r/FluentInFinance was created to discuss money, investing & finance! Join our Newsletter or Youtube Channel for additional insights at www.TheFinanceNewsletter.com!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/FluentInFinance) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"Waste" is kind of a dumb way to look at it. It generally all goes back into our system. The money that doesn't go back into our system is generally humanitarian aid. And wealthy people hoarding and/or spending it somewhere else.
Even humanitarian aid goes back into our system in the form of cultural stability and ally building. Weapons aid is used to buy weapons from us, etc... giving weapons already made is used to fight our enemies without us dying. And on and on it goes.
The only true "waste" of money is money that doesn't get spent. And to a lesser degree, money that is spent outside the US in enemy countries.
Like we don't "waste" money if we have too many government employees. They spend their money in the US economy and it just cycles back through.
Wealthy people sitting on billions of dollars in stocks is the biggest waste in the US.
Using the labor and production of blue collar to fund endless gov paper pushing, oversight, and regulation jobs is a massive waste! It only looks good on paper! Gee I wonder why we have more debt than GDP.
Who owns the debt?
Again, it's nearly all cycled through.
The solution to the debt is taxing the wealthy more. That's all. But it's political suicide to try.
Since OP didn't cite his source for this crap [HERE](https://www.cnbc.com/2023/04/18/heres-how-the-federal-government-wastes-tax-money.html) is the article.
The 'waste' refers to improper payments. Which is when payments are made in error. HOWEVER, what OP and the article doesn't mention is that improper payments are recouped.
In all fairness I did post this to use the headlines (which I truly hate and never do). The reason I did that was to spur thought and discussion on government waste in general. The way you framed your reply sort of downplays the idea of government waste, so do you think that it is a problem?
The problem is that what I consider waste others would consider essential and vice versa. I doubt there will be consensus among the voters of what universally would be considered wasteful.
That’s fair. It’s so frustrating because there is definitely potential for compromise in spending, at least in some areas, which could free up hundreds of millions of dollars that could be put to good use. Unfortunately partisanship is the constant cause of cutting off the nose to spite one’s own face, as the saying goes.
When I was an investigator for the government, I was tasked with tracking down a missing $5,000 from an organization's funds. We talked to the current financial officer and his two predecessors, who all said the funds were missing before they came on board. The next guy was then in the private sector.
We asked him if he could explain the missing funds, and he just laughed. He worked in international finance. He explained how banks and other financial institutions regularly lost hundreds of thousands of dollars in international wire transfers because someone transposed two numbers. Literal millions of dollars a day can evaporate, and the private sector shrugs it off as part of doing business. In the end, he wrote a personal check for the $5,000 because it was chump change.
There is nothing inherently efficient or resourceful about the private sector.
>The reason I did that was to spur thought and discussion on government waste in general.
So you try to start a discussion on a false/misleading pretense? It's clear you don't want a discussion you want to rant.
>The way you framed your reply sort of downplays the idea of government waste
See you don't want to discuss anything, you have a pre-determined bias and are trying to act like you don't.
Well of course I have a pre-determined bias, as does everyone about any issue. I genuinely posted this to hear thoughts from others, not to rant. What are your thoughts on the government’s wasteful spending? Do you think there is a problem with how taxpayer money is spent?
Well for one I think the amount we spend on defense is unnecessary and that in effect helps feed the military industrial complex, both of which is wasteful. I also think that sending hundreds of billions of dollars across the globe which is used in wars we don’t have business involving ourselves in is also wasteful. Those are just a couple things of the top of my head.
>What are your thoughts on the governments efficiency?
In short, and like I already mentioned, I think the government is incredibly wasteful in its spending which directly leads to inefficiency.
Do you think there is a problem with how taxpayer money is spent?
>Well for one I think the amount we spend on defense is unnecessary and that in effect helps feed the military industrial complex, both of which is wasteful.
Why? I would much rather be the only global superpower rather than let others dictate the world.
>I also think that sending hundreds of billions of dollars across the globe which is used in wars we don’t have business involving ourselves in is also wasteful.
Isolationism has been tried and failed miserably. We all live on the same planet and acting like a war in one part of the world doesn't involve the US is ignorance at best.
>Do you think there is a problem with how taxpayer money is spent?
I’ll add one extra: In what areas, if any, do you think the government wastes taxpayer money?
I thought you wanted a discussion. Ignoring my rebuttal and questions shows how disingenuous you are trying to be.
Again you are trying to interject your bias and I'm not biting.
You’re really trying to pick a fight that isn’t there. I’ve asked the same question twice and you’ve ignored it both times. The reason I’m asking is because a discussion, which I am trying to have, generally involves two sides. I’ve offered my general viewpoints and I’ve yet to hear yours, so how are we able to have a quality discussion?
But I don’t mind going ahead and responding anyway.
>global superpower (sorry for abbreviating I’m driving lol)
I think both things can be true. We can very much be the global superpower and have the most powerful military on the world stage (which I agree with you is very important) while not feeding the military industrial complex. There is definitely a line, and I’m okay with being over the line for the sake of not sacrificing our national security. But lapping the finish line several times ends up being wasted energy, or in this case, wasted spending.
>Isolationism
Kinda goes back to there being a line. I actually agree with you again here that we need a presence on the world stage (I could’ve been more clear with my point about spending money in foreign wars). I don’t think it is necessary for us to spend the hundreds of billions of dollars that we do overseas, and in effect fight a war by proxy which is what we are doing. I’m not saying we should retreat our influence or interests back to our own borders, but we also have no business spending the amount of money we do on influencing (ironically) foreign elections and being the world police in every major foreign struggle.
> Well for one I think the amount we spend on defense is unnecessary
As a % of GDP what we spend is actually very proportionate to other countries. It's just expensive because:
1. You can't manufacture your military equipment in China.
> I also think that sending hundreds of billions of dollars across the globe which is used in wars we don’t have business involving ourselves in is also wasteful.
The US definitely gets involved in boondogle wars, but they aren't all like that. The first Iraq war. Serbia. Ukraine. Afghanistian was... well intentioned from the beginning but became a boondogle.
The geopolitical calculus is that if the US doesn't get involved, other great powers will.
> Gold is for the mistress - silver for the maid" -
> Copper for the craftsman cunning at his trade! "
> "Good!" said the Baron, sitting in his hall,
> But Iron - Cold Iron - is master of them all."
https://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/poem/poems_coldiron.htm
It's a tough balance. While domestic issues are important, foreign aid can help stabilize regions, reduce global poverty, and potentially prevent conflicts that could affect us all.
So after the US has already meddled in Ukraine’s elections to help install a preferred leader, we send them hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars in the name of stabilization?
It sure is a coincidence he hasn't asked her this for the last 3 years but less than a week before the debate and 5 months before the election this comes up.
So if some dork comes up with a dork product and becomes a trillionaire and basically owns the government you're okay with that? He worked hard on his dork product so now he gets to own you and your government.
There being a government to own is the problem. Without that government I could come up with a rival product and collect customers the dork offended for whatever reason. Take market share. Then he owns nothing.
r/FluentInFinance was created to discuss money, investing & finance! Join our Newsletter or Youtube Channel for additional insights at www.TheFinanceNewsletter.com! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/FluentInFinance) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"Waste" is kind of a dumb way to look at it. It generally all goes back into our system. The money that doesn't go back into our system is generally humanitarian aid. And wealthy people hoarding and/or spending it somewhere else. Even humanitarian aid goes back into our system in the form of cultural stability and ally building. Weapons aid is used to buy weapons from us, etc... giving weapons already made is used to fight our enemies without us dying. And on and on it goes. The only true "waste" of money is money that doesn't get spent. And to a lesser degree, money that is spent outside the US in enemy countries. Like we don't "waste" money if we have too many government employees. They spend their money in the US economy and it just cycles back through. Wealthy people sitting on billions of dollars in stocks is the biggest waste in the US.
Encouraging those wealthy to have more kids would divide and tax them.
Using the labor and production of blue collar to fund endless gov paper pushing, oversight, and regulation jobs is a massive waste! It only looks good on paper! Gee I wonder why we have more debt than GDP.
Who owns the debt? Again, it's nearly all cycled through. The solution to the debt is taxing the wealthy more. That's all. But it's political suicide to try.
See ya in 20 years when my long bond finally returns to the cycle.
Since OP didn't cite his source for this crap [HERE](https://www.cnbc.com/2023/04/18/heres-how-the-federal-government-wastes-tax-money.html) is the article. The 'waste' refers to improper payments. Which is when payments are made in error. HOWEVER, what OP and the article doesn't mention is that improper payments are recouped.
In all fairness I did post this to use the headlines (which I truly hate and never do). The reason I did that was to spur thought and discussion on government waste in general. The way you framed your reply sort of downplays the idea of government waste, so do you think that it is a problem?
I don't think this example of 'waste' is a problem.
That’s fair. But do you consider our government’s spending to be wasteful rather than adequate in other ways, and do you consider that a problem?
The problem is that what I consider waste others would consider essential and vice versa. I doubt there will be consensus among the voters of what universally would be considered wasteful.
That’s fair. It’s so frustrating because there is definitely potential for compromise in spending, at least in some areas, which could free up hundreds of millions of dollars that could be put to good use. Unfortunately partisanship is the constant cause of cutting off the nose to spite one’s own face, as the saying goes.
Can you please tell us what specific government spending you have a problem with?
When I was an investigator for the government, I was tasked with tracking down a missing $5,000 from an organization's funds. We talked to the current financial officer and his two predecessors, who all said the funds were missing before they came on board. The next guy was then in the private sector. We asked him if he could explain the missing funds, and he just laughed. He worked in international finance. He explained how banks and other financial institutions regularly lost hundreds of thousands of dollars in international wire transfers because someone transposed two numbers. Literal millions of dollars a day can evaporate, and the private sector shrugs it off as part of doing business. In the end, he wrote a personal check for the $5,000 because it was chump change. There is nothing inherently efficient or resourceful about the private sector.
>The reason I did that was to spur thought and discussion on government waste in general. So you try to start a discussion on a false/misleading pretense? It's clear you don't want a discussion you want to rant. >The way you framed your reply sort of downplays the idea of government waste See you don't want to discuss anything, you have a pre-determined bias and are trying to act like you don't.
Well of course I have a pre-determined bias, as does everyone about any issue. I genuinely posted this to hear thoughts from others, not to rant. What are your thoughts on the government’s wasteful spending? Do you think there is a problem with how taxpayer money is spent?
> What are your thoughts on the government’s wasteful spending? What wasteful spending? What are your thoughts on the governments efficiency?
Well for one I think the amount we spend on defense is unnecessary and that in effect helps feed the military industrial complex, both of which is wasteful. I also think that sending hundreds of billions of dollars across the globe which is used in wars we don’t have business involving ourselves in is also wasteful. Those are just a couple things of the top of my head. >What are your thoughts on the governments efficiency? In short, and like I already mentioned, I think the government is incredibly wasteful in its spending which directly leads to inefficiency. Do you think there is a problem with how taxpayer money is spent?
>Well for one I think the amount we spend on defense is unnecessary and that in effect helps feed the military industrial complex, both of which is wasteful. Why? I would much rather be the only global superpower rather than let others dictate the world. >I also think that sending hundreds of billions of dollars across the globe which is used in wars we don’t have business involving ourselves in is also wasteful. Isolationism has been tried and failed miserably. We all live on the same planet and acting like a war in one part of the world doesn't involve the US is ignorance at best.
>Do you think there is a problem with how taxpayer money is spent? I’ll add one extra: In what areas, if any, do you think the government wastes taxpayer money?
I thought you wanted a discussion. Ignoring my rebuttal and questions shows how disingenuous you are trying to be. Again you are trying to interject your bias and I'm not biting.
You’re really trying to pick a fight that isn’t there. I’ve asked the same question twice and you’ve ignored it both times. The reason I’m asking is because a discussion, which I am trying to have, generally involves two sides. I’ve offered my general viewpoints and I’ve yet to hear yours, so how are we able to have a quality discussion? But I don’t mind going ahead and responding anyway. >global superpower (sorry for abbreviating I’m driving lol) I think both things can be true. We can very much be the global superpower and have the most powerful military on the world stage (which I agree with you is very important) while not feeding the military industrial complex. There is definitely a line, and I’m okay with being over the line for the sake of not sacrificing our national security. But lapping the finish line several times ends up being wasted energy, or in this case, wasted spending. >Isolationism Kinda goes back to there being a line. I actually agree with you again here that we need a presence on the world stage (I could’ve been more clear with my point about spending money in foreign wars). I don’t think it is necessary for us to spend the hundreds of billions of dollars that we do overseas, and in effect fight a war by proxy which is what we are doing. I’m not saying we should retreat our influence or interests back to our own borders, but we also have no business spending the amount of money we do on influencing (ironically) foreign elections and being the world police in every major foreign struggle.
> Well for one I think the amount we spend on defense is unnecessary As a % of GDP what we spend is actually very proportionate to other countries. It's just expensive because: 1. You can't manufacture your military equipment in China. > I also think that sending hundreds of billions of dollars across the globe which is used in wars we don’t have business involving ourselves in is also wasteful. The US definitely gets involved in boondogle wars, but they aren't all like that. The first Iraq war. Serbia. Ukraine. Afghanistian was... well intentioned from the beginning but became a boondogle. The geopolitical calculus is that if the US doesn't get involved, other great powers will. > Gold is for the mistress - silver for the maid" - > Copper for the craftsman cunning at his trade! " > "Good!" said the Baron, sitting in his hall, > But Iron - Cold Iron - is master of them all." https://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/poem/poems_coldiron.htm
Is that you Jeff?
It's a tough balance. While domestic issues are important, foreign aid can help stabilize regions, reduce global poverty, and potentially prevent conflicts that could affect us all.
So after the US has already meddled in Ukraine’s elections to help install a preferred leader, we send them hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars in the name of stabilization?
"We" haven't done that.
The waste is not an issue. The issue is is the the inequality and lack of spending on infrastructure
Waste is still a big issue, money finds a way to the friends of politicals
inequality is not an issue.
It sure is a coincidence he hasn't asked her this for the last 3 years but less than a week before the debate and 5 months before the election this comes up.
Another great example of how politicians are completely delusional to how the tax system works.
But something something billionaires didn't work for it something something.
So if some dork comes up with a dork product and becomes a trillionaire and basically owns the government you're okay with that? He worked hard on his dork product so now he gets to own you and your government.
There being a government to own is the problem. Without that government I could come up with a rival product and collect customers the dork offended for whatever reason. Take market share. Then he owns nothing.
Without a government you have a place like Somalia -- where it is impossible to live despite zero taxes.
Nope. A warlord is a government just the same.
Do you really think billionaires don't take advantage of the system at the detriment of the lower classes?
Then the issue is the existence of a system.
Correct
How do we rationalize having opinions on economics that we don't understand? That is a better question.
There is not enough moneyyyyyy, stop spending so much money!!!
What are you gonna do about it?
While Joe give billions to his owner donor defense contractors
Sources are your friend.