If that is the case, then why do people argue that we shouldn't be going to the moon until all humans on Earth are fed and have homes? Over the past ten years the cost of an Artemis mission was 1/70 the cost of social security - and that price will go down every mission as the R&D phase is done. Would an additional 1.4% funding to social programs really solve hunger and homelessness?
Social Security is a public pension system, and is necessarily huge since it serves hundreds of millions of people. It's often excluded from budgetary analyses because it tends to throw everything out-of-whack, and the money that flows into it is separate from ordinary taxes, so isn't available for the general funds anyway—the way it's set up, Congress can't simply redirect Social Security spending to other purposes through anything like the ordinary budget process, they'd have to modify Social Security itself first, then probably weather a torrent of lawsuits.
If that is the case, then why do people argue that we shouldn't be going to the moon until all humans on Earth are fed and have homes? Over the past ten years the cost of an Artemis mission was 1/70 the cost of social security - and that price will go down every mission as the R&D phase is done. Would an additional 1.4% funding to social programs really solve hunger and homelessness?