No one will take the time to read this

[rocky mountain]

Ill start with my notes i provided to ChatGPT to write a neutral thesis. Ive amused at all the back and forth and sometimes felt quite stressed from it here. No one will change others opinions in this new polarized world, with different streams of information are provided on your device, and many identities associate with their parties. Surely all here know this, so ill assume the dopamine boosts from the fighting here must provide a benefit?
Here's what I inputted. *******************
Please write me an intelligent thesis on the decades failure of our government leading to massive debt , inflation, unaffordability, and divide. Waste and corruption on behalf of our welfare programs, defense spending, and other government aid provided throughout the country and world without proper auditing for waste and fraud. The lack of sovereignty displayed under Biden administration along with the unwillingness of Republicans and Democrats to pass sensible immigration reform. Distrust in large swath of citizens on the integrity of our voting and its consequences. Decades long incestuous relationship between our largest companies who have become monopolies and our politicians. How term limits, disallowed politicians trading stocks, Citizens United eliminated , disallowed hedge finds investing in real estate, veterinarians, and other places which has made America unaffordable for most. Also, what are solutions that can help the majority of Americans who cant afford Healthcare, cost of living get to a better trajectory so American dream doesn't disappear. Tax the ultra rich more as they pay light incomes and use low rate loans from banks and watch their net worth grow as they pay about 8-12% in taxes. Feel free to add to this thesis , want to make it a citizen neutral thesis that will lead to hope of a better lifestyle.
*************************************
ChatGPT thesis:
A Citizen-Centered Thesis on Structural Failure, Public Distrust, and the Path to Renewal in the United States
Introduction
Over the past several decades, the United States has experienced a slow but compounding erosion of public trust, economic stability, and institutional effectiveness. Rising national debt, persistent inflationary pressures, and the growing unaffordability of basic life necessities—housing, healthcare, and education—have left many Americans feeling excluded from the promise of upward mobility. At the same time, political polarization, perceived government inefficiency, and deepening ties between corporate power and elected officials have fueled a widespread belief that the system no longer serves the average citizen.
This thesis argues that these challenges are not the result of a single administration or party, but rather the cumulative outcome of long-term structural failures—fiscal mismanagement, regulatory capture, inadequate oversight, and political incentives that prioritize short-term gain over long-term national health. However, these trends are reversible. With targeted reforms grounded in accountability, transparency, and economic fairness, the United States can restore trust and rebuild a sustainable path toward broad-based prosperity.
I. Structural Drivers of Debt, Inflation, and Unaffordability
The expansion of national debt has been driven by a combination of persistent deficit spending, entitlement growth without structural reform, and large-scale expenditures in defense and global engagement. While some spending has been necessary—particularly during crises—there has been insufficient discipline in evaluating long-term fiscal impact.
Inflation, while influenced by global forces, has been exacerbated domestically by monetary expansion, supply chain fragility, and policy decisions that increased liquidity without corresponding productivity gains. The result has been a decline in purchasing power, disproportionately affecting middle- and lower-income households.
Simultaneously, core pillars of the American dream—homeownership, healthcare access, and education—have become increasingly unattainable. Housing costs have surged due to limited supply, institutional investment in residential real estate, and restrictive zoning. Healthcare costs continue to outpace inflation, driven by administrative complexity, pricing opacity, and consolidation. Education debt burdens have constrained generational wealth-building.
II. Government Spending, Waste, and Accountability Gaps
Public concern over waste and fraud is not unfounded. Large federal programs—whether in welfare, defense, or foreign aid—often lack consistent, transparent auditing mechanisms accessible to the public. While many programs deliver critical support, inefficiencies and misaligned incentives can dilute their effectiveness.
Defense spending, in particular, has faced criticism for cost overruns and limited financial accountability. Similarly, social programs sometimes suffer from bureaucratic inefficiencies that prevent aid from reaching intended recipients efficiently.
The issue is not the existence of these programs, but the absence of rigorous, real-time oversight systems and performance-based evaluation. Without these, public confidence erodes and political narratives around “waste” become amplified.
III. Political Gridlock and Institutional Distrust
The inability of both major political parties to enact comprehensive immigration reform reflects a broader dysfunction: governance driven by electoral strategy rather than problem-solving. This has left critical issues unresolved for decades, contributing to both economic inefficiencies and social tension.
Additionally, distrust in electoral integrity—whether rooted in misinformation, lack of transparency, or inconsistent state-level processes—has had significant societal consequences. Even when systems function correctly, perception gaps can undermine legitimacy. Trust in democratic institutions depends not only on accuracy, but also on clarity and public understanding.
IV. Corporate Consolidation and Political Influence
The increasing concentration of economic power among large corporations has reshaped the relationship between business and government. Through lobbying, campaign financing, and regulatory influence, major firms often exert disproportionate sway over policy outcomes.
This dynamic has contributed to reduced competition in key sectors, higher consumer prices, and barriers to entry for small businesses. In parallel, the practice of elected officials trading individual stocks has raised ethical concerns, reinforcing the perception of conflicts of interest.
The result is a system that many citizens view as “closed”—where economic and political elites operate within overlapping networks that limit accountability.
V. Policy Proposals for Structural Reform
To address these interconnected challenges, a set of pragmatic, citizen-focused reforms is necessary:
Fiscal Discipline and Transparency
Implement real-time public tracking of federal spending.
Require performance audits for major programs, including defense and entitlement spending.
Establish bipartisan fiscal targets tied to GDP growth.
Political and Ethics Reform
Enact term limits for members of Congress to reduce career entrenchment.
Prohibit individual stock trading by elected officials; require blind trusts or index-only investments.
Strengthen lobbying transparency and extend cooling-off periods for public officials entering private sectors.
Campaign Finance Reform
Revisit and modernize campaign finance laws to reduce the influence of concentrated capital in elections.
Expand public financing options to level the playing field for candidates.
Housing and Cost of Living
Limit large institutional ownership of single-family homes in certain markets.
Incentivize zoning reform and housing development to increase supply.
Expand tax credits or subsidies tied directly to affordability outcomes.
Healthcare Reform
Increase price transparency and competition in healthcare markets.
Cap certain administrative costs and incentivize value-based care models.
Explore hybrid public-private systems to reduce overall cost burden.
Tax System Modernization
Ensure high-income individuals pay effective tax rates aligned with their total economic gains.
Address tax strategies that rely on borrowing against unrealized gains to avoid taxation.
Simplify the tax code to reduce loopholes while maintaining incentives for investment and innovation.
Immigration Reform
Create a streamlined, enforceable system balancing border security with legal pathways for labor and residency.
Align immigration policy with economic needs and workforce gaps.
Market Competition and Antitrust
Strengthen antitrust enforcement to prevent monopolistic behavior.
Review consolidation trends across industries, including healthcare, technology, and finance.
Evaluate restrictions on non-traditional institutional investment in essential services sectors.
VI. Restoring Trust and Rebuilding the American Trajectory
At its core, the current crisis is one of trust—economic, political, and social. Rebuilding that trust requires visible accountability, fair rules, and a system that rewards participation rather than proximity to power.
The United States retains significant structural advantages: innovation capacity, demographic diversity, natural resources, and global influence. The challenge is aligning governance with these strengths in a way that benefits the majority of citizens.
A renewed focus on transparency, fairness, and long-term planning can reverse current trends. The American dream—while strained—is not beyond recovery. It requires not only policy change, but a cultural shift toward shared responsibility and institutional integrity.
Conclusion
The issues facing the United States today are complex, but not insurmountable. They are the product of decades of incremental decisions that, collectively, have created systemic imbalance. Addressing them will require equal persistence, but guided by a clearer framework: one that prioritizes citizens over systems, accountability over opacity, and sustainability over short-term gain.
The path forward is not ideological—it is structural. And with deliberate reform, the nation can move toward a future where economic opportunity, institutional trust, and social cohesion are once again broadly shared.

 

[rocky mountain]

I dont believe there's anything we can do at this point. The more people struggle in this ever growing inflationary spiral the more they will want more socialistic programs. If they are run with deep planning, auditing, and thought and without corruption this could be extremely helpful to many. Problem is that are monopolies and puppet politicians control the system. If you relinquish more power you better know who is controlling it , as things could get much worse. Would be nice to believe in a future America where we all would be in better hands, but to me things keep devolving for most unfortunately.

 

[Smitty]

Man, rocky, that's a lot. I'll try to respond piecemeal.

"many identities associate with their parties." This is a big one, right off the rip. Personally, I've always been registered as an Independent. Generally, in State and National elections I've voted Democrat, because I've felt they've had better candidates. Locally, I've mostly voted Republican until very recently. But the two-party system is a problem. Hell, George Washington identified that as an issue in his farewell speech.



Any of that sound like what we're dealing with today?

This is going to tie in with some of your other questions, but might as well get into it now. Obviously the leading two parties (Republicans, Democrats, Federalists, Whigs, whatever) have never seen eye-to-eye. That's kinda the point. But despite all the public animosity, I think most of us know the politicians usually got along in private. They would drink together and try to reach a compromise to hash out deals to move the country forward. While of course it was never perfect, it generally worked. All the way up until Newt Gingrich became Speaker of the House. He forbid his Republican caucus from fraternizing with Democrats. Suddenly compromise was for losers! Up to that point, politics APPEARED to be a zero-sum game, when looking in from the outside. Now it really was. There had to be a winner and a loser for everything. Unfortunately, that meant the only real loser was the United States of America.

Once that attitude trickled down into the population, we were fucked. One perfect example of this is the saying "Don't let your babies grow up to vote Democrat." Literally saying "Don't bother looking at the issues. Don't bother looking at the character of the politician. Those don't matter. We're Republicans and that's how we vote."

On a tangent, a solution to these career politicians is term limits. I've seen very good arguments for and against term limits. My thought is that, in theory, we should not need term limits. If a politician is doing a poor job, if they are not working to improve the lives of those he or she represents, then they should be voted out. We have a system to get rid of bad/ineffective politicians. But our reality is that people will continue to vote for those politicians if they think they have the right letter next to their name. They would rather vote for the worse choice, because they can't fathom voting for the other party.

Since it's highly unlikely that we'll ever get away from the two-party system, I think the next-best option is ranked-choice voting. Long story short, it forces the candidates to appeal more to the middle than to the extremes. Wouldn't that be fantastic?

Plenty more to come, at some point.

 

[ageecee]

Man, rocky, that's a lot. I'll try to respond piecemeal.

"many identities associate with their parties." This is a big one, right off the rip. Personally, I've always been registered as an Independent. Generally, in State and National elections I've voted Democrat, because I've felt they've had better candidates. Locally, I've mostly voted Republican until very recently. But the two-party system is a problem. Hell, George Washington identified that as an issue in his farewell speech.

View attachment 6973160

Any of that sound like what we're dealing with today?

This is going to tie in with some of your other questions, but might as well get into it now. Obviously the leading two parties (Republicans, Democrats, Federalists, Whigs, whatever) have never seen eye-to-eye. That's kinda the point. But despite all the public animosity, I think most of us know the politicians usually got along in private. They would drink together and try to reach a compromise to hash out deals to move the country forward. While of course it was never perfect, it generally worked. All the way up until Newt Gingrich became Speaker of the House. He forbid his Republican caucus from fraternizing with Democrats. Suddenly compromise was for losers! Up to that point, politics APPEARED to be a zero-sum game, when looking in from the outside. Now it really was. There had to be a winner and a loser for everything. Unfortunately, that meant the only real loser was the United States of America.

Once that attitude trickled down into the population, we were fucked. One perfect example of this is the saying "Don't let your babies grow up to vote Democrat." Literally saying "Don't bother looking at the issues. Don't bother looking at the character of the politician. Those don't matter. We're Republicans and that's how we vote."

On a tangent, a solution to these career politicians is term limits. I've seen very good arguments for and against term limits. My thought is that, in theory, we should not need term limits. If a politician is doing a poor job, if they are not working to improve the lives of those he or she represents, then they should be voted out. We have a system to get rid of bad/ineffective politicians. But our reality is that people will continue to vote for those politicians if they think they have the right letter next to their name. They would rather vote for the worse choice, because they can't fathom voting for the other party.

Since it's highly unlikely that we'll ever get away from the two-party system, I think the next-best option is ranked-choice voting. Long story short, it forces the candidates to appeal more to the middle than to the extremes. Wouldn't that be fantastic?

Plenty more to come, at some point.

100% we need term limits. Both parties need term limits without a doubt.

 

[rocky mountain]

Man, rocky, that's a lot. I'll try to respond piecemeal.

"many identities associate with their parties." This is a big one, right off the rip. Personally, I've always been registered as an Independent. Generally, in State and National elections I've voted Democrat, because I've felt they've had better candidates. Locally, I've mostly voted Republican until very recently. But the two-party system is a problem. Hell, George Washington identified that as an issue in his farewell speech.

View attachment 6973160

Any of that sound like what we're dealing with today?

This is going to tie in with some of your other questions, but might as well get into it now. Obviously the leading two parties (Republicans, Democrats, Federalists, Whigs, whatever) have never seen eye-to-eye. That's kinda the point. But despite all the public animosity, I think most of us know the politicians usually got along in private. They would drink together and try to reach a compromise to hash out deals to move the country forward. While of course it was never perfect, it generally worked. All the way up until Newt Gingrich became Speaker of the House. He forbid his Republican caucus from fraternizing with Democrats. Suddenly compromise was for losers! Up to that point, politics APPEARED to be a zero-sum game, when looking in from the outside. Now it really was. There had to be a winner and a loser for everything. Unfortunately, that meant the only real loser was the United States of America.

Once that attitude trickled down into the population, we were fucked. One perfect example of this is the saying "Don't let your babies grow up to vote Democrat." Literally saying "Don't bother looking at the issues. Don't bother looking at the character of the politician. Those don't matter. We're Republicans and that's how we vote."

On a tangent, a solution to these career politicians is term limits. I've seen very good arguments for and against term limits. My thought is that, in theory, we should not need term limits. If a politician is doing a poor job, if they are not working to improve the lives of those he or she represents, then they should be voted out. We have a system to get rid of bad/ineffective politicians. But our reality is that people will continue to vote for those politicians if they think they have the right letter next to their name. They would rather vote for the worse choice, because they can't fathom voting for the other party.

Since it's highly unlikely that we'll ever get away from the two-party system, I think the next-best option is ranked-choice voting. Long story short, it forces the candidates to appeal more to the middle than to the extremes. Wouldn't that be fantastic?

Plenty more to come, at some point.

Very thoughtful response, I agree with all of this Smitty. Citizens United did extreme damage as well. George Washington quote was great find! My cousin explained to me ranked-choice voting, great idea!

 

[Smitty]

100% we need term limits. Both parties need term limits without a doubt.

Big surprise, I'm going to disagree. Sort of. What we need is voters who will vote out bad politicians. What percentage of Americans think Congress sucks? And yet how often do incumbents lose? It's pretty much "Congress sucks, but my guy is ok." Again, that's tied to our two-party system where people (ageecee is a great example of this, and I doubt he'll disagree) vote for a candidate based on the letter next to their name. I'm pretty sure ageecee would rather be sodomized by trump himself than vote for a Democrat.

Of course, one huge advantage for incumbents now is all the gerrymandering that's taken place. These days, politicians choose their voters instead of the other way around. That's another huge problem that needs to be fixed. Not sure if that was anywhere on your list, rocky, but it should be.

The main reason I don't like term limits is that you're throwing out the baby with the bath water, so to speak. Hard to believe as it may be, there are SOME good politicians. And it seems stupid to have to get rid of them just because voters won't do their job.

And recently I saw another excellent argument against term limits. When you get newly elected politicians, they are very unfamiliar with... well, most issues. Which makes them VERY vulnerable to lobbyists. And that's all we need... MORE influence by lobbyists.

On the flip side, the House was never meant to be a life-time appointment. You SHOULD have "normal citizens" there, representing their region for two years.

So, in principle, I'm opposed to term limits. But not as strongly as I could be. If voters can't do their job then, sadly, term limits may be required.

Very thoughtful response, I agree with all of this Smitty. Citizens United did extreme damage as well. George Washington quote was great find! My cousin explained to me ranked-choice voting, great idea!

Oh, we'll get to Citizens United eventually. What an insane decision that absolutely has contributed to the fucking of America. "Money is speech?" WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK????

 

[rocky mountain]

I forgot to insert gerrymandering. In regards to term limits. I was thinking that I would hate to lose the rare solid politician that does a good job to term limits. Not sure how anything can change when the ones we want to create the change control all the levers of change. All change should center on returning to moderate middle decision making and removing infinite power from the monopolies, without damaging the stock market, and returning the representatives #1 focus (not #5) back to their constituents in flesh and blood. Is there any hope?

 

[Smitty]

Is there any hope?

Hey, every empire falls, right? We had a good run.

Seriously, it always comes down to We The People. We need to demand better from our politicians. We need to VOTE. In 2024, only 65% of eligible voters actually voted. Only 52% in the 2022 midterms, and that was HIGH for a midterm election. How many people DIED for us to have this right? And nearly half the population can't be bothered to exercise that right in a midterm election. It's truly pathetic. And let's face facts... there is one party that is trying to make it even more difficult to vote. While screaming about non-existent fraud. All the IDs they're demanding people need to show... which segments of the population are less likely to have them? Women who changed their name when they married... young people... and minorities. I wonder which party they all tend to vote for? But you see how they get their base fired up. Right here in this forum, several guys are convinced that illegal immigrants are voting all the time. And that Democrats are allowing "an invasion" of new Democratic voters. It's insane, but they believe it.

Anyway, the only way things are going to truly get better, and this is a long-term solution, is better education. Particularly Civics. We need to be taught from a young age how things really work and just how important it is not only to vote, but to take the time to learn who/what you're actually voting for.

One more note while I'm thinking about it... another part of the problem is that we're getting worse politicians overall. Think about it... most people who have the intelligence and the temperament to be a good politician are probably making a lot more money in the private sector. And not just the money, but why sign up to have every single aspect of your life dissected? I have a tremendous amount of respect for Pete Buttigieg. Rhodes scholar... Naval Officer... talk about the best of the best. He could do just about anything he wants to. But his commitment to public service is off the charts.

Ok, I'm going to try to respond to a little more of your original post. But I had two plates of Mexican food (the "Tour De Mexico") and a large margarita tonight, so we'll see how far I get.

 

[Smitty]

I. Structural Drivers of Debt, Inflation, and Unaffordability

I'd say the AI gave a decent overview. I'd like to expand upon it a little, and maybe add a few things.

First, a clarification. Basic stuff, I know. But the national debt and inflation are not inherently bad.

National debt - Despite frequent comparisons to the contrary ("I can't run my household budget at a loss, so the government shouldn't either!"), governments can run at a deficit. It's really not that big of a deal. I won't get into the weeds here. I assume an AI search would be happy to elaborate. Anyways, when it becomes a problem is the situation we're in now, when it's spiraling out of control and the interest on the debt is over 3% of GDP and rising. (Fun fact... the last president to run a balanced budget... are you ready?.... Bill Clinton. They actually ran a surplus from 1998 to 2001. Which reminds me of my favorite quote about Bill Clinton (what, don't we all have one?)... "Bill Clinton was a pretty good president for a Republican.")

Anyway, bringing the national debt back to a reasonable number is very similar to tending to our dire infrastructure needs (I don't remember, did you mention our crumbling national infrastructure?) It's going to require a LOT of political will. And a LOT of very difficult decisions. The government will need to raise more revenue while cutting costs/services. And that money is going to have to come from those who have it, which means corporations and high-wealth individuals. Hell, even Warren Buffett has said that it's insane that he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary.

As recently as the '60s, corporate tax was 3.7% of GDP. That number now? Around 1%. Holy shit, who is the idiot that decreased the corporate tax rate in 2017? Oh yeah. That's really helped spur American Manufacturing. Anyway, the top individual rate was over 90% from WWII until 1963. I'm certainly not advocating for a return to that, but we probably need a top rate of 50% (or even higher) WITH NO LOOPHOLES. Wealthy people have benefitted IMMENSELY from being in the United States. It's not unreasonable to make them contribute a fair amount.

Ok, onto inflation. I swear I'll keep this shorter. Pretty basic. Some inflation is a sign of a healthy economy. People would like to be paid more (annual raises) at their job. Businesses have to increase their prices to offset their higher salaries. Straight forward. There's a reason the Fed targets an inflation rate of 2% instead of 0%. Inflation is only a problem when it gets higher (duh). But we always hear about it with a negative connotation.

Unaffordability

The AI response doesn't use the term (at least not here), but it alludes to the growing wealth gap. Obviously it's a huge problem. When you have people at protests shouting "eat the rich!", something needs to change.

Let's face it, this has happened in probably just about every human society we've ever had. Some people are going to accumulate wealth. And personally, I don't begrudge someone making a ridiculous amount of money. But when you look at the last, I don't know, 40 years or so... the ratio of CEO pay to the pay of the lowest-paid employee has grown exponentially. It's truly insane, and ultimately unsustainable. Ok, now I am going to get into the weeds a little. I'm tired and going down the rabbit hole, so bear with me. But this is important. I think a lot of this was driven by Milton Friedman, who famously said in 1970 that "there is one and only one social responsibility of business—to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud."
Which leads to... This perspective is known as the "Friedman doctrine" or "shareholder theory" (or shareholder primacy), which holds that managers are agents of the shareholders and must prioritize their financial returns over other stakeholder interests like employees or the community.

What a load of bullshit. It's 100% wrong. First of all, businesses absolutely have a social responsibility to their community and to their employees. Businesses use resources from their community (labor, energy, infrastructure). It's counterproductive not to ensure the health of that community (whether it be fiscal - trying to reduce tax bills - or physical - pollution, for example).

Also, and here's why it's not just wrong, it's idiotic... the companies that take care of their employees and their customers are going to do the best long-term. As a shareholder, I don't want my company trying to maximize short-term profits. But that's still the prevailing environment in board rooms today.

If companies pay their workers fairly and don't try to gouge their customers, everybody will win in the long run. Boy, would that be a boost for the middle class and go a long ways towards reducing the wealth gap.

Ok, I want to touch upon this AI response a little.

"Simultaneously, core pillars of the American dream—homeownership, healthcare access, and education—have become increasingly unattainable. Housing costs have surged due to limited supply, institutional investment in residential real estate, and restrictive zoning. Healthcare costs continue to outpace inflation, driven by administrative complexity, pricing opacity, and consolidation. Education debt burdens have constrained generational wealth-building."

Homeownership: I think there are some issues on both sides of the coin here. And to be blunt, I'm not going to take the time to dig up the data, but I think this is true... developers are simply not incentivized to build affordable housing now. They all want to build upper-end homes to maximize their profits (there it is again!). So it's not necessarily a shortage of housing, but it's a serious shortage of "starter homes." The first house you buy. Maybe just for the two of you, while you build some equity. That feels like 1,000 years ago now.

However... on the flip side of that coin... people simply do not save like they used to. With the exception of the late 2000's (financial crisis?), we're currently seeing the lowest personal savings rates of the last 60 years (Could be more. The data I found only went back to 1960.) Some of that was necessity. Back then, credit wasn't so readily available. You had to save up for most big purchases. But it's also the attitude of this young generation (Oh boy, here I go.). And I've discussed this here before. But they are now valuing "experiences" over things. So these young people are traveling all over the world. And that's great. Good for them, if that's what they want to prioritize. But don't spend all your money on experiences and then complain you have no money to put down on a house. So, yeah, housing is tough to afford, especially for younger people. But, fuck, you gotta help yourselves, too.
This brings me to my last point before I call it quits for the evening (shit, it's already tomorrow!). And it's a big one.

Financial literacy. Schools are finally figuring out that they need to teach this. It's sad, how little young people know about money. Just basic shit. Like a 6-year car loan is WAY worse for you than a 5-year loan, even though the payments are lower. Financial literacy is so poor that the president of these United States was recently convinced it would be a good idea to introduce a 50-year mortgage. And he "graduated" from Wharton!

Anyway, if they're going to teach the young folk just one bit of financial information, it should be compound interest.



Which of course led to the title of his biography, The Snowball. Which is a really great read.

Ok, before I go further off the rails, the obvious point is this country overall needs much better financial literacy. Saving money and even just basic investing (broad market ETF would be fine for most people).

Rocky, see what a can of worms you opened? I may not finish until 2027. But, hey, you asked for it!

 

[rocky mountain]

I. Structural Drivers of Debt, Inflation, and Unaffordability

I'd say the AI gave a decent overview. I'd like to expand upon it a little, and maybe add a few things.

First, a clarification. Basic stuff, I know. But the national debt and inflation are not inherently bad.

National debt - Despite frequent comparisons to the contrary ("I can't run my household budget at a loss, so the government shouldn't either!"), governments can run at a deficit. It's really not that big of a deal. I won't get into the weeds here. I assume an AI search would be happy to elaborate. Anyways, when it becomes a problem is the situation we're in now, when it's spiraling out of control and the interest on the debt is over 3% of GDP and rising. (Fun fact... the last president to run a balanced budget... are you ready?.... Bill Clinton. They actually ran a surplus from 1998 to 2001. Which reminds me of my favorite quote about Bill Clinton (what, don't we all have one?)... "Bill Clinton was a pretty good president for a Republican.")

Anyway, bringing the national debt back to a reasonable number is very similar to tending to our dire infrastructure needs (I don't remember, did you mention our crumbling national infrastructure?) It's going to require a LOT of political will. And a LOT of very difficult decisions. The government will need to raise more revenue while cutting costs/services. And that money is going to have to come from those who have it, which means corporations and high-wealth individuals. Hell, even Warren Buffett has said that it's insane that he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary.

As recently as the '60s, corporate tax was 3.7% of GDP. That number now? Around 1%. Holy shit, who is the idiot that decreased the corporate tax rate in 2017? Oh yeah. That's really helped spur American Manufacturing. Anyway, the top individual rate was over 90% from WWII until 1963. I'm certainly not advocating for a return to that, but we probably need a top rate of 50% (or even higher) WITH NO LOOPHOLES. Wealthy people have benefitted IMMENSELY from being in the United States. It's not unreasonable to make them contribute a fair amount.

Ok, onto inflation. I swear I'll keep this shorter. Pretty basic. Some inflation is a sign of a healthy economy. People would like to be paid more (annual raises) at their job. Businesses have to increase their prices to offset their higher salaries. Straight forward. There's a reason the Fed targets an inflation rate of 2% instead of 0%. Inflation is only a problem when it gets higher (duh). But we always hear about it with a negative connotation.

Unaffordability

The AI response doesn't use the term (at least not here), but it alludes to the growing wealth gap. Obviously it's a huge problem. When you have people at protests shouting "eat the rich!", something needs to change.

Let's face it, this has happened in probably just about every human society we've ever had. Some people are going to accumulate wealth. And personally, I don't begrudge someone making a ridiculous amount of money. But when you look at the last, I don't know, 40 years or so... the ratio of CEO pay to the pay of the lowest-paid employee has grown exponentially. It's truly insane, and ultimately unsustainable. Ok, now I am going to get into the weeds a little. I'm tired and going down the rabbit hole, so bear with me. But this is important. I think a lot of this was driven by Milton Friedman, who famously said in 1970 that "there is one and only one social responsibility of business—to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud."
Which leads to... This perspective is known as the "Friedman doctrine" or "shareholder theory" (or shareholder primacy), which holds that managers are agents of the shareholders and must prioritize their financial returns over other stakeholder interests like employees or the community.

What a load of bullshit. It's 100% wrong. First of all, businesses absolutely have a social responsibility to their community and to their employees. Businesses use resources from their community (labor, energy, infrastructure). It's counterproductive not to ensure the health of that community (whether it be fiscal - trying to reduce tax bills - or physical - pollution, for example).

Also, and here's why it's not just wrong, it's idiotic... the companies that take care of their employees and their customers are going to do the best long-term. As a shareholder, I don't want my company trying to maximize short-term profits. But that's still the prevailing environment in board rooms today.

If companies pay their workers fairly and don't try to gouge their customers, everybody will win in the long run. Boy, would that be a boost for the middle class and go a long ways towards reducing the wealth gap.

Ok, I want to touch upon this AI response a little.

"Simultaneously, core pillars of the American dream—homeownership, healthcare access, and education—have become increasingly unattainable. Housing costs have surged due to limited supply, institutional investment in residential real estate, and restrictive zoning. Healthcare costs continue to outpace inflation, driven by administrative complexity, pricing opacity, and consolidation. Education debt burdens have constrained generational wealth-building."

Homeownership: I think there are some issues on both sides of the coin here. And to be blunt, I'm not going to take the time to dig up the data, but I think this is true... developers are simply not incentivized to build affordable housing now. They all want to build upper-end homes to maximize their profits (there it is again!). So it's not necessarily a shortage of housing, but it's a serious shortage of "starter homes." The first house you buy. Maybe just for the two of you, while you build some equity. That feels like 1,000 years ago now.

However... on the flip side of that coin... people simply do not save like they used to. With the exception of the late 2000's (financial crisis?), we're currently seeing the lowest personal savings rates of the last 60 years (Could be more. The data I found only went back to 1960.) Some of that was necessity. Back then, credit wasn't so readily available. You had to save up for most big purchases. But it's also the attitude of this young generation (Oh boy, here I go.). And I've discussed this here before. But they are now valuing "experiences" over things. So these young people are traveling all over the world. And that's great. Good for them, if that's what they want to prioritize. But don't spend all your money on experiences and then complain you have no money to put down on a house. So, yeah, housing is tough to afford, especially for younger people. But, fuck, you gotta help yourselves, too.
This brings me to my last point before I call it quits for the evening (shit, it's already tomorrow!). And it's a big one.

Financial literacy. Schools are finally figuring out that they need to teach this. It's sad, how little young people know about money. Just basic shit. Like a 6-year car loan is WAY worse for you than a 5-year loan, even though the payments are lower. Financial literacy is so poor that the president of these United States was recently convinced it would be a good idea to introduce a 50-year mortgage. And he "graduated" from Wharton!

Anyway, if they're going to teach the young folk just one bit of financial information, it should be compound interest.

View attachment 6973207

Which of course led to the title of his biography, The Snowball. Which is a really great read.

Ok, before I go further off the rails, the obvious point is this country overall needs much better financial literacy. Saving money and even just basic investing (broad market ETF would be fine for most people).

Rocky, see what a can of worms you opened? I may not finish until 2027. But, hey, you asked for it!

It's a fantastic response. I read it all thoughtfully. I imagine most everyone would agree with all your points, these are important . Corporations cover their asses while proceeding with immoral actions that their fiduciary responsibility is due only to their shareholders. Have respect and commitment for your work force! Environment etc. Wall Street works opposite of this so disentivizes this moral behavior. Now AI is the next potentially huge job loss creator. "If we dont do it capital will flow to China" they squawk. Maybe true, above my pay grade. But we cant have 15% unemployment.
A bad quarter and the corporations will already will cut 10% of labor and get rewarded from main street. Decades ago people worked for the same companies for a lifetime, took a couple weeks vacation a year. I sat on Vanguard call in 2019 and they were saying that a graduate should expect to work up to 7-10 meaningful jobs in their career, and this was to become the normal. How's that for stress ? Social media at night makes things worse for all looking at what they dont have, too long to get into but sure we understand how dangerous it is to those who abuse it. Think everyone would agree the uber wealthy individually need to pay a MUCH higher % of personal income tax, we have to unlock the way they hide behind the tax loopholes they created through their puppet politicians. Unlock those trillions of untaxed highest earners monies thats are not flowing into economy. If corporations are taxed substantially more , I'm concerned that would damage the stock market which so many are dependent on for their retirement in conjunction with social security. Very good points Smitty 👉 👈

 

[Smitty]

Have respect and commitment for your work force!

Now I'm going to play devil's advocate. While corporations absolutely treat their work forces like shit now...

I'm going to let my train of thought go off the rails for a moment, while I share this from my own personal experience... Most of my career was spent at a little mom and pop outfit you probably haven't heard of... General Electric. Now, for starters, I really lucked out. I was hired at GE during their transition from offering a pension to offering a 401(k). Miraculously, I got in right in the sweet spot, and I got both. But that's definitely a factor in the treatment of workers now. Very few places still offer a pension. Now, a 401(k) can be GREAT, if people have decent financial literacy (ha!). Anyway, when I first started, General Electric was actually self-insured. It was a great plan. But, before long, they got rid of that and offered the same shit pretty much everyone else offered. And their rationale? They were moving to "the industry standard." The argument I always made was that GE used to SET the industry standard. When you got hired at GE, you knew you were set for life. But they decided they were comfortable being just as shitty as everyone else. All in the name of saving a few bucks.

Ok, back to playing devil's advocate. While corporations absolutely treat their work forces like shit now, it goes both ways. Back in the day, when you were starting a job, the expectation was that you'd work your ass off. You were low man on the totem pole and had to earn your way up. Kids these days? Fuck, it sure seems like they don't want to put in that effort. They want to work from home. They want to take the day off if they have a sniffle or maybe they're just a little sad, or it's Tuesday. They feel entitled to high pay with little effort. Hard to say if that attitude is a reaction to corporations treating people like shit, or just a product of this generation. Or a combination of both.

Now AI is the next potentially huge job loss creator. "If we dont do it capital will flow to China" they squawk. Maybe true, above my pay grade. But we cant have 15% unemployment.

Like everyone, I really don't know what to make of AI. We've had plenty of innovations in the past that disrupted how things are done. Again, I draw from my own experience. In a perfect world, my job easily could have been replaced by AI. But a manufacturing shop is the furthest thing from a perfect world. Things changed constantly, and in reality there is literally no way in hell I ever could have been replaced by AI. I don't know if that's generally the case for most of these jobs that they say AI will replace. I recently saw an article about some tech company laying off 15% of their workforce because they were being replaced by AI. My instinct was to immediately short their stock. But, for all I know, maybe those jobs really can be done just as well by AI.

To your point, if unemployment suddenly starts skyrocketing, that will be a major issue. These tech bros seem to think it will be wonderful. I don't think they understand that most people can't just lose a job and be ok.

If corporations are taxed substantially more , I'm concerned that would damage the stock market which so many are dependent on for their retirement in conjunction with social security.

It would be an interesting case study for an economist. But I'd argue that in the past, the stock market did just fine when corporate tax rates were much higher than they are now. There would certainly be a short-term hit. But long-term, everyone would benefit.

 

[rocky mountain]

GE pension/401K is wonderful! This younger generation has some obstacles for sure, but I agree with your work ethic points regarding many of them, and if they don't push themselves they will never succeed. Tech Bros in their financial interests to believe AI will be create more efficiencies, but there will be higher unemployment and less labor force participation. They can BS all they want but they all know this. It is what it is and its not great.
I did an analysis of my conservative investing.
Comparing 4.5% treaties return to 8.5% annual return in the stock market over 10 yr period holding stock for 1 yr + for capital gains rates. Real return is 2.7X more in stock market in this scenario. Big difference, and the world needs a healthy us stock market, especially here at home. I'm going to start adding to stock exposure, already have private equity exposure and wife has large stock exposure. She never looks at her 401k , and I over analyze the shit to death. Main Street is a struggle , rolled over to SP 500, thats not changing anytime soon or ever.

 

[Smitty]

She never looks at her 401k , and I over analyze the shit to death.

I'm not completely sober, so I'm going to keep this brief... and yet I have 2 thoughts.

1) STOP!! I know you probably know this, but seriously, DO NOT OVERANALYZE IT. If you're invested in good, solid companies, then have faith and relax. If you are constantly checking and re-thinking, then you may be invested in the wrong companies. Don't get me wrong - I take a peek at my largest holdings every day. But just to make sure nothing insane is happening. (If Nvidia goes the way of Enron, I'm in big trouble) With the exception of recently selling out of BIP to get everything into BIPC (same company), I haven't sold a stock in years. It's funny, because I never thought about this until right now... I overthink EVERYTHING. Except my portfolio. Go figure.

2) FWIW, I remember reading years ago that this is absolutely typical. And it's why women are generally better investors than men. They're a lot more risk-averse, so they just buy solid companies (or index funds) and then forget about it. Men generally overthink these things and are constantly chasing returns. Which rarely works out well.

 

[rocky mountain]

I'm not completely sober, so I'm going to keep this brief... and yet I have 2 thoughts.

1) STOP!! I know you probably know this, but seriously, DO NOT OVERANALYZE IT. If you're invested in good, solid companies, then have faith and relax. If you are constantly checking and re-thinking, then you may be invested in the wrong companies. Don't get me wrong - I take a peek at my largest holdings every day. But just to make sure nothing insane is happening. (If Nvidia goes the way of Enron, I'm in big trouble) With the exception of recently selling out of BIP to get everything into BIPC (same company), I haven't sold a stock in years. It's funny, because I never thought about this until right now... I overthink EVERYTHING. Except my portfolio. Go figure.

2) FWIW, I remember reading years ago that this is absolutely typical. And it's why women are generally better investors than men. They're a lot more risk-averse, so they just buy solid companies (or index funds) and then forget about it. Men generally overthink these things and are constantly chasing returns. Which rarely works out well.

Not completely sober isn't completely drunk, so you did well last night Smitty!! Thank you for taking your time to elaborate in this thread, great insight!

 

[WhatsHisNuts]

I'm not completely sober, so I'm going to keep this brief... and yet I have 2 thoughts.

1) STOP!! I know you probably know this, but seriously, DO NOT OVERANALYZE IT. If you're invested in good, solid companies, then have faith and relax. If you are constantly checking and re-thinking, then you may be invested in the wrong companies. Don't get me wrong - I take a peek at my largest holdings every day. But just to make sure nothing insane is happening. (If Nvidia goes the way of Enron, I'm in big trouble) With the exception of recently selling out of BIP to get everything into BIPC (same company), I haven't sold a stock in years. It's funny, because I never thought about this until right now... I overthink EVERYTHING. Except my portfolio. Go figure.

2) FWIW, I remember reading years ago that this is absolutely typical. And it's why women are generally better investors than men. They're a lot more risk-averse, so they just buy solid companies (or index funds) and then forget about it. Men generally overthink these things and are constantly chasing returns. Which rarely works out well.

Smitty should post more when he's half in the bag.

I believe John Bogle once said something like "Don't just do something, sit there". In other words, active trading will get you in trouble. I've learned to be MUCH more of a buy and hold investor but I can't help myself and have an old IRA and a brokerage that I use for individual stock investing. I saw a Fidelity report a while back that said their top performing accounts were owned by dead people, lol. Invest in good businesses over a long period of time and let it ride.....the get rich slowly method. Stay away from the shitcoin and other BS and you'll be fine.

 

[rocky mountain]

Smitty should post more when he's half in the bag.

I believe John Bogle once said something like "Don't just do something, sit there". In other words, active trading will get you in trouble. I've learned to be MUCH more of a buy and hold investor but I can't help myself and have an old IRA and a brokerage that I use for individual stock investing. I saw a Fidelity report a while back that said their top performing accounts were owned by dead people, lol. Invest in good businesses over a long period of time and let it ride.....the get rich slowly method. Stay away from the shitcoin and other BS and you'll be fine.

Smart!

 

[Smitty]

Smitty should post more when he's half in the bag.

I believe John Bogle once said something like "Don't just do something, sit there". In other words, active trading will get you in trouble.

100%

I've learned to be MUCH more of a buy and hold investor but I can't help myself and have an old IRA and a brokerage that I use for individual stock investing.

Oh, there's nothing wrong with setting aside a small portion of your portfolio for riskier investments. Depending upon, of course, your risk tolerance. Big surprise, Warren Buffett said it best... "our favorite holding period is forever."

A HUGE factor is knowing yourself. And this can be difficult. You gotta be honest with yourself. Can you see your portfolio (or one large holding) drop 10% in one day without panicking? Assuming there's no fundamental reason for the drop, do you see that as an opportunity to maybe buy more instead of selling?

I saw a Fidelity report a while back that said their top performing accounts were owned by dead people

Yup, I've seen that.

 

[Smitty]

II. Government Spending, Waste, and Accountability Gaps
Public concern over waste and fraud is not unfounded. Large federal programs—whether in welfare, defense, or foreign aid—often lack consistent, transparent auditing mechanisms accessible to the public. While many programs deliver critical support, inefficiencies and misaligned incentives can dilute their effectiveness.
Defense spending, in particular, has faced criticism for cost overruns and limited financial accountability. Similarly, social programs sometimes suffer from bureaucratic inefficiencies that prevent aid from reaching intended recipients efficiently.
The issue is not the existence of these programs, but the absence of rigorous, real-time oversight systems and performance-based evaluation. Without these, public confidence erodes and political narratives around “waste” become amplified.

Obviously this is a big one, but I'm going to try to address it (reasonably) briefly. It encompasses maybe one of the biggest differences between the two parties.

Democrats want to help as many people as possible. That's their priority, and sometimes oversight of programs takes a back seat. Whereas Republicans these days apparently would rather see 100,000 Americans go hungry, as long as it means one person isn't scamming the system. I'd like to think there's a middle ground, where people get the services they need, without any excess spending. Perfect world, right? Seriously though, Republicans are OBSESSED with fraud. As was so brilliantly demonstrated by "DOGE." What a clusterfuck that was.

How anybody believes this administration wants to seriously address fraud, when they immediately fired all the IGs, is beyond me. They couldn't be clearer about their intent to COMMIT fraud, not reduce it.

If they were serious about addressing wasteful government spending, they would start with the military. You know, the same military that can't pass an audit? Here's a couple good articles. The first is from 2000, and things haven't gotten any better. The second is from 2024.

https://www.taxpayer.net/budget-appropriations-tax/why-cant-the-pentagon-pass-an-audit/

The Pentagon’s accounting records are so convoluted that billions of dollars cannot be accounted for, charges a new government report.

In fact, no major part of the Department of Defense (DOD) has ever passed an audit, according to recent congressional testimony by the non-partisan U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO), the investigative arm of Congress. The Pentagon admitted that flawed business systems and practices are common within the agency and said it would take decades to get all of the agency books in order. Accounting problems led the GAO in 1995 to put DOD financial management on GAO’s list of agencies that are at high-risk of waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement.

Some of the GAO’s findings are astonishing:

• About 58 percent of the material the Pentagon possesses ($36.9 billion worth) are items it does not need.
• Over the past three years, the Navy lost track of $3 billion in equipment and other items.
• At one distribution center for the Navy, there was a backlog of over 122,000 items that had not been properly processed, leading the Navy to purchase items it didn’t need.
• The $600 billion Pentagon inventory of weapons systems and other items failed to include nearly $6 billion in Army communications defense equipment, $7.6 billion in Navy aircraft engines and about $7 billion in Air Force electronic pods that attach to warplanes.

https://www.taxpayer.net/national-security/pentagon-fails-audit-for-7th-straight-year/

So why isn't MAGA screaming about this? They are seriously more concerned about 12 people scamming the government out of a couple grand of food stamps, while the military pisses away BILLIONS of dollars.

So, yeah, of course there is "waste, fraud, and abuse." Some of it is even malicious. Any time you have a giant bureaucracy in charge of trillions of dollars, shit is going to happen. I think the answer is tighter controls and more oversight (although that bloats the bureaucracy even further) rather than making it more difficult for people to get the help they need.