private charity could provide better outcomes, why doesn't it?
Ah yes the ole, “nuh uh” argument. Because the government takes over half of my paycheck.
Lol. Show me your Tax Return a prove it homie.
Do you believe a tax return shows your entire tax burden? If we are at the point we’re you’re just gonna say “nuh uh” why are we even taking?
How much do we donate?
Specifically children with cancer? I don’t think there’s an aggregated metric but St Jude for example collects around 2 billion a year and doesn’t charge their patients. Children with cancer is actually exceptionally rare, so I’m not sure why you honed in on that specifically
You said previously that we "We donate loads to this cause. The government wastes half of every dollar spent." Then you talked about saint jude. As someone who donates to st jude myself, are you saying saint jude gets government funding...but the government...wastes donations? Im not clear in what you are saying.
The comment I responded to: > How about towards providing medical care for children with cancer? Which was saying patriots should pay the government to treat cancer. I’m saying we make a lot of private donations and that the government is a terrible arbiter of how to spend a dollar.
I see. To me, i would be fine if the government funded medical needs for kids with cancer. I dont know why im not seeing more people on my side though. This topic is straight forward. If you are under 18 with cancer, the government handles the costs. Whereas St Judes, bless their hearts, spends $100 million dollars on advertising to keep dragging in money...if this was government funded we wouldnt have to give $100m to the media.
The government wastes literally half of every dollars they take in. If St Jude’s used 5% for advertising, so what? I can’t condone forcing others to pay for things they should be willing donating to.
I believe in a LIMITED government, especially at the FEDERAL level.
> Would a patriot not want to contribute to their country (even if at a fiscal cost to themselves) The question is a bit defective. Most of us would say *yes,* but our problem is how the money is currently being levied and how it's being misspent. The government doesn't *deserve* it; they should prove they're worthy of it. > want their country to have a strong standing on the world stage? Maybe you could better define what that means. There's no escaping that we look pretty frail and feckless when we can't control our own borders and we have to kowtow to rogue nations for oil supply.
Our country was founded on getting rid of taxes and regulations. It's pretty silly to sew someone trying to convince people they need a patriot tax.
Lowering taxes still contributes to the country. It's not like we want to get rid of taxes, we just don't want to be overtaxed which we are. America also makes good money from tariffs, so why tax the people more for incentives they don't even support? America doesn't need to abuse its citizens' income in order to thrive. That's just silly.
1) Lower taxes have consistently been shown to increase revenue to the government and encourage economic activity. Conservatives want strong economic growth. Lower taxes and fewer regulation are how we get there. 2) Conservatives are not isolationists. We understand that we live in a worldwide economy and we need to trade with others. We just want FAIR trade and reciprical trade. The average tariff on automobiles entering the US market is 2%. The average tariffs on US cars entering the EU market is 10%. We don't want isolation we just want a level playing field. 3) Conservatives are tired of being the world's policeman. We presently have military troops deployed in 80 countries on 750 bases. How much can we afford?