linate

Doge was so incompetent and dysfunctional of an organization that it ended up costing taxpayers more than it saved.

SatanLucy wrote:

Do you think that trump's invasion of Japan is justified?

It's not like he nuked em like we did last time, amiright?

There is no god but trump, and fox news is his prophet

Trumpanźee

An irrational creature prone to wild overreaction, rattling its cage at the slightest provocation and indiscriminately flinging its faeces around until everything is covered in excrement.

Why does anyone have to believe the accuser here?

What are some policies that you support that would foster broad based prosperity?

All im doing is observing how you approach things on here. I never see you promoting ideas or policies that are good for most people... your points are always about people pulling themselves up by their bootstraps. Less about society making sure everyone has adequate bootstraps to pull themselves up with

Good points

What are some specific policy proposals that they advocate for that would do anything like that? From what I see they simply propose all things free market. How original. Its not that everyone else hasn't thought of the free market, its just that eveveryone else realizes its not the panacea they think it is. Now, if you wanted to talk about specific policy proposals that have free market underpinnings but aren't simply deregulate everything you might be on to something

with someone like trump, even if it was proven beyond doubt he was a rapist I doubt it would change polling too much. I think both parties kinda assume he's a perverted deviant already. I dont even know how much the Epstein stuff would take him down if the claims were better proven.

I think the more accurate answer is that they can't think outside the box, cause I don't think they are too thoughtful. But to be fair it's hard to know what the further left would do if they got power. They have a lotta good ideas but they have a lotta bad ideas too

Why keep the conservative mantra as every man for himself? I think the reason they insist on that thinking is due to lack of creativity in political and policy and social thought. We don't need runaway welfare and hand outs to create broad based prosperity. We could pass regulations that cost nothing but helps many, we could give loans that much be paid back that help many. We could use small grants to the right people or change our tax code. As I always say, we've lost the policy in politics. Instead of creative policy that helps most, they get stuck in simplistic either or socialms debates. There'seven conservative ideas that could help, but again they keep it very simplistic and focus on generic ideas about how we can't help others instead of creative ways in which we can

They would rather have broad based prosperity than prosperity by a select few who can achieve it right? Assuming thats the case why do you focus so much on outliers and rich people, why dont you focus on policies that promote broad based prosperity?

If they dont want broad based prosperity why not?

You would rather have broad based prosperity than prosperity by a select few who can achieve it right? Assuming thats the case why do you focus so much on outliers and rich people, why dont you focus on policies that promote broad based prosperity?

From ai...

There's nothing inherently impossible about a government-sponsored retirement match. It's a policy choice rather than an economic impossibility.

For example, the government could create a program like:

* For every $1 you contribute to a retirement account (such as a 401(k) or IRA), the government contributes 25–100 cents, up to a yearly limit.

* The match could phase out for higher-income households, concentrating benefits on low- and middle-income workers.

* The funds could be required to stay invested until retirement, just like many retirement accounts today.

In fact, the U.S. already has something similar, though it's much smaller:

* The Saver's Match (which replaces the old Saver's Credit) will provide eligible lower-income workers with a federal matching contribution to their retirement accounts, rather than just a tax credit.

There are several advantages:

* It encourages more people to save.

* It helps workers whose employers don't offer a 401(k) match.

* Compound growth can make even modest matching contributions significantly more valuable over decades.

* It can reduce future reliance on government assistance in retirement.

The tradeoffs are:

* It costs taxpayers money.

* It increases the federal budget deficit unless offset by spending cuts or higher taxes.

* Policymakers would need to decide who qualifies and how generous the match should be.

Many economists across the political spectrum see targeted retirement matching for lower-income workers as a more effective incentive than tax deductions, since tax deductions tend to provide the largest benefits to higher-income households.

So the idea is entirely feasible. In fact, the U.S. has already begun moving in that direction with the Saver's Match, although on a much smaller scale than a typical employer 401(k) match.

A rough estimate is **on the order of $50–100 billion per year**, depending on how generous the program is and how many people participate.

Here's one way to approximate it:

* Bottom 50% of U.S. adults: about **130 million people**.

* Assume about **80 million** are working.

* Suppose **60% participate** → **48 million workers**.

* Assume the average salary is **$40,000**.

* A 6% contribution is **$2,400**.

* If the government matched **100% of that 6%**, the maximum match would be **$2,400 per participating worker**.

That yields:

* 48 million × $2,400 ≈ **$115 billion per year**.

However, not everyone contributes the full 6%, and some earn much less than $40,000. If average contributions were closer to 3–4% of pay, or participation were lower, the annual cost could fall into the **$50–80 billion** range.

For context:

* The federal government spends roughly **$1.6 trillion** annually on Social Security.

* Annual defense spending is around **$900 billion**.

* Total federal spending is roughly **$7 trillion**.

So a universal 6% match for the bottom half of earners would likely cost **about 0.7–1.6% of the federal budget**. It would be a significant program, but not outside the scale of major existing federal initiatives.

One interesting economic effect is that much of this money would remain invested in businesses through retirement accounts rather than being spent immediately. That means the long-term fiscal cost isn't simply "money gone"—the policy would increase household wealth and capital formation, though whether those long-term benefits offset the upfront budget cost is a matter economists continue to debate.

See above

I'll give you the fact that anyone can get rich but that's the case no matter who's been president

I'd rather have broad based prosperity not just a select few pulling it off

When the economy is in trouble gold and silver shoot up. When inflation shoots up commodities shoot up. The stock market represents mostly the rich, not the large majority of Americans. These aren't the flex that you think they are

Employment is just fluctuating but simply being employed aint much of a flex either if the large majority of people can barely survive

Yes. Those are two related but distinct aspects of an economy.

You can have **extensive pooling of resources**—through taxes, universal healthcare, public pensions, unemployment insurance, and other social programs—while still having **substantial wealth inequality** if ownership of assets remains concentrated.

For example:

* A country may provide universal healthcare and generous social benefits (high resource pooling).

* At the same time, the wealthiest households may own most of the businesses, stocks, and investment properties.

* As those assets appreciate over decades, wealth can become increasingly concentrated even though everyone's basic needs are better protected.

Conversely, a country could have relatively little redistribution but broad ownership of productive assets (through widespread stock ownership, employee ownership, or other mechanisms), which could reduce wealth inequality.

So there are really two different questions:

1. **How are income and resources redistributed?** (pooling)

2. **Who owns productive assets?** (wealth distribution)

These interact, but one does not determine the other. That's why many economists distinguish between **income inequality** and **wealth inequality**—they often move together, but not always.

This distinction strengthens your earlier point: **the degree of resource pooling alone doesn't determine how unequal wealth becomes.** Asset ownership patterns, returns on capital, inheritance, housing markets, and other factors all play major roles.

If the usa is not necessarily better as an economic model it could still be said it fosters greater wealth disparity and top heavy wealth. Why?

Your intuition is pointing at something real, but it needs a bit of tightening.

A useful way to frame it is:

If an economy has **less pooling of resources (lower redistribution / weaker social insurance)**, then:

* more income stays “privately controlled” at the top end

* market outcomes dominate (wages, capital returns, inheritance)

* and therefore **wealth dispersion tends to be higher**

So yes: *less pooling can allow greater wealth inequality.*

But the key correction is this:

> Wealth inequality is not mainly determined by how “pooled” resources are—it’s primarily driven by how income from capital vs labor accumulates over time.

That means you can get:

* **high inequality in highly pooled systems** (if ownership of capital is still unequal)

* **lower inequality in less pooled systems** (if wages are high, mobility is strong, and asset ownership is broad)

### Where the US actually fits

The U.S. is somewhat unique:

* It is **not very “pooled” compared to Europe** (weaker welfare state than, say, Sweden or Germany)

* But it is also a **very large, deep capital market economy**

* So wealth accumulates heavily through:

* stocks

* housing

* business ownership

* inheritance

That combination tends to produce:

* strong upward mobility for some

* but also **very high wealth concentration at the top**

### The important nuance

“Pooling resources” (taxes, transfers, public services) affects inequality mainly by:

* reducing bottom-end deprivation

* increasing floor stability (healthcare, education, unemployment support)

* modestly compressing income distribution

But it is not the main driver of extreme wealth inequality. The big drivers are:

* capital ownership distribution

* returns to capital vs wages (Piketty-style dynamics)

* inheritance

* housing asset inflation

* education/labor market sorting

### A sharper way to restate your idea

A more precise version of your argument would be:

> Lower redistribution tends to allow more inequality to persist, but the magnitude of wealth inequality is more strongly shaped by capital accumulation dynamics than by the level of resource pooling alone.

.....

First, a small correction to the premise: the U.S. actually has one of the **most diverse capital markets in the world** (public equities, private equity, venture capital, REITs, derivatives, etc.). What’s *less diverse* is not the existence of instruments, but **who owns what and how broadly capital is distributed across households and firms**.

If your question is really “why does U.S. capital ownership and corporate structure end up more concentrated or less broadly shared than in some other advanced economies?”, there are a few big structural reasons.

---

## 1. The U.S. is unusually equity-heavy and market-driven

The U.S. leans strongly toward **public markets and equity ownership**, rather than:

* cooperative ownership models (more common in parts of Europe)

* state-backed industrial ownership (common in parts of Asia historically)

* bank-centered capital systems (Germany, Japan, etc.)

That matters because:

* equity markets tend to **scale winner-take-most dynamics**

* successful firms grow very large (Apple, Amazon, Google effects)

* ownership accumulates where early capital already existed

So “diversity” exists in *instruments*, but outcomes cluster.

---

## 2. Household capital ownership is uneven

In many European countries, there is:

* higher participation in pensions tied to collective bargaining

* stronger automatic enrollment in retirement systems

* more mandated savings pools (which spread equity exposure broadly)

In the U.S.:

* ownership is more **voluntary and market-dependent (401(k), IRAs, brokerage accounts)**

* participation correlates strongly with income and financial literacy

* large shares of stocks are held by the top wealth decile

So capital is “diverse,” but **not evenly distributed across the population**.

---

## 3. Weak cooperative / stakeholder corporate tradition

Compared to places like:

* Germany (codetermination, worker representation on boards)

* Scandinavia (labor-capital coordination, wage compression institutions)

* Netherlands (stakeholder governance models)

The U.S. emphasizes:

* shareholder primacy

* managerial autonomy

* profit maximization over stakeholder balancing

This pushes firms toward:

* scaling aggressively

* concentrating ownership

* prioritizing capital returns over wage dispersion

---

## 4. Venture capital + tech winner-take-most effects

A uniquely strong feature of the U.S. is:

* deep venture capital ecosystem

* extremely high upside tolerance

* strong network effects in tech markets

That creates:

* fewer but larger dominant firms

* rapid capitalization of “superstar” companies

* concentrated equity returns

So paradoxically, **innovation increases capital concentration**.

---

## 5. Tax and inheritance structure amplifies accumulation

Relative to many peer countries:

* inheritance is less aggressively constrained (compared to Europe/Asia)

* capital gains are lightly taxed relative to labor in many brackets

* wealth can compound across generations with fewer structural brakes

That leads to:

* persistent ownership clusters

* dynastic capital formation

---

## 6. Financialization and index concentration

Even “broad” tools like index funds introduce hidden concentration:

* a large share of passive capital flows into the same mega-cap firms

* top companies receive disproportionate inflows

* market capitalization reinforces itself

So even diversified investing ends up **structurally tilted toward a small group of firms**.

---

## The key synthesis

The U.S. doesn’t lack capital diversity in *form*—it has plenty of instruments.

What it lacks relative to some other systems is:

> **broad, structurally enforced diffusion of ownership across households and across firms**

Instead, it has:

* highly efficient capital allocation

* strong scale-up mechanisms

* but also strong reinforcement of winners and existing capital holders

---

So you have no qualms over deporting people who were born and raised for decades here through no fault of their own? Sending people who are culturally American to the slums of foreign countries? Don't you have any desire to find ways to make exceptions to keep some people here or do you take a handling there can be no exceptions approach? If your parents brought you personally here as a kid being born here and the government tried to deport you as a 30 year old man to a third world country, what would you think and feel? Would that be justice?

Why do you think we have given citizenship for hundreds of years to people born here unless that was what was understood?

Yes the founders might not have understood the amendment to apply to birth tourism but if we assume originally they gave citizenship to people born here, the court can't simply engage in judicial rule making for their preferences. That'd be legislating from the bench

I do not wish for your arguments here to ve true... whence, they are not true

I suspect that the original Americans understood the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction of the United states" as meaning people born here become citizens. Originalism and all that

There's pros and cons to birth right citizenship. One con is some people are born here and effectively have no home country. Does it make sense for someone born here and lived for 30 years to suddenly be deported to a random foreign country that they know nothing about?

My understanding is that the most straightforward interpretation of the birthright amendment is that birthright citizenship makes most sense

And the pope's mentioned a minimum wage sanctioned by the state

And pope's said legislation is necessary for this stuff

I can only conclude that you have blinders on due to deep seated bias

When the popes have said private property is subordinate to contracts, or telling the government to intervene, telling the government to enact luxory taxes, or saying everyone has a right to resources enough to live, this is pretty clearly a social contract, a liberal idea. It would be reasonable to say conservatives also believe in all that but for you to spin it as "charity" is butchering the texts logic. Normally in political thought people say there's government assistance and intervention that is pitted against private charity. That's not doing justice to these texts without you just asserting otherwise

I think the argument from miracles is weak evidence for god and from nde science as strong evidence for god. These are based on empirical science, not philosophy. Atheists just are too bias and lack objectivity to see that. The only point I acknowledged to you is that philosophy only isn't evidence for god. Im mostly thinking of classical Christian apologetics like causation and argument from design, stuff like that

That's my point, the usa isn't a minimalist government, we just spend on defense and any extent our government is smaller its because our health care is half privatized and welfare like childcare is privatized too. So if a conservative point is we can't spend like other countries due to our defense spending and inability to reign in Healthcare like the rest of the world thats fair point.... but that's a different point than saying the usa only works cause its minimalist. That's just not true, effectively. Plus there are fiscally respondible ways to have a social welfare system too, so its not either runaway government or nothing

Correct

Of course it depends on how we define it you are right. Im used to talking to old school republicans and libertarians who think any welfare is bad so I tend to say a social welfare is a liberal idea or a basic welfare net is bias to liberal. But you are right not all Republicans agree