It's more likely both are true. We can afford to do more for the people, but at the same time we are over-spending. Streamlining some of these functions would be nice. One area we are vastly over-spending is highway and roadway construction, for example. Even if we can afford it, we shouldn't pay for it. There are other more politically hot topics here and both general sides of the debate have merit, but we should try to not be dogmatic about it and instead think in systems terms and long-term outcomes. When I see a city or state spending $400,000/each on units for housing homeless people, well, that's obviously a misuse of funds. That's not sustainable. We shouldn't do it even if we can afford it. When we spend $50 billion in a week of the Iran war (which I support but just as an example), well, that $50 billion could have paid off a lot of mortgages - so maybe we should or could do that instead.

▲

ChicagoDave 3 days ago | parent [-]

Maybe start with universal healthcare and rezoning laws so Airbnb can’t sit on housing. Make public college free. Reduce military spending drastically. Force billionaires to pay a 25% tax on net worth (they’d still increase their wealth).

Then create universal basic income.

Our economy would skyrocket.

▲

ChicagoDave 3 days ago | parent [-]

Just to note. McKenzie Scott has given half of her divorce settlement away and still has more than when she started.

No one needs to be a billionaire. It’s inhumane.

	▲	tptacek 2 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I don't like or valorize billionaires, I guess (I mostly don't care about them), but I don't understand what's "inhumane" here. There aren't very many billionaires. Billion dollar companies are far more salient to ordinary people than billionaires are. And, obviously, you can't fund universal health care by liquidating the billionaires! I've never really understood why people are so het up about billionaires. The distinction between them and decimillionaires seems mostly like comic book lifestyle stuff; like, OK, they fly their pets private for visitation with their ex-spouses or whatever, I guess that's offensive aesthetically? Far, far more damaging to ordinary people is the Faustian bargain struck between the upper middle class and the (much smaller) upper class, which redistributes vast sums of many away from working class people into the bank accounts of suburban homeowners. (Because fundamental attribution error guarantees threads like this will devolve into abstract left vs. right valence arguments, a policy stake in the ground: I broadly favor significantly higher and more progressive taxes, starting with a reconsideration of the degree to which we favor cap gains.)
	▲	ericmay 3 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I really applaud the work McKenzie Scott is doing. A lot of billionaires play the "aw shucks if only someone would tax me" - nothing is stopping them from just donating to the government if they really thought that. We have a housing problem, why not play Sim City in real life and build houses for people or something? Personally I think it would be a blast. Similarly though, there's nothing stopping you personally from taking $50, $100, whatever and walking over to a shelter or food bank and donating. You don't need to wait for the government to stand up a program. Lead by example like McKenzie Scott is. We donate money to local organizations - again, no barriers here. I don't care if someone is a billionaire, though of course we should tax them "appropriately". But if you're really mad about billionaires and you want these programs, you should be giving away your own money too and there's nothing stopping you. Waiting until you get just the right program or tax the right person is a bad strategy if you really care about some of these issues.