Looking at general spending doesn't tell you absolutely anything where the spending is going to and doesn't enable any kind of cost-benefit analysis. It's a meaningless metric to derive any argument from.

Spending on services that are multipliers of productivity is very different than spending on the military, for example. Spending on public services that improves citizens' life like healthcare, parks, schools, culture, easiness of bureaucracy (e.g.: permits for construction, licencing of activities, etc.) is a completely different beast than spending on politicians benefits, military drills, and so on.

Ah so spending is a 'meaningless metric'. Weird you didn't reply that to starve-the-beast OP.

Starve the beast is about starving specific services with the goal of dismantling them by causing a negative sentiment in the public. Like what the Tories are doing to the NHS, you start dismantling it by underfunding the service, which forces cost-cutting (usually meaning diminished staff or changes to regulations on benefits, working hours, etc.).

Don't really understand your deflection and tone, it was completely uncalled for and doesn't at all address the point of my comment. Please, don't do that here on HN, I come here to foster intelligent and interesting discussions, not to read mindless hot takes and deflections.

>Don't really understand your deflection and tone

If you don't understand something, you admit what you say below is a lie.

> it was completely uncalled for and doesn't at all address the point of my comment

Here is a learning opportunity. If you don't understand something, do not just shortcut to believing it was uncalled for. The fact you don't understand makes it clear you don't know whether it addresses your point.

You're just a fucking asshole, aren't you?