I believed they interpreted your post as pointing out the straightforward cost-benefit analysis (with an implication that it seems likely that we’d end up behaving according to that analysis). And they are pointing out that our government often doesn’t behave in a way that is compliant with a straightforward analysis.

It doesn’t seem like a very out-there interpretation of your post, maybe it is wrong, though. In particular the implication that I’ve got in parenthesis is, for sure, reading between the lines and maybe wrong.

But I don’t really get the response of “This isn’t responsive to my comment.” It doesn’t seem to move the conversation forward or clarify anything. Seems like a dead-end. What’s the point?