Lets say 10k goes to this banker, and he spends it on Netflix/Wallmart/etc. That mostly benefits HIM. Really, I should get to spend that 10k on Wallmart/Netflix/etc. so that it benefits ME.
Both cases benefit the economy, but the banker benefits more if he spends the money. In otherwords, money that I could spend on myself to boost the economy is instead being given to someone else who does not deserve it. Does that make sense?
In general, I am for a SMALL government - that means I would prefer that taxes be minimized, and whatever can be privatized should be. I do not support our government's excessive defense budget (although I do support the troops, who actually get very little of the overall defense budget).
If you are advocating for reducing taxation and redistribution, I agree with you.
I was merely arguing against the dichotomy implicitly put forth by the author - either the government spends the money, or else it is wasted.
I have to point out that a lot of Europeans were never very happy with being "defended" in the manner you describe.
If America wanted to removed bases from Europe to save money I think that would be sensible for both Europe and the United States.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year2008_US.html
I'm not sure why you feel more valuable to to take money from the banker and give it to old people than to allow the banker to invest in Netflix/Walmart/other businesses that provide value to millions of people. Could you explain?