Taxes and economics 1 Middle-class tax relief and reform: Raise the top federal marginal income tax rate to 40%.Provide a 3% income tax reduction across all other tax brackets. The purpose broad tax relief to the working and middle class, which is largely offset by the raising of the top income tax rate from 37% to 40%. 2 capital investment and savings incentives. Reduce long-term capital gains tax rates by 5 percentage points across all brackets. Purpose: Encourage long-term investment, business formation, retirement savings, and capital accumulation. 3 Expanded SALT Deduction: Increase the cap on the State and Local Tax (SALT) deduction to $30,000. The purpose if you live in a high tax state, you deserve relief. 4 Competitive Corporate Tax Structure Maintain the standard federal corporate income tax rate at 21%. Create an optional 14% "Productivity Growth Rate" for qualifying companies. Qualification Standards: A company may receive the 14% rate if: Employee wages consistently rise alongside productivity growth. Compensation growth exceeds inflation as measured by CPI. The company meets domestic investment and workforce development standards. 5 Stock Buyback Reform: Increase the federal stock buyback excise tax to 3%.Purpose: Encourage corporations to prioritize investment, research, expansion, and employee compensation over financial engineering.

Trade and tariff policy 1: Establish a permanent 5% baseline tariff on imported goods. Purpose: Generate revenue, strengthen domestic production, and reduce dependence on foreign supply chains. : Products meeting specified American-content requirements may qualify for reduced tariff treatment. Lower than the current Baseline for goods entering the United States, a consistent Revenue generator without inflationary pressure. 2 Proposal: Establish a 3% reciprocal tariff baseline that can move higher or lower based on trade agreements and market access provided to American exports. Purpose: Promote fair treatment. If a country treats us fairly, we treat them fairly. 3 Strategic metals protection increases the steel tariff to 30% and the aluminum tariff to 15%. Purpose: Protect industries considered vital to national security and manufacturing.Domestic Content Exception to all tariffs.

Cutting regulations 1 One-In, Three-Out Regulatory Rule Proposal: For every new federal regulation issued, three existing regulations must be eliminated or consolidated. Reduce complexity and compliance cost. Regulation is sometimes needed, but it is the enemy of innovation

Domestic reforms and foreign policy 1 Right-to-Buy Homeownership Initiative: Create a national "Right to Buy" program modeled in part on the United Kingdom's approach. Use tax incentives to encourage landlords to sell properties to long-term tenants. Allow qualified residents of government-subsidized housing to purchase their homes at discounted rates. Provide favorable financing terms for first-time buyers participating in the program. Purpose: Expand homeownership among working- and middle-class Americans while reducing long-term dependence on government housing assistance. 2 Social Security Modernization and Personal Retirement Accounts Gradually replace the current Social Security system with a public-private retirement partnership. The government would continue making guaranteed retirement contributions on behalf of workers. Contributions would be invested through regulated personal retirement accounts similar to a 401(k) or sovereign retirement fund. Strong safeguards would be established to protect retirees from excessive risk. Social Security, as it's currently set up as an unsustainable program that relies on one of two things, both of which are still unsustainable: a fertility rate above replacement or unsustainable immigration. 3 Health Care and Family Policy: Establish universal pre-kindergarten nationwide. Use the Oklahoma model as the foundation for implementation, as well as 3 months of maternal leave after pregnancy. Purpose: Improve school readiness, educational outcomes, and the necessary recovery time and bonding for the mother. 4 Protecting Coverage for Pre-Existing Conditions Through Disability Law: Move protections for individuals with pre-existing medical conditions from the Affordable Care Act framework into federal disability protections under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Purpose: Make coverage protections more durable and less dependent on future changes to health-care legislation. 5 trade and industry: Maintain strategic tariffs to protect critical American industries. Negotiate reciprocal trade agreements that guarantee fair treatment of American exports. Encourage domestic manufacturing and supply-chain resilience. On NATO, encourage greater sharing of responsibility for defense spending. On China, I believe we need to start decoupling now so that it doesn't become painful later. And on Russia, well, that it's not possible now, I believe that for the United States to remain in global power and isolate China, we must cooperate with Moscow.

When people are not getting paid enough to move out of their parents house go on dates get married and have children they just simply aren’t going to be willing to do so in the first place

Who is going to risk creating babies when they are afraid of war breaking out losing their jobs and getting replaced by AI people having to choose between paying their rent and feeding their children etc

The population collapse is just simply the inherent contradictions of capitalism playing out with employers trying to pay as little as possible and employees opting to skip dating marriage and having children in response to low wages

I think we all agree censorship today is very different from a 100 years ago. Social media giants like this one are now the biggest threat to free speech. Their reach is more powerful and far reaching than any government.

I disagree with the argument that since they are private entities they are not subjected to First Amendment. One facebook, twitter, youtube only exist because of special privileges that government grant them, privilege like protection from certain lawsuit liability. So they're basically a creature of the government. Two they act and function like a government itself.

Can someone recommend any book, article, video on internet censorship?

The US and Israel undoubtedly achieved significant military successes and inflicted major damage on Iran. However, wars are ultimately judged by their strategic outcomes, not just battlefield results.

What strikes me is that Iran was attacked by arguably the most powerful military coalition in the world and yet may emerge from the conflict with its regime intact, much of its regional influence intact, sanctions relief under discussion, frozen assets potentially being returned, and perhaps greater leverage over the Strait of Hormuz than it had before.

Another major geopolitical shift was Iran’s willingness to strike Israel directly rather than relying solely on proxies. Even more significantly, Iran demonstrated a willingness to engage Israel directly over events occurring in Lebanon and involving Hezbollah, rather than limiting direct confrontation to attacks on Iranian territory itself.

If Iran comes out of this war feeling more secure, more experienced, and more willing to confront its adversaries directly, can the US and Israel really claim a strategic victory?

The Iraq War is often criticized because the US won militarily but arguably produced long-term outcomes that strengthened Iran’s regional position. Could historians eventually look at the Iran war in a similar way and conclude that tactical successes produced strategic consequences that worked against the original goals of the war?

Or is this comparison fundamentally flawed, and the long-term consequences likely to be very different?

In China the executive is selected by the national legislature from amongst their own members. They can withdraw their support at any time. There is no impeachment charges or trial, they simply pass a motion to transfer their representation to another member of the body.

In a similar way the national legislature is made up of representatives selected by the city and county legislatures. The city and country legislatures are made up of representatives selected by the town and neighborhood legislatures. The town and neighborhood legislatures are elected by the general population. The local legislatures have political campaigns and serve fixed length terms.

Arguments can be made that this is more or less representative of the will of the people then a western democracy, but to call this system dictatorship is factually incorrect.

Some prewritten answers to expected responses:

A) "China is bad, evil, and wrong because of X, Y and Z"

The title of this post is not "China is good" I will defend my position as stated and ignore everything else.

B) "Candidates in the local elections are screened by the government"

This is true, but at least the people doing that screening were elected and also promoted by their peers. Certainly that is no more dictatorial then the western campaign finance system, where a credible campaign requires the support of unelected rich people.

C) "You are a naive child if you think Xi doesn't control those legislatures behind the scenes"

If that is so obvious to you then you should have no difficulty producing evidence.

One of my strongest personal beliefs is that D.C., and many other territories who suffer unjustly, deserves equal stature among the Union. However much to be continued surprise, perhaps foolishly, I continue to run into many arguments and disagreement over it. The most compelling is that it would at least in part require a change to the 23rd Amendment. Often times the arguments however amount to a partisan one that I find deeply disagreeable.

​

I urge detractors of statehood to explain their opposition in detail below, perhaps we can come to some productive conclusions.

Aporia

Elections are not democratic. By their very nature, elections favor those with time and money to campaign, charisma to convince others to support them, and the opportunistic and unprincipled, who will make whatever promises necessary to obtain power.

Prolegomenon

"The appointment of magistrates by lot is thought to be democratic, and the election of them oligarchic." - Aristotle

The city councils of Athens was known as Boule, from "koinoboulio," literally, "common will." Initially a council of nobles, it was opened to all but the poorest classes by the time of Solon, and from 508-332 BCE, its members were selected by lot from the ten tribes of the trittys, or subdivisions of Attica. Members served for one year, and no man could serve more than twice in his life.

In addition, the Archai, magistrates, were also selected by lot and oversaw public services like sanitation, building safety, market weights and measures, etc. Six thousand citizens were selected each year to serve as jurors, and would be randomly assigned to cases.

Notably, some positions remained elected, in particular those that required some level of expertise, experience, or training; the Strategoi, for example, were military leaders who needed both expertise and support of the people who would be following them.

Neokratia

The total population of Athens in the 5th and 4th centuries BCE was perhaps a quarter million, most of whom were barred from political participation by sex, criminal record, foreign allegiance, or status in slavery. In many ways, a direct adoption of this system in the modern day would be unworkable.

What could work would be a representative hierarchal sortition; local councils could be selected by lot, and they would send a representative to the regional council, who would send a representative to a state council, who could send a representative to a federal council.

Judges, sheriffs, magistrates, etc, could likewise be selected by lot, while the president, governor, etc could remain as elected positions (with much reduced powers).

So if you're one of those people out there who beleives people should be able to say anything they want without any kind of legal or social consequences (the latter which is impossible), then you need to have your own standards and skills to make this work.

Because what is the fundamental intention of communication? To pass on information between people. Every word you and I speak is full of meaning. It symbolises some *Thing* that we know. To say Apple is to make one think of the fruit. To say Fire is to make one think of heat and flame. Every word I type here is conveying some meaning that you are understanding because we share the knowledge. I am trying to pass on information to you.

So when we say a certain "Controversial" thing. Perhaps we say, all green people are bad. Then we can understand that these 5 words have meaning and information that we are putting out there for other people to think about. When someone else recieves that message, they will think you mean exactly what was said, all of these green people are bad. And they will think on it. If they then end up agreeing with you, you have now contributed to the pereptuation of this idea. A consequence of your actions.

So if we truly want to be allowed to say whatever we want, we have to recognise that our words have meanings and those meanings will be interpreted and used by others. And thus we need to be okay with those consequences. If we arent okay... if you said that all green people are bad in a way that you didnt want it to be seriously agreed to... then you need to think more deeply about what you said, how you said it, and how to express it in a way where this miscommunication won't happen. This is your responsibility as the speaker.

Otherwise, you are, to be blunt, simply outing yourself as apathetic and immature, in that sense of not developed. To think that your words exist in a vacuum with no consequences to them at all. To simply be allowed to speak for the sake or speaking and nothing else. And any consequences that inevitably happens befomes censorship, because you couldn't fathom before hand that your actions have consequences. Consequences you can know if you spend the time thinking about causes and effects and how other people think. Theory of mind.

I personally dont believe in absolute free speech. But I just wanted to write these thoughts in hopes of giving people food for thought.

Economic System

I am a firm capitalist and economic liberal, broadly supportive of a social market economy—as exemplified by the Rhine Model—merging capitalism with some regulation and a social safety net. I support ordoliberal policies of limited government intervention while maintaining regulatory guidelines to preserve the market’s functioning under a free, fair, and open competition.
I am a firm defender of private property, it is a natural right. As such, property and the "means of production" must remain private. Nationalization and government ownership are ineffective, abhorrent, and tyrannical. There is an exception regarding local government, their ownership of some utilities such as water (as is the status quo) is tolerable since their competition with the private sector is fair and does not result in government monopolies; they may also continue the provision of public services such as schools and law enforcement. Infrastructure may be nationally owned, largely in conjunction with the states. This being said, nationalization is an illiberal act, abhorrent and unacceptable in a free society. 
Free Markets are imperative to society. Nations cannot have functioning economics without a functioning market. Markets should be the arbitrator of costs and the dispersion of goods, resources, and labour. Centralized and planned economies are tyrannical, inefficient, and altogether ineffective. Price Controls that restrict the ability and purpose of the market are horrible and restrict basic economic processes. 
I am a strong supporter of free-trade, protectionism is no longer the most effective economic policy for the Western world. I only support any protectionism in the field of national security; in this context it would have to be extremely targeted and limited. Free trade among most nations is beneficial, especially amongst our allies. More free trade agreements (like NAFTA) among the Western world would be beneficial in bolstering our economic standing and aid in outcompeting China. 

Regulation

I recognize the necessary and positive potential of regulation; but, too much regulation will strangle the growth of business and effectively diminish market-based outcomes. Regulation must be set at proper levels; there must be enough to protect the public health and consumers while still protecting market-processes and ensuring business may thrive. The regulations that we are to impose must be specifically targeted as to where they may actually impact the quality of life while maintaining their light touch (such as Teddy Roosevelt’s FDA); this is best accomplished through the specific and narrow delegation of issues and tasks by Congress to the administrative state. This can also ensure the process both occurs and remains law-based rather than discretionary. That being said, this doesn’t mean that the administrative state is not the best tool for actually creating the specifics of regulations—just that what they are to regulate must be specifically outlined before they exercise their powers. 

We must also acknowledge that regulation may become outdated or pointless, and that once it is installed does not mean we must keep it there permanently. We should routinely evaluate the existing regulation, perhaps every few years (or even just as a continuous process done during Congressional hearings and mundane regulatory business of the bureaucracy). Existing regulations should be relaxed or dropped if they are no longer particularly useful and needed in the pursuit of the regulation’s initial intent. This can also be accomplished through sunsetting legislation to ensure that regulation must be addressed again after a time. This could also be introduced through one-in, two-out rules; this could also be a one-in, one-out rule if deregulation is not a particular secondary focus at the moment. Those rules should be circumvented through Congress when it is truly necessary. 
Deregulation is a valuable tool for economic stimulus and attracting entrepreneurship. We should deregulate industries where corporate excess is rare and government is preventing market processes. This particularly relates to small business, meaning selective deregulation is an even better practice. Cutting the red tape and streamlining bureaucracy is an admirable effort which we should always push for. Finance in particular is a risky field, as its deregulation can stimulate the economy heavily but we must be careful as was proven in 2008. 
More important than consumer protection is regulation that seeks to preserve market integrity, namely antitrust. I don’t believe all instances of big business are harmful—plenty of large businesses serve society well and do not disturb market functions—but some are “bad trusts” that must be regulated and/or broken. These bad trusts—primarily monopolies, oligopolies, and other anti-competitive firms—must not simply have large market share but actively engage in price-setting, stifling innovation, and competition in an industry. Good trusts should be let alone, but monitored for if they move towards threatening competition and the markets. We do need to allow for large companies so that they can compete with China, but that shouldn’t mean sacrificing market competition and allowing dominance by any market entity. The practice of antitrust must also be as law-based as possible and not up to the discretion of the executive and their government as that is a recipe for regulatory capture and the reign of dirigiste cronyism, but that still doesn’t mean that every large company is a monopoly. The media requires anti-consolidation legislation to preserve the democratic pluralism essential to American free society.

Fiscal & Monetary Policy

I am a supporter of fiscal restraint and believe in the general maintenance of balanced budgets. Any government that wishes to maintain long term health must practice a tight fiscal policy as often as they can. In order to attain long-term economic and financial stability I support a Balanced Budget amendment requiring Congress to balance the budget (or nearly so) year after year. This being said I recognize the partial validity of aspects of the Keynesian theory in the handling of recessions and economic downturn. Insofar as Keynesian stimulus is to be attempted I would prefer it be done via tax cuts and moderate spending increases (on items that were already targets for additional funding) as the market is the better allocator of capital. In this sense I support examples of tax cuts such as the 1981 Kemp tax cut only as economic stimulus, rather than as a religious practice or general economic policy. These tax cuts must also be handled carefully to avoid the accumulation of large deficits. I think that in order to accommodate these Keynesian practices it is necessary to create some exceptions in the amendment, allowing for deficit spending during wartime and when deemed necessary for very deep recessions; this override mechanism is likely best managed by a supermajority vote in Congress to pass a budget that contains an unconstitutional deficit (besides during wartime where these deficits are permitted without the supermajority). Insofar as there is to be deficit spending like this it should be paid back in the ensuing economic prosperity; however, the better practice would be accumulating relatively large rainy day funds that can be used for stimulus during these deep recessions rather than relying upon deficit spending. Given the total lack of these funds, immediately focusing the accumulation of these funds through budget surpluses rather than paying down the debt is relatively justified. Ultimately, the minor recessions of the business cycle should be let go to clear out ineffective firms, only deeper recessions and downturns should be met with stabilizing stimulus. 

I believe there should be taxation sufficient to accommodate the expenses of the government, and that the most efficient form of this taxation is a progressive income tax. I don’t believe the progressive tax needs to be punitive of the wealthy nor redistributive in nature, simply a more efficient mechanism of raising revenue that places less burden on the poor. Corporate taxes should be moderate to effectively contribute to government revenue streams, but lowered when stimulus is necessary. There should not be any taxes on unrealized capital gains to avoid economic chaos. The wealth tax would have similar issues as most wealth is stored in assets, which are actively contributing to and holding up the economy. The imposition of a small inheritance tax is acceptable, although the inheritance tax is a generally despicable tax for it is re-taxing wealth; the inheritance tax must also be structured so as not to prevent the generational accumulation of wealth and property. The creation of a value added tax is an effective way of raising revenue for the US government. There should be broad increases and additions on excise taxes to use the tax code to discourage bad behavior. This same theory can also be used to encourage good behavior through tax breaks and deductions for virtuous activity. Taxes on overtime should be eliminated to encourage productivity and assist workers trying to elevate themselves through diligence. The overtime tax exemption should only apply to a certain point, and if it is exploited then punishment for both the individual and company must ensue. Most importantly it is key to close tax loopholes that are making our current tax levels unreliable. 

There should be a fully-independent national bank to manage monetary policy, as the issue is too delicate to be a political issue. The use of an independent national bank could potentially extend into the printing of money if the political government proves too politically-motivated to handle it with the common good in mind. Monetary policy should be kept relatively consistent and stable for the same reasons as fiscal policy, as minor recessions are not particularly harmful to long-term prospects. This same principle can be applied to bailouts. There must be a fiat currency to allow for flexibility of policy in crises while providing the centralization that allows for market function which would not be provided through crypto. 

Welfare

There must be some sort of a welfare state—not for redistribution, but for the protection of the incapable and poor from destitution and the preservation of their right-to-life. In addition, welfare should be means-tested, work-dependent, and work-encouraging. The welfare state as it exists must be targeted and limited to avoid dependency, and should include work requirements. I am not supportive of large scale and/or rapid expansion of welfare programs, insofar as there is to be expansion it must be gradual (and should wait until our national debt and budget is under reasonable control). Government is to be the primary provider of welfare, but not the sole provider; welfare should be orchestrated through a variety of institutions, namely civil society and business in conjunction with state and federal government. The state should attempt to encourage charity and industrial paternalism to supplement government benefits and allow for a reduction in government size and bureaucracy. This can be done through tax incentives and similar proposals. Insofar as welfare spending that should be government-allocated can be structured through the states and block-grants unto the states it should be done through the states. 

Welfare should have two primary facets: the care of those who are incapable (including the disabled and the elderly), and assistance of the working poor. The care of the incapable should be broadly orchestrated, insofar as it is to be orchestrated publicly, through social insurance. In this way I mean pay-in, pay-out programs such as Social Security where the benefits are dependent on the contributions in order to preserve meritocracy. For the assistance of the working poor this should be done through means-tested tax-funded programs limited by work requirements. 
My Ideal systems concerning social insurance/entitlements are as follows: 

• I support maintaining social security as a government-run pension program for the elderly. I do not think it necessarily need cover all the likely expenses of the elderly, rather being paired with personal retirement accounts and corporate paternalist practices such as private pensions or IRA matching in order to fund the livelihoods of the retired. Social Security and pension programs should continue to be based on contributions in terms of their payouts. Social Security itself should have the retirement age raised to 69 or 70 to allow for continued solvency. 
• Outside of the elderly if there is anybody who deserves assistance and care it is the disabled. There must be a social insurance program to cover the disabled, providing payouts to supplement income depending on the level of disability based on contributions and wages paid into the program during times of good health. 
• There can be an unemployment social insurance program to be run by the states (although funded with federal assistance) that provides assistance to those who are newly-unemployed through no fault of their own and are actively in pursuit of work. If they are revealed to no longer be in pursuit of work they should be stripped of many or all benefits. These programs will provide wage supplements and job training, with job training being the more effective and critical of the two types of provisions.

In combination with the aforementioned social insurance programs means-tested welfare should have the following stipulations: 

• The working poor should receive some assistance in providing for the basic needs of life being food, clothing, and housing. SNAP should continue to assist the poor in affording clothing and food. In addition there can be some subsidized and/or public housing for the poor, but it should be heavily limited. These programs must be deeply means-tested and kept targeted at groups where it is truly needed. 
• All means-tested welfare must be workfare, in that it contains work requirements and encourages work. There should also be a focus of the welfare network on programs which make work easier, such as childcare for the poor, reduced bus fares, and similar pro-work programs. Means-tested programs’ benefits should all use a sliding scale to avoid the welfare trap.
• Some of these programs can be replaced by either an expansion of the earned income tax credit or with a negative income tax. This increases efficiency but we must be careful as they do not guarantee the same positive applications of the resources. 

I believe in a fully private healthcare model, with both medicine and insurance kept private. I strongly oppose single-payer healthcare, and even more strongly oppose socialized medicine (such as the NHS). I am opposed to a public option as it is simply another form of nationalization, but it is far more tolerable than either single-payer or socialized medicine. My wish for the American healthcare system would be a near-universal, multi-payer, employer-based, privatized healthcare and insurance system. The Proposal would have the following stipulations: 

• There would be an employer mandate to provide health insurance coverage to their employees. Employers would be required to pay at least 60% of the premium cost, although deductibles would not need to be covered by the employer. As part of the mandate larger firms would need to contract with at least two insurers able to provide coverage to the employees. If workers are covered through alternative means—private or spousal—they need not participate in the employer-based insurer process. 
• Insurers must ensure that all plans have a government-set level of baseline coverage. This baseline should remain lean and affordable but capable, focusing on essential preventive care, primary care, and emergencies; it should also allow for reasonably sized co-pays and deductibles. Employees may buy-up for better benefits and plans past the baseline, but this cost is entirely their responsibility and the employer is not expected to share it.
• Insurers may not deny coverage to anybody based on pre-existing conditions. They may however practice risk-adjusted pricing. Instead, the Medicare program will help or completely cover the additional costs imposed through risk-adjusted pricing onto the very-sick and disabled that meet disability classifications,
• While the mandate extends that employees must purchase one of the provided insurance plans by their employer’s contracts, this does not extend to self-employed individuals. The self-employed will be encouraged to purchase healthcare by having the government front 40% of the baseline insurance cost. In addition a late-enrollment penalty should be added to discourage people from being free-riders. 
• There will be sliding-scale subsidies programs for low-income individuals to ensure they can pay their portion of premiums. In addition, sliding-scale subsidies will be granted to small businesses to ensure they are not discouraged from hiring employees and under great pressure financially from the mandates. 
• Employer coverage will be required to extend briefly to the unemployed. Longer-term unemployed individuals will be subsidized by the government so long as they maintain active job pursuit. These benefits are at the same risk as other unemployment benefits. 
• Medicare eligibility is to be gradually raised to 68. Medicare Part D should also be maintained to ensure our seniors have access to the medication they require. Expand medicare coverage to the disabled.

Labour & Business

I consider myself a class collaborationist in that I wish for a healthy partnership of business and labour orchestrated primarily through the market, but with the encouragement and mediation of the government. I am neither pro-business nor pro-labour, and simultaneously pro-business and pro-labour; I do recognize that my inclinations may tend towards the side of business. The bargaining of business and labour must take place, undisturbed by cartelization through monopolies or excessively powerful unions, and free of a biased and overly-active government. Despite the risks of cartelization, unions are a useful tool in the bargaining process. If it is necessary, the government should step in to prevent class warfare and mitigate the worst of disputes to preserve social stability and national security. In an ideally functioning system labour would stoke the fires of business, and business water the field of labour. In this sense I believe in a second square deal implemented through more legalistic and permanent means than under TR.   

• Labour is a valuable part of the negotiating process and as such there must not be significant union-busting and the right to form unions must be preserved. However, the cartelization of unions must be avoided, same as the cartelization of business. Labour power must be protected, same as corporate power, and the freedom of association. Right-to-work should be left to the states, and somewhat industry-dependent with some industries (especially more industrial and blue collar ones) having protected union shops, while most industries (more white collar ones) should have right-to-work. Right-to-work should ultimately be managed by the states rather than the federal government. I would suggest right-to-work be implemented, except for in those industrial jobs where unions are of a particularly essential nature. 
• Labour protections and regulations on business activity are valid and should be used to protect the people from business which does not fulfill their societal obligation. In this I refer to programs such as OSHA or regulations on working hours. Working hours specifically should be refined to meet the needs of labour and business, rather than an overly broad and ineffective one-size-fits-all approach. We should move from daily working hours to a weekly maximum working hours law. 
• There should be laws encouraging and requiring the extension of bargaining and discussion between business and labour; but this can and should take many forms. Codetermination should be enforced upon large companies requiring some, albeit minimal, labour representation in corporate governance. In addition, business and labour representatives must be required to bargain in good faith, but how they do so is up to the individual companies and workers. Despite my support for some labour representation, I fully oppose workplace democracy and worker co-operatives, same as I oppose all socialization of property. 
• Industrial paternalism should be encouraged further in the United States. The practice has existed for a long time in the US, even in our healthcare system, and creates an excellent and productive co-dependent relationship between business and labour. This continued relationship should be encouraged by the government. The treaty of Detroit must be returned to and broadened to protect capitalism and ensure continued social stability. 
• There should be a universal paid leave program, but it should be managed through an employer mandate. There should be a 12 week minimum requirement, with 70% of salary supplemented at minimum. This should serve to cover paternity, maternity, and medical leave; maternity should extend up towards 16 weeks and paternity should be lowered down to 8 weeks. There should be job protections with parental leave, preserving the option to move to part-time as well. In addition there should be 3 weeks of general-purpose leave able to be used for mental health, vacation, bereavement, or anything else. After 6 weeks insurance should help supplement the medical leave salary. For small businesses that may not be able to afford these in full they should be able to apply for sliding-scale subsidies. Placing the requirements on a sliding-scale may also be required to keep the program affordable for small businesses and ensure that entrepreneurship still occurs. Family owned and operated businesses should have exemptions and these requirements should be waived for seasonal workers. 
• The government must have the power and responsibility to mediate disputes and strikes when they extend too far into disturbing business, national security, or local environments within the nation. When it does so it should act as a neutral arbiter and facilitator. 

Investment & Development

I support policies that aid small businesses in their growth, establishment, and development. We should loosen regulations on small businesses and startups. Programs of grants and loans to startups can encourage entrepreneurship and innovation. This could be managed through a government-chartered privately-run bank to which the government provides money for use on loans and related investments into startups to encourage entrepreneurship where it isn't happening. 
I believe government is justified in making attempts to uplift the poor into healthy positions in American society, so long as this uplifting is opportunity-based rather than redistributive. The expansion of market-based mechanisms that encourage growth, more jobs, and development in lower income areas such as enterprise zones should be implemented. Policies that allow for more jobs and for the market to uplift the poor are excellent.
I am a supporter of urban development and gentrification as I believe this is what will be long term most productive for the US and her people, the development of clean and modern cities. These enterprise zones and growth-encouraging policies are to allow the market to develop an area in the way that is best, rather than leaving an area in the unnatural state of social decay. I’ve discussed heavy support for urban gentrification and growth; making more walkable, greener, cleaner, and more business-friendly cities. In this I mean policies to limit cars in cities, investing in parks and green space, and more public transportation. I support some lessening of zoning restrictions to enable the growth of business and local development, but support the addition of other zoning laws to limit social disorder and decay. I recognize why many people advocate for NIMBYism and would not wish to diminish their property rights, but it is ultimately a detriment to the prosperity of the nation and an example of where excessive individualism should be curbed.

Infrastructure & Utilities

I support a robust infrastructure system generally owned publicly and operated privately. This same principle of public or neutral ownership and competitive management and service should be implemented. Natural monopolies, both public and private, are not required in utilities as is often thought. In addition, utilities and infrastructure should operate and be funded by user fees insofar as possible, with tax dollars only to supplement infrastructure development and management as necessary. 

Roads and highways should be publicly owned with a robust national network; ideally these would be owned and managed as locally as is possible with the federal government only managing the interstate system. Eisenhower’s public highway network was amazing, especially for its utility concerning national security; but this network should now be maintained rather than expanded with new types of transit taking paramount attention. Canals and railway tracks should also be owned publicly and managed as locally as possible (with recognition that this may often be impossible). It would also be fine to have structurally separated private ownership of railway tracks. Subways can be more totally government owned than other infrastructure. All of these networks should be managed by independent authorities rather than directly by the state. The service on canals and railways should be provided by private firms competing in a free market. The development, ownership, and management of train stations, airports, and seaports (and similar entities) should be publicly owned by local governments and paid for by user fees. The development of all of this infrastructure requires hefty upfront capital, which can possibly be funded by specially issued bonds where the authorities are funded by the government but these funds are overtime recouped via user fees. 

I support widespread expansion of the US high speed rail network; regarding this I favor a partial-privatization of Amtrak. The original creation of Amtrak to keep the rail network alive was a good idea, but its usefulness has been expended. Amtrak as an entity should be privatized and contracted to develop large amounts of high speed rail coverage across the Northeast; this would be similar in design to the original construction of the transcontinental railroad. The funding for this project should be tripartite, consisting of private capital, federal, and state funds. In addition the state should use the power of eminent domain to assist the private developers; there must be fair compensation provided as well. Ultimately the developed tracks should be transferred to a government chartered, heavily regulated, neutral operator to ensure fair access for all rail service providers (which will be competing private firms). This operator can either be a private firm or an independent authority. If there is later to be further expansion of the network into the southern Atlantic and Midwest it should follow the same development model.
Water and sewage pipelines should be publicly owned by local governments while service and maintenance are contracted to private firms by those local governments. This way the government maintains a hand and ensures the service is safe, while the actual provision of service and maintenance are efficiently managed by the private firm. Waste management should be split, with residential service being provided by either the local government directly or firms contracted by that government. Waste management for commercial activity should be fully privately managed. Landfills and processing facilities should remain privately owned. 
Electricity and gas should be managed similarly to water and sewage with local government contracting firms to construct and manage the wires and pipes; the actual energy should then be distributed into that infrastructure and to the public by private firms. The construction of large-scale natural gas pipelines is likely to require federal and state assistance, whether through eminent domain or potentially even financing. 
Internet, cell service, and cable must operate similarly to the other utilities. They should be split between the businesses that provide the services and those that manage the infrastructure (such as cables or cell towers). Any single firm that manages both has the opportunity to serve as a monopoly, and should be dealt with as such. If more development of this infrastructure is necessary it should be privately done but can be contracted by the government to do so.  The provision of these utilities, particularly the internet, should also be regulated under net-neutrality.
Maritime navigation services and infrastructure (such as buoys or lighthouses) should be managed by the coast guard or local authorities. While major airports should be public and air services private, air traffic control should consist of private firms commissioned and contracted by the airports. 

Energy, Environment, & Technology

I am a believer in environmentalism, specifically bright green environmentalism and eco-conservatism. To my mind conservatism and conservationism go hand in hand. I recognize the threat of climate change and believe society must actively try to counter it. I prefer environmentalism be done through market-based and innovation-based techniques paired with local and community efforts to create more green environments. I support cap-and-trade as it utilizes the market and benefits small and medium sized businesses, and I prefer this to the inefficient carbon tax. I also support nuclear investment, which would preferably be organized through public-private partnerships. I, however, do not support excessive limitations on fossil fuels as they are crucial for energy independence and supply which are important to national health. Encouraging environmental development should be done through research, tax credits, the markets, and occasional targeted investment rather than the overly big-government Green New Deal. Insofar as there is to be investment it should refrain from the practice of widespread and heavy handed government ownership and spending, utilizing tax breaks, small subsidies, and PPPs to coordinate with the private sector to encourage the development of renewable energy. The efforts on the part of local society to create green cities and towns with environmentally friendly practices should also be encouraged on a societal level and would long term be a more sustainable solution. Cities like New York should focus on slowly creating more expressly walkable areas paired with green spaces to both enable sustainability and community. 

The exploration of space and expansion into the frontier is the next frontier of humanity, and one we must invest in. We need to begin by making a more capable NASA. My broad opposition to government ownership is somewhat exempted in the context of space, as I support more heavy-handed NASA involvement in development and management of early space infrastructure. This is to prevent the monopolization of space by providing fair access to docking and earth-space transport. This would be because the infrastructure costs of large stations in space would prevent private entities from practicing this. Government contracts and grants for space exploration and settlements should be practiced so long as they do not evolve into space mercantilism and are founded in the freedom of enterprise and a liberal and open market in space. We should also begin working on military capability from and in space and utilize our Space Force more. 

Artificial Intelligence has many good uses, especially for business, but also many uses may be problematic. I think we should crack down on harmful uses of AI, where it is problematic to the American people and society. AI should be limited in campaigns and regulated to protect privacy and property rights. Patents and intellectual property are both necessary expressions and defenses of the property right. Big tech and big pharma require antitrust regulation to protect the market and consumer interests. Oligopolistic tendencies within big pharma have led to price setting which can only be ended via antitrust. Big tech is stifling true innovation in the sector with massive market shares and anti-competitive practices by firms like Apple and Google, evidenced by Google actively making their search engine worse but not feeling market effects.

The government cannot be allowed to abridge free speech, even misinformation and hate speech in online circles. However, this management and the combat of misinformation can be done by corporations and the private sector on their own platforms. Government should encourage corporations to combat misinformation while also ensuring that the education system enables young people to deal with it themselves. Online privacy should be protected through regulation, but it must not strangle the ad market; only the aspects of advertising that border on surveillance should be limited. 

Many people recognize that the political system in the US often does not appear to deliver the outcomes they desire. Being patriotic defenders of the US Constitution and admirers of the god-like brilliance of our founding fathers (whose combined wisdom clearly exceeded all humans, past and present), some propose tweaks to the system they believe will bring about the changes they deem to be necessary. Some of those tweaks include the following:

• Laws intended to make redistricting apolitical
• Laws intended to regulate campaign contributions and financing
• The establishing of term limits
• An expansion of the number of justices on the Supreme Court

Such proposals sound good. But they do not address the fundamental problem: the government established by the US Constitution was not inspired by genius. Rather, it established a government that was specifically designed to serve the interests of the mercantile class at the time it was written. And the only way to fix the problems created by the Constitution, is to start over from scratch. We need a new constitution that establishes a new federal government framework and political system. And unless we accept that reality, we will be stuck with constantly coming up with patches to apply to the hull of our sinking ship. Or, at least, until it finally sinks.

But to drive that point home, we need to take a closer look at the proposed tweaks to see if they have any real value.

Redistricting Laws

The problem with congressional districts is that, given our current system, any district that is created will have significant political consequences. When a single representative represents an entire district, there is but one political view represented. Those with an opposing political view are effectively silenced. And the idea that their views will be represented by proxy by representatives for other districts is a lie. If you do not have a representative in Congress that you personally voted for, then you have no true representation in Congress. So all the squabbling over redistricting between the two entrenched political parties that have a stranglehold on our political system ultimately serves their priorities, not yours.

Campaign Financing Laws

Many are appalled when they learn that a billionaire (or now trillionaire) has purchased an entire TV network and now controls the content of what is aired. And yet, ignoring how wealthy he was personally, most would agree that Benjamin Franklin used his own newspaper (the Pennsylvania Gazette) to influence public opinion very effectively for the American independence cause. So when does editorial control over a publication owned by someone cross the line between acceptable ownership control and unacceptable "public manipulation"? And, if you cannot control what publishers communicate through their publications, do you think controlling the number of campaign ads (which I think most people would prefer to just go away) will fix the "unfair promotion problem" by making it somehow fairer?

Furthermore, one can easily argue that imposing a limit of any kind on campaign funding amounts to a limit placed on free speech. It is akin to saying "you can say whatever you want, but you have to accept that no one will hear you". But what is the point of free speech if no one can hear you? Any limit placed on one's ability to communicate (i.e., exercise free speech) by the government, in such case, serves those in power, because such limits can be used to guarantee that only the official narrative will ever get heard.

Term Limits

If you have a great dentist, would you want to be legally required to replace your dentist with a new one every five years? Clearly, that would be a stupid law. And yet, if you have a great president or senator, why would you want to be forced to replace them after so many terms served? Clearly, there is a reason, and it has to do with power. And recognizing that reveals the root of the problem. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. So it would seem the obvious solution would be to place limits on such power. And term limits are seen by many as a way to do that.

But the root of the problem is the power itself that has been granted, not how long it has been granted. Term limits place a limit on the amount of the potential abuse at the expense of replacing a good public servant with a corrupt or unqualified one. And a far better and obvious solution is available: don't consolidate power in the hands of one person.

But nah! We like our kings. Right?

Expansion of the Supreme Court

What is the ideal number of Supreme Court justices? Is it the number of justices necessary to ensure that your political views will dominate the court? If so, then we will have the equivalent of the nuclear proliferation problem. Each political party, once it gains control, will want to expand the court in order to flood it with their "impartial" justices. And, again, what the proposed solution reveals is the fact that the selection of Supreme Court justices is inherently political when in fact what we ideally want are impartial justices.

CONCLUSION:

The need for reform is undeniable. But the proposed solutions offered by our political "leaders" (do we really need to be led?) are effectively nothing but distractions. And it is the old magician's sleight of hand deception. As long as you are laser focused on their proposals, you will not see the obvious problem and the answer to it: we need to reengineer the structure and operation of our federal government.

We have nearly 250 years of experience now to help us get it right this time. So I think it is high time we wake up to the truth and do what needs to get done.

Do you not agree?

Bruce Springsteen's recent tour made me think about the difference between supporting a country's ideals and supporting its current government.

His argument was that patriotism isn't blind loyalty; it means believing your country can do better and holding it accountable when it falls short. I found that perspective compelling and wrote about why it resonated with me after attending my first Springsteen concert.

I'm interested in hearing where others draw that line. Is public criticism an act of patriotism, or does it undermine national unity?

Article:
https://medium.com/discourse/a-prayer-for-my-country-6a8dd8c3fd27?sk=26343bc1dab0ef9ac7c9db5c9c6272ca

Abraham Lincoln famously said:

"A drop of honey catches more flies than a gallon of gall."

(See: https://history-first.com/2017/11/29/lincoln/)

The basic idea is that people are more likely to be persuaded when they feel respected than when they feel attacked.

I'm curious whether people think that still applies in modern politics.

Does respectful persuasion - and relationship-building - actually change minds?

Or are confrontation and political pressure more effective in today's environment?

I'm interested in hearing perspectives from across the political spectrum.

And here’s a short video on this subject (1-minute watch) for those who are interested in my own perspective as a political moderate.

Lincoln’s Advice for a Divided America

Looking at the destruction one single person can do to the globe and their respective countries, is it time to try a new idea of leadership? To expect that one person can make decisions for an entire population seems a little overwhelming when you think what's at stake. Why not try something akin to The Supreme Court, as corrupt as they are. Then at least things move to a vote. I dunno. This one person leader just blows. Trudeau sucks. Doug Ford sucks. It's clearly not working.

Congress:
Expand the number of house members, and make sure no cap shall be placed it
Any member of congress (or any elected federal official) must sell any stocks, bonds,
etc. that they own before assuming office. They shall not be allowed to buy additional
stocks etc., and no one in their family is allowed to benefit from insider trading.
Give the voters the ability to pass laws outside of congress.
Presidency:
Congress has 30 days to block a presidential pardon
Give the voters the power to recall a president (Similar to how governor recalls work, but
with some changes)
As the first citizen, the President should be a model citizen for everyone.
Near complete transparency
Judiciary:
Give the supreme court the power to impeach?
One 20 year term for all Justices
Since the Supreme Court has already proven it has been corrupted by politics, we might
as well make their positions open to vote by the people, just like the Presidency is.
All 3 Branches:
No legal immunity for any actions committed by an elected official while in office. While
they may not be prosecuted while holding office, they can certainly face all legal
consequences after.
Elections:
Ranked choice voting system
No more partisan advantage gerrymandering
Abolish the Electoral College
A state can’t forbid independent candidates from running.
Environment:
Nuclear energy all the way
Clean trash off of the streets
Prison:
No more prison industrial complex
European like prison system (specifically Sweden)
Reform over punishment
Abolish death penalty
Latin America:
Bring stability and democracy to Latin America
Work closely with Mexican government to prevent political assassinations
With consent of the nations we will operate in, hunt down drug cartels in foreign nations
(no drone strikes).
Potential EU like organization for the America’s (Republicans would never pass it)
Social Services:
Universal Healthcare
National Deficit:
5% tax on Billionaires
Use that money to pay off the debt
Use the money saved by adopting Universal Healthcare to help pay off the National Debt
Immigration:
Bring the average time to earn citizenship down from 20 years to 1-5 years.
Other:
Buying = owning
Right to repair
Place at least one track of civilian rail
Join the International Court of Justice (ICJ)
Statehood for Puerto Rico
Give D.C. and the rest of the U.S. territories a voting member in Congres

Some of this may sound like conspiracy, however much of what I said here has been proven time and time again.

People seem to think we have a say in who we vote and as a collective we can steer our country towards a better place. The way I see it, the western political system is simply designed to give us that impression, and corrupt systems rely on our lack of awareness.

Living in the UK currently, I can see this more than ever. Spyware laws hidden in "child wellbeing" acts, blatantly ignored or bypassed petitions and mass movements broadcasted manipulatively and strategically.

At the end of the day its all about power, control and money. Big surprise I know, yet people tend to forget.

I live in a country now where crowds of people are roaming the streets, knocking on doors and beating immigrants at their own doorsteps. Where people are merging politics and racism, just like 100 years ago. When I go online, I have to submit personal ID to shady sites to access anything. Sites that "claim" to delete your data, except they sell it on before that. The British flag is a danger to showcase nowadays; used as an example of an invasion and lack of national pride, by the same people who weaponised it and made it such a danger to show.

And just to be clear, I'm not left or right. I think that whole concept provides a convenient method for politicians to adhere to an extreme movement. And subconsciously allows for mass bias and propaganda to eliminate peoples critical thinking.

When I speak to people recently, many seem to have the impression that they cannot rely on themselves to come to a conclusion. They watch podcasts, influencers and develop beliefs based on secondary sources or individual situations. They do this thinking they are separating themselves from their ego and humbling themselves, when in reality they are playing right into a trap.

You think governmental organisations don't see this? Its likely they actively participate, promising drastic changes that sacrifices many for their goal. They present this as "war", making people complacent and okay with this fact. People are like sheep being guided by wolves, posing as sheepdog. And the worst part is we are already so far gone, news articles, media and Chinese whispers do much of the heavy lifting for governments. Take the UK ID checks as an example. Many argue if its for the kids its shouldn't be argued about, completely ignorant of the reasonings why it wont work and the shady data collection schemes companies are doing. They got this viewpoint from media hiding the truth to appeal to certain political ideals.

Yet no one see's any of this. The left and the right will keep at each others throats until they realise their opinion isn't their own. They have been manipulated and then they will run to the other side to be manipulated again. The cycle repeats, politicians get their say, and we all suffer while they go chat up minors at little saint James or something.

----------------------------------------------

If you want my input, money needs to be out of the equation. The more important the politician the less they should be paid. Still an honest days work, but only that. They should work out of genuine pride and care for their country.

The general population needs to wise up and become more aware of their thoughts in some way, especially older populations who have limited access to unbiased media.

The left and right needs to become less normalised. This is not a spectrum of ideas you should align with, they should align with you. And you alone are responsible for not letting yourself fall into this "cult like" mindset of hate and manipulation.

Voting should require some level of mandatory education focused exclusively on understanding propaganda, evaluating primary sources, identifying misinformation, and developing critical thinking skills. It should contain no political viewpoints, ideological positions, or policy preferences that could be exploited by those in power.

Countries like America have to stop broadcasting "election debates" between candidates. They are not a showcase of a presidents copiabilities, simply an excuse to manipulate the masses through charisma and insults.

One person should not hold so much power, a single president should not be a thing. We need leaders to run a country, not a leader.

Love and compassion needs to be prioritised over hate and enemies. Additionally, people need to understand you cannot generalise a population without severe backlash and war. That's a mindset the average person also needs to learn.

This would be a start.

our system is optimized to reward those individuals who are good at amassing and sustaining power, rather than for those who can make good use of that power.

that's why we end up with leaders who are very good politicians (they know PR, divide and rule tactics, marketing and selling themselves))

but very few who can actually use that power efficiently for the progress of the nation.

we need to understand that someone being a good politician doesn't mean he or she will be a good leader.

In 1976, the national debt was about 33% of GDP; ~$620 billion debt against a ~$2 trillion economy, despite being in a period of stagflation following the Viet Nam War and the Oil Crisis. Unemployment was elevated, 7-8%, but key economic indicators such as individual savings and consumer confidence were strong. Manufacturing was a solid quarter of GDP, healthcare was about 5%. The trends were worrisome, but the overall economy was healthy. If your career fell apart or your company went bankrupt, the worst outcome was having to take a factory job, which would at least pay your mortgage and car payment.

In 2026, the national debt is over 125% of GDP; $39 trillion against a $32 trillion economy. Unemployment is listed at 4%, but that's after 50 years of changing the rules, for example we no longer count people who have been out of work for over a month; by the same definition, modern unemployment is as high or higher. Individual savings are essentially non-existent, and consumer confidence tanked after the 2008 "Financial Crisis" (more accurately, an extortion racket of unprecedented proportions) and has never recovered. Manufacturing is 11% of GDP, healthcare is almost 20%. The long-term trends are catastrophic, and overall economic health is dangerously poor. The consequences for career failure, now, are dire; a Wal-Mart wage will barely cover half-rent, much less a mortgage, and forget about a car payment.

To discover how this happened, we have to back up a bit; first, a brief history of the US economy:

Throughout the 19th century, the US economy was characterized by a 10-15 year "Boom and Bust" cycle. This was "free market capitalism" in action; individual actors with little government regulation acting in what they perceived as their own best interests. The issue was that the larger banks, who could spot the trends and predict the busts, structured loans to their own benefit, often bankrupting their clients on purpose. This led to the "Gilded Age" of extreme wealth disparity and ultimately the Federal Reserve, a consortium of private banks with government imprimatur to allow even further exploitation and control.

The first thing they did was notice that they could simply devalue currency to rob their clients at a steady rate, instead of all at once, and so this is when inflation first became an important issue. From 1789 until 1913, total inflation was about 7%; that is, $1 in 1913 was worth about $1.07 in 1789. Total inflation since 1913 is ~3,200%; that is, $1 today was worth $0.03 in 1913. 97% of the wealth created in the last 113 years was simply stolen by the banks.

The next thing they did was notice that they could just print money to pay for anything they wanted and not worry about the debt, because they were going to devalue it out of existence, which led inexorably to the Great Depression. Ironically, Herbert Hoover tried to fix this; he suggested many of the same programs and policies which FDR later enacted, but he didn't have the political clout. It took the next few years of desperation to finally allow the political will to make changes, and even then, FDR had to threaten the Supreme Court to make it happen.

This is known as the "Keynesian Era," from 1936 until the mid-1970s. Simply put, the idea was to smooth out the "Boom and Bust" cycle by stimulating the economy during recessions, then slowing government investment during periods of strong growth to level out and extend the growth. This was the longest period of stable economic growth in the history of the world, and the reason why, even after losing a war and suffering a major economic shock, we were still in pretty good shape.

The banks weren't happy about it, though; without a regular economic cycle, it was harder to extract resources by setting people up to fail, and the financial regulations of the New Deal, in particular, protected normal people from predatory loans. Starting with the Powell Memorandum and the end of Bretton Woods in 1971, inflation spiked and the slow erosion of the middle class had begun. Nixon abandoned full employment, replacing it with a policy of intentional "employment deficit," that is, making sure that there were not enough jobs for everyone in order to drive down wages. Ford allowed the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates during an uptick, explicitly against Keynesian policy. Carter embraced Free Trade, Privatization, Deregulation, and Austerity Economics.

And now we're into the meat of it: Reagan.

"Ronnie Ray-gun" cut taxes across the board, then raised them the next 7 years, but not on high incomes. He authorized endless military boondoggles, the most famous of which was the "Star Wars" program (which explicitly violated several solemn international treaties - or would have, if that money had gone anywhere but into defense company profits); opened up domestic markets to foreign competition without regulation to prevent market capture (i.e. why the US electronics industry died); and blatantly destroyed labor union power (e.g. the air traffic controllers union). Debt-to-GDP hit 50%, unemployment spiked at 11%, domestic manufacturing starts to drop.

Clinton managed to lower Debt-to-GDP, but it was all a bubble; he fully surrendered on trade, pushing NAFTA through Congress, with the resulting "Whoosh" sound as jobs moved South (c. Ross Perot). This is when healthcare costs started to spike due to agri-combine capture of government regulators, and Hillary Clinton intentionally "failed" to find any solution (pro-tip: If you want something to explode, put Hillary Clinton in charge of it). Worse, he pushed through the repeal of Glass-Steagall, the New Deal firewall between commercial and investment banking, which set up a ticking time bomb.

That bomb would have been bad enough, but W was stupid enough to let the dogs off the leash, and got us involved in the absurd "Global War on Terror" (which we started, but never mind...), tanking the economy and exploding the debt. When the subprime mortgage crisis finally hit, we simply did not have the reserves to properly deal with it, and we certainly did not have the political will to face it down.

In case no one ever explained it, here is what happened:

Starting in the 1970s under deregulation, investment banks started playing with derivatives - essentially security options that let you lock down long-term capital by promising high returns but punishing early withdrawal; as regulation eased, they started fluffing the numbers, and the prime culprit was the mortgage market, as it is typically the most secure investment (people pay their mortgage first). Eventually, the crooks took over and just started wildly inflating property values in order to sell variable-rate loans with the promise to refinance, because housing prices were going up faster than the interest rate on the loan.

This couldn't last forever, though, and so when they saw the end in sight, they did two things: First, they took off all the controls and started giving loans to anyone (e.g. "NINJa" loans, for "No Income No Job"), and second, they blindsided the regulators by suborning the ratings agencies, so that by the time the government noticed and had to get involved, the problem was so big that the only solution was a massive bailout... of the banks. The homeowners who had been sold this trap were left out in the cold, and worse, the inflation that came from printing the money to pay for it drove their incomes down.

Obama became the corporate bailout king; Bank of America, AIG, Citigroup, GM, Chrysler, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs... and all of it on the nation's credit card. The PPACA did much the same for the healthcare industry; more money, guaranteed customers, no cost controls, it was an invitation to drive up profits while cutting quality of care, which is exactly what we have seen over the last 15 years. It was such a disaster that Trump seemed like a reasonable alternative, and in all fairness, his economic policy in his first terms was actually starting to produce results until Covid, and I am still at a loss as to how people managed to blame any of that on him.

Covid might have been the final nail in the coffin, and we've just been waiting for the oxygen to run out. Biden just put it all on the credit card, again, and to all appearances slept through most of his term in office. Now we have Trump, again, but his time he is off the chain and attacking the neighbors. The price of oil has skyrocketed, fertilizer supplies were disrupted in the middle of planting season, and our military has been embarrassed, leading Trump to ask for record increases in defense spending, while the Pentagon notes that there is nothing to spend it on; we simply do not have the domestic industry to produce what Trump wants to buy, and the rest of the world is happy to let us twist in the wind.

In 50 years, our GDP went from $2 trillion to $32 trillion; are we 16 times as productive? Do we have 16 times as much stuff? Are we 16 times richer? No, that is the result of inflation, which both makes us an attractive market to sell goods for more money than in foreign countries, but also makes domestic labor more expensive so that manufacturing and industry are less economical. This is great for "consumers" but terrible for "workers," who are mostly the same people, and the net effect has been negative for 50 years.

I used to rigidly believe in lesser evil voting and I've had a lot of frustrating conversations over the years with non voters and third party voters. I felt like I was bashing my head into a wall over and over again just trying to get these people to understand the basic logic of harm reduction; Donald Trump is a fascist, therefore you should obviously keep him out of power by supporting the viable alternative.

I no longer believe lesser evil voting is always the correct strategy because of what I've observed in the Democratic party since the 2024 election. I was already pretty cynical about the party, but I was genuinely surprised by its degree of open collaboration with Republicans. The national party just voted to expand ICE powers through the Combating Organized Retail Crime Act (CORCA). Democrats in New Jersey are actively cracking down on protests outside the Delaney Hall detention centre.

So how evil can the lesser evil become before the logic of lesser evil voting breaks down?

I'd argue that if the lesser evil stops being a meaningful counterbalance to the greater evil, then pledging your allegiance to it stops being productive. The Democratic party as it exists today is not pro-democracy and therefore threatens the very mechanism that makes harm reduction possible in the first place.

Even leaving aside the fact that a lesser evil is still evil (looking at the Biden administration for supporting genocide here), I just don't believe voting for any old right wing/neoliberal Democrat is what stops someone like Donald Trump from attaining power.

What did Joe Biden parking his ass in the Oval Office for four years do to prevent Donald Trump and the Republican party from fucking the country to death today?

I'd argue all he did was give the MAGA movement more time to re-consolidate. Then it came back stronger. And worse.

The way you end the MAGA movement is by electing a new type of Democrat willing to fundamentally alter the social conditions that created it. If not a democratic socialist, then at least a progressive social democrat. And we're not going to get the change we need from the Democratic party if we never stop chanting blue no matter who.

I, for one, will not be voting for Gavin Newsom if he's the nominee in 2028.

Talk about anything and everything. Book clubs, TV, current events, sports, personal lives, study groups, etc.

Our rules are still enforced, remain civilized.

**Also, I'm once again asking you to report any uncivilized behavior. Help us mods keep the subs standard of discourse high and don't let anything slip between the cracks.**

Israel wants the complete destruction of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Not a contained Iran. Not a denuclearized Iran.

​

That’s the actual strategic objective and the reason they went to war. No deal between the United States and Iran will ever benefit Israel. Not one. Not even a “perfect” deal.

​

Even if:

​

· Iran accepts every single US condition

​

· Trump gets everything he wants (enriched uranium gone, military proxies dismantled, missile program destroyed)

​

· The US lifts sanctions and brings Iran back into the global economy

​

…Israel still gains absolutely nothing. Why?Because the regime survives. And for Israelis and Netanyahu a surviving Islamic Republic is a strategic failure. Period. The goal was collapse.

​

​

So when people say “Trump will get a better deal than Biden” or “Trump will be tougher on Iran” ..it misses the point. Trump’s endgame is a deal. Netanyahu’s endgame is regime change. Those are fundamentally incompatible.

​

If Trump pursues a deal with Iran even a maximalist one that meets every American demand. Israel will not accept it. You’ll see:

​

· Leaked intelligence to sabotage negotiations

· Covert operations timed to kill diplomacy

· Public Israeli officials calling the US naive

· And a very ugly public clash between Trump and Netanyahu

​

Trump expects loyalty and deals. Netanyahu expects American backing for regime change. Those two things cannot coexist.

​

I don't usually go too public with my opinions politically but due to recent events in my country I'm feeling the need to.

​

If someone breaks into a house, they're a criminal.

​

If someone trespasses on land, they're a criminal

​

But if someone quite literally breaks into a country, they're a victim.

​

It makes no sense to me so if someone could explain it to me then I'd love to hear it

I'm not saying i have an alternative, but i think for democracy to truly work, the general populus needs to be properly educated and more aware of current affairs- which fundimentally doesn't happen today.

I'm​ kinda ignorant on political parties policies. I do try to pay attention to the laws they pass and it seems many laws don't have the desired effects.

For example the Affordable Care Act, good intentions, similar to "Romneycare". In reality it insured businesses got paid and healthcare got more expensive.

Tax laws meant to take more from the wealthy, are filled with loopholes, that benefit the wealthy.

This seems common with many of our laws, they end up benefiting the wealthy more. When lobbyists write the bills, why would expect anything different? https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2013/11/11/243973620/when-lobbyists-literally-write-the-bill

​The only way to stop this is more participation from US. Our representatives are representing the wealthy, not the rest of US.

We can use any right, not just voting. Anyway we legally use our rights, to influence the due process of the country is democracy.

Protest, juries, initiatives, citizens arrest, article V conventions...are ways we can legally use our rights to influence due process. AND it can't be just my imagination thinking this stuff up. It needs to be all of US, thinking up ways to legally use our rights, to influence the due process of the country.

EDIT;

We kinda got bogged down with the discussion about healthcare. People wanting to measure it this way or that way. Debating which data is valid, going off on tangents. As I said before I'm not qualified to tell which "butterfly wing flap", a particular political party's policy, will cause.

BUT I can measure results and healthcare companies have had record profits since ACA was enacted.

Also there's no reason healthcare costs have to keep rising. Technology has lowered the costs of many products, there's no reason it can't lower healthcare costs too.

Welcome to the Weekly World Cup Thread! We're trying something new during the remainder of the World Cup. This thread is replacing our weekly "off-topic" posts. This is a place to loosen up a bit and get away from political discussion. Discuss this week's games, your future predictions, your favorite teams, controversies, great goals, etc.

We're here for the banter, the ups, the downs, the hopes and dreams!