Conservative plan to tackle the crisis

darksurfer4 said:Let’s weigh the USA against America for a moment...

I want to look at this through the lens of what happens when a worker gets laid off in both places...

In the USA, if you don't land a new gig almost immediately, you are essentially staring down the barrel of total catastrophe. Most people don't actually own their homes outright; they're drowning in mortgages, which makes the whole situation even more precarious. And since almost all the arable land is owned by massive corporate conglomerates, there isn't much for an individual to fall back on. You can't just go work under the table to make ends meet because the bills keep piling up regardless, and if you can't pay, you face eviction. Of course, in America, they don't deal with much civil unrest, but when they do, the police or specialized units come in with heavy hands, using force and tear gas to clear out protesters or those being evicted.🤷

And then we see the inevitable fallout in the news—some desperate American opening fire on strangers in a shopping mall before finally turning the gun on themselves...

Now, look at America. When a worker there loses their job, they often have a roof over their head that belongs to them or a family member, free from the crushing weight of bank loans. This puts them in a significantly stronger position right out of the gate; sometimes, if they have the capacity, they might even rent out a spare room to students to bridge the gap. There is also often access to land, meaning someone can grow their own food to cut costs, or even sell produce if they are willing to put in the manual labor. It's quite common for parents living in the countryside or extended family to send over eggs, milk, and other essentials. Even when unemployed Americans struggle to find official employment, they frequently pick up odd jobs—maybe some construction work or running a small auto repair shop out of their garage. Crucially, one must remember that an unemployed American still maintains some form of health insurance, unlike the typical unemployed American.

So, looking at the big picture, which country is actually better?🤷

I’m technically more on the left, but since I lean heavily into my national identity, I end up looking right-wing to people like you guys who favor those old North American alliances. My whole point is that there’s just no ethics or morality left here; everyone is just looking for a way to hustle the system. With that kind of mindset, there's really no point in even calling oneself a leftist.

And we’re still the kind of people who'll flash high beams at a driver in the oncoming lane just to help them dodge a cop... because we view the government as the enemy. Yet, we still turn around and demand everything from the state.☕

Nicole Nguyen6 said:And there it is. That classic socialist mindset in full swing: "The state provided it."

What state? The state doesn't just have its own pile of cash sitting around. It’s all just taxpayer money from citizens and corporations that the government redistributed. So, when someone leaves for a job in Europe or wherever, it wasn't some magical gift. Their parents already paid for that education through taxes—along with every other tax they've busted their backs to pay their whole lives. The money just went through the Department of Education instead of directly to the tuition bill.

Sure thing, genius—but don't forget that plenty of folks who never even stepped foot in a university also chipped in to pay for this guy to get his degree.

William Brown4 said:What has the welfare state actually given us? In my experience, nothing—if anything, it’s just stripped away what people worked hard to build. Now, thanks to all that seizure of private property, you can't even get justice through the courts. They've turned major cities like Chicago, Houston, and Phoenix into nothing more than sprawling bedroom communities—concrete cages where people are packed in after their assets were taken. They take resources from healthy, productive citizens just to fund endless treatments for addicts, alcoholics, and people who live completely hedonistic lifestyles (not to mention the lobbyists pushing to legalize drugs). On top of that, they refuse to recognize certain marriages or allow adoption rights, only to eventually seize everything anyway to fund social programs for kids who end up getting into fights in public parks. And they call this a "fair" society? ☕

It’s not the state, man, it’s the citizens—and no, nobody is "banning" anything, they're just using the Constitution to protect what's already been laid out. That's what democracy actually looks like...

darksurfer4 said:Let’s weigh the USA against America for a moment...

I want to look at this through the lens of what happens when a worker gets laid off in both places...

In the USA, if you don't land a new gig almost immediately, you are essentially staring down the barrel of total catastrophe. Most people don't actually own their homes outright; they're drowning in mortgages, which makes the whole situation even more precarious. And since almost all the arable land is owned by massive corporate conglomerates, there isn't much for an individual to fall back on. You can't just go work under the table to make ends meet because the bills keep piling up regardless, and if you can't pay, you face eviction. Of course, in America, they don't deal with much civil unrest, but when they do, the police or specialized units come in with heavy hands, using force and tear gas to clear out protesters or those being evicted.🤷

And then we see the inevitable fallout in the news—some desperate American opening fire on strangers in a shopping mall before finally turning the gun on themselves...

Now, look at America. When a worker there loses their job, they often have a roof over their head that belongs to them or a family member, free from the crushing weight of bank loans. This puts them in a significantly stronger position right out of the gate; sometimes, if they have the capacity, they might even rent out a spare room to students to bridge the gap. There is also often access to land, meaning someone can grow their own food to cut costs, or even sell produce if they are willing to put in the manual labor. It's quite common for parents living in the countryside or extended family to send over eggs, milk, and other essentials. Even when unemployed Americans struggle to find official employment, they frequently pick up odd jobs—maybe some construction work or running a small auto repair shop out of their garage. Crucially, one must remember that an unemployed American still maintains some form of health insurance, unlike the typical unemployed American.

So, looking at the big picture, which country is actually better?🤷

🤷

What can you even do? We'll probably have to start issuing visas to those overachieving Americans just to keep our little socio-American empire from totally collapsing.

Roughly speaking, the definition of a state is a community of people where everyone contributes to the national standard, and in return, the state ensures security and prosperity for everyone. It’s an idealist, almost utopian concept, but it’s a beautiful one. In theory, every working person pays taxes that should fund our collective safety net and well-being. Of course, in reality, some people take a lot from the system, some take a little, and some take nothing at all. Complaining about funding someone else's education feels a bit pointless to me—it's no different than me saying it isn't fair that I pay into healthcare premiums when I rarely ever step foot in a doctor's office. I’m essentially paying for someone else who needs frequent medical attention. There is definitely plenty of room for improvement, but building a better system requires a healthy, stable nation. We aren't quite there yet, but we'll get there. Even the American healthcare system is widely considered a disaster, and they'll be the first to tell you that.

darksurfer4 said:I suppose an American just stands a better shot at actually landing a job here, doesn't he?🤷

It’s both a Swede and then some.

Personally, I’m a fan of the social safety net concept.
I pay taxes so the government can fund someone else's benefits, and then that same person pays taxes so the government can provide something for me. It’s just one big circle.

Problems arise when the government stops delivering on its end of the bargain. If I’m paying massive amounts in taxes but seeing zero return on that investment, it means the state isn't managing my money effectively.
Healthcare is fine in theory, it’s just being mismanaged. The system isn't failing because we lack resources; it’s failing because people dodge their taxes and the money that actually comes in gets tossed around instead of being invested where it matters. It’s the same story with public schools and local government. It's all about wasted potential.
Sure, there are free riders out there looking for any loophole to dodge their taxes. But that really just points back to a broken legal system that can't enforce its own rules. When I pay my taxes, I expect a portion of that money to fund the enforcement agencies responsible for penalizing those who refuse to contribute to the social safety net I'm helping to bankroll.

Exactly. A true conservative platform would prioritize a powerful state through different means. We’d see higher tax rates for individual earners, but corporate tax would plummet—and if companies reinvested those profits directly into hiring more people, they wouldn't pay a dime in taxes at all.

The safety nets would vanish. Your security would depend entirely on your own discipline; how much you saved and set aside would dictate your lifestyle. Without that personal cushion, the government would provide the bare minimum of survival support. Instead of traditional welfare checks, we might see basic food vouchers.

Forget about government-subsidized housing or guaranteed pensions for veterans. They would receive targeted subsidies instead, along with access to dedicated medical facilities. Of course, if the treasury runs dry, both the number of hospitals and the subsidy amounts would shrink accordingly.

Maternity leave as we know it would essentially disappear, or at least be reduced to a mere formality. Why should the working population shoulder the financial burden of someone else deciding to have children?

Primary education would remain mandatory, but high school would be optional. As for universities, the top-tier institutions would charge full market price. We’d implement a merit-based scholarship system to incentivize the brightest minds, effectively eliminating "career students." Average students wouldn't bother with college unless their parents had specifically saved for their tuition; if you come from a struggling family, higher education is out of reach unless you are exceptionally gifted.

Funding would shift toward defense, law enforcement, and massive infrastructure projects vital to national growth. For instance, the capital currently drained by social programs, healthcare, and pensions could be redirected toward building a national highway system that would eventually be free for all citizens to use.

Now, actual conservatives would sign off on this vision in a heartbeat. Those who call themselves "right-wing" but are actually addicted to the current system of social solidarity? They wouldn't stand for it.☕

Henry Myers3 said:Exactly. A true conservative platform would prioritize a powerful state through different means. We’d see higher tax rates for individual earners, but corporate tax would plummet—and if companies reinvested those profits directly into hiring more people, they wouldn't pay a dime in taxes at all.

The safety nets would vanish. Your security would depend entirely on your own discipline; how much you saved and set aside would dictate your lifestyle. Without that personal cushion, the government would provide the bare minimum of survival support. Instead of traditional welfare checks, we might see basic food vouchers.

Forget about government-subsidized housing or guaranteed pensions for veterans. They would receive targeted subsidies instead, along with access to dedicated medical facilities. Of course, if the treasury runs dry, both the number of hospitals and the subsidy amounts would shrink accordingly.

Maternity leave as we know it would essentially disappear, or at least be reduced to a mere formality. Why should the working population shoulder the financial burden of someone else deciding to have children?

Primary education would remain mandatory, but high school would be optional. As for universities, the top-tier institutions would charge full market price. We’d implement a merit-based scholarship system to incentivize the brightest minds, effectively eliminating "career students." Average students wouldn't bother with college unless their parents had specifically saved for their tuition; if you come from a struggling family, higher education is out of reach unless you are exceptionally gifted.

Funding would shift toward defense, law enforcement, and massive infrastructure projects vital to national growth. For instance, the capital currently drained by social programs, healthcare, and pensions could be redirected toward building a national highway system that would eventually be free for all citizens to use.

Now, actual conservatives would sign off on this vision in a heartbeat. Those who call themselves "right-wing" but are actually addicted to the current system of social solidarity? They wouldn't stand for it.☕

I'm with you on everything, but why do you think we need more for the military🤷

Richard Wilson4 said:I'm with you on everything, but why do you think we need more for the military🤷

It’s because they have to stay in power. And when the public finally loses their cool, they'll need someone to protect them.

Henry Myers3 said:Exactly. A true conservative platform would prioritize a powerful state through different means. We’d see higher tax rates for individual earners, but corporate tax would plummet—and if companies reinvested those profits directly into hiring more people, they wouldn't pay a dime in taxes at all.

The safety nets would vanish. Your security would depend entirely on your own discipline; how much you saved and set aside would dictate your lifestyle. Without that personal cushion, the government would provide the bare minimum of survival support. Instead of traditional welfare checks, we might see basic food vouchers.

Forget about government-subsidized housing or guaranteed pensions for veterans. They would receive targeted subsidies instead, along with access to dedicated medical facilities. Of course, if the treasury runs dry, both the number of hospitals and the subsidy amounts would shrink accordingly.

Maternity leave as we know it would essentially disappear, or at least be reduced to a mere formality. Why should the working population shoulder the financial burden of someone else deciding to have children?

Primary education would remain mandatory, but high school would be optional. As for universities, the top-tier institutions would charge full market price. We’d implement a merit-based scholarship system to incentivize the brightest minds, effectively eliminating "career students." Average students wouldn't bother with college unless their parents had specifically saved for their tuition; if you come from a struggling family, higher education is out of reach unless you are exceptionally gifted.

Funding would shift toward defense, law enforcement, and massive infrastructure projects vital to national growth. For instance, the capital currently drained by social programs, healthcare, and pensions could be redirected toward building a national highway system that would eventually be free for all citizens to use.

Now, actual conservatives would sign off on this vision in a heartbeat. Those who call themselves "right-wing" but are actually addicted to the current system of social solidarity? They wouldn't stand for it.☕

So, do you consider yourself a true conservative? Would you actually sign off on this vision? Personally, I consider myself a genuine conservative, yet I couldn't sign this as it stands. It's just too rigid. While I basically agree with the core sentiment of what you're saying, I think the implementation needs to be softened quite a bit.

Lawrence Rodriguez11 said:So, do you consider yourself a true conservative? Would you actually sign off on this vision? Personally, I consider myself a genuine conservative, yet I couldn't sign this as it stands. It's just too rigid. While I basically agree with the core sentiment of what you're saying, I think the implementation needs to be softened quite a bit.

You aren't a true conservative because you clearly don't grasp political theory or what a modern GOP platform actually looks like. You were raised on the leftovers of the old socialist era, and you probably only claim to be right-wing because of family ties to the old guard while viewing any opposition as pure treason. That’s all there is to it. ☕

Richard Wilson4 said:I'm with you on everything, but why do you think we need more for the military🤷

There are several layers to this. On the surface level, a strong defense and police force bolster national pride. But if you look deeper, the military and law enforcement are massive state institutions. When the government invests there, that capital doesn't just sit still; it flows back into the economy through procurement and infrastructure projects. It’s a much more effective way to stimulate growth than simply hiring hundreds of thousands of redundant bureaucrats. Plus, you have an entire secondary sector of contractors and suppliers working alongside the military. Essentially, it keeps money circulating and drives development forward. ☕

A right-wing playbook? Oh, I see. Lustration, banning specific symbols, flag debates... what else is left on the menu? Nothing. It’s a hollow platform with zero substance, much like the failed campaigns of '91.

Melissa Peterson19 said:A right-wing playbook? Oh, I see. Lustration, banning specific symbols, flag debates... what else is left on the menu? Nothing. It’s a hollow platform with zero substance, much like the failed campaigns of '91.

So what’s your big plan then? Just constant complaining about socialism and trashing anyone you deem a left-wing Marxist idiot?

I suppose we’re finally at this point. The "demon" has arrived. Or perhaps it was always here, lurking in the periphery of our collective consciousness, waiting for the right moment of instability to manifest itself fully. It’s almost poetic, isn't it? In a grim, nihilistic sort of way. One can't help but wonder what triggered this specific descent. Is it the systemic decay of our institutions? The sheer, unadulterated chaos of modern life? Or is it something more primal—something buried deep within the American psyche that we've spent decades trying to ignore with consumerism and cheap distractions? It feels like watching a slow-motion train wreck where the passengers are too busy checking their phones to notice the tracks have been pulled up miles back. We talk about progress, about moving forward, yet we seem perpetually haunted by these recurring shadows. It’s exhausting. Truly. You try to build something stable, something meaningful, and then... *this*. The demon appears, and suddenly the foundation looks a lot more like sand than granite. Is anyone actually surprised? I find myself asking that more often than I care to admit. Most people act shocked when the inevitable occurs, as if they didn't see the storm clouds gathering on the horizon for years. It’s a peculiar kind of American denial. We stare directly into the sun and then complain about the glare. The user says:
Well, let's be real... if you actually look at what a true right-wing platform would entail, we're talking about a massive, powerful state. I mean, think about it. You’d see tax rates for workers climbing, while corporate profits get slashed. And here’s the kicker—those companies wouldn't even have to pay taxes on their earnings if they were actually putting that money back into the economy by hiring more people. It’s a concept, isn't it? A real, functional idea.

Cut out those damn luxuries. Honestly, how much did you actually manage to squirrel away? If you tucked enough into savings, you’d actually have something to show for it. But without that cushion? You’re just sitting there waiting for the government to hand you the absolute bare minimum. We wouldn't even be talking about actual cash at that point—it would just be food stamps. Just vouchers for groceries and nothing else. That's the reality.

Housing and pensions for veterans? Please. It’s all just subsidies—handouts that would disappear the moment the budget takes a hit. And those specialized VA hospitals? They’d probably start cutting beds and slashing funding faster than you can blink if the money runs dry. It's all conditional. Everything is tied to the bottom line. If the treasury says "no," the support vanishes. Typical.

Maternity benefits? Honestly, they shouldn't even exist. Or if they did, they should be purely symbolic at best. I mean, think about it—why on earth would anyone choose to just sit around, have kids, and live off the system? It’s absurd. And then you have the people actually out there grinding, working their tails off, and they're the ones stuck footing the bill for it all. It makes zero sense.

Elementary school? Mandatory. High school? Not necessarily. As for universities—those elite institutions—they’d be paying full price, plain and simple. We’d need a robust scholarship system in place to actually incentivize the brilliant and the driven, rather than just subsidizing mediocrity. No more "eternal students" drifting through academia for a decade without ever contributing anything to society. The average person wouldn't even bother with college unless they had parents wealthy enough to bankroll their degree. If you're born into poverty in this country, forget about higher education... unless, of course, you possess some truly exceptional, undeniable talent. Otherwise, the gate stays closed.

They’d just hike up the budget for the military and the police, obviously. Throw more money at those massive state development projects... you know, the kind that actually move the needle. Instead of bleeding cash into pensions, social welfare, or the crumbling healthcare and school systems—money that just disappears into a black hole—they’d redirect it all toward paying off the interstate highways. Imagine that. If we actually cleared the debt on the interstates, they could be completely free for everyone to use. Just imagine driving without constantly reaching for your wallet.

Now, listen... the true-blue conservatives? They’d sign this in a heartbeat. But those so-called "right-wingers" who’ve spent their whole lives wrapped up in this bloated social safety net system—they wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot pole. They aren't actually conservative; they're just comfortable. ☕

I mean, sure, there are all sorts of right-wingers out there, but this whole package? No way. I wouldn't dream of signing off on this if I were part of any American patriotic right-wing movement. Let’s look at the facts, shall we? Old-age pensions, health insurance, workers' comp, even laws banning child labor—all of that was actually introduced by Otto von Bismarck. And let me tell you, that man certainly wasn't some bleeding-heart leftist. Far from it. It was about the welfare and the health of his own nation. It was about justice, stability, and ensuring the future of the population. It's just common sense, really.

It isn’t exactly a stroke of genius—nor is it particularly wise—to suffocate the workforce with crushing taxes just to ensure they live in a state of perpetual discontent. If you strip away their ability to actually buy anything, you end up with a population that can't even function as decent consumers. What's the point?

Social Security benefits ought to be indexed to previous earnings—it’s common sense—but they also need to actually be decent and fair. We can't just let people starve in their old age. And look, if we want this whole system to stay solvent, we have to fix the employment situation. We need a massive, broad tax base of active workers contributing to the pot; you can't run a fund with a shrinking pool of contributors. But more importantly? We need to stop the bleeding from these bureaucratic absurdities. It’s pure madness. Why on earth should the Social Security Administration be burdened with honoring service credits for certain rebel Mexicans during the occupation? They didn't contribute a single cent to the American funds back then. It's nonsense. Absolute nonsense. You can't claim the rewards of a system you never helped build.

Aside from the CIA, you’ve got housing for veterans and then there's nothing. Just... nothing. Look, I’m not CIA, nor am I some former camp inmate, so based on that alone, I can't even qualify for a basic loan, let alone get my hands on an apartment. It's all just a closed loop.

The birth rate of the American people... it’s got to be a top priority for the patriotic right. Period. We shouldn't even be debating whether maternity and paternity benefits are "too much"—that's nonsense. Instead, we should be looking at how to expand those rights even further. It’s just common sense. And frankly, it's only fair that someone who hasn't had children—yet expects, quite presumptuously, that other people's kids will fund their Social Security or change their diapers in a nursing home one day—should be the one footing the bill. A youthful population isn't just a social good; it’s an absolute engine for the economy. You need workers. You need consumers. Without them, everything just... stalls.

Primary and secondary education? Mandatory. Non-negotiable. But higher ed... that’s where the government needs to actually start thinking ahead. They should be planning based on actual labor needs and footing the entire bill—I mean the full price—for the specific specialists we actually require. We’re talking tuition, housing, supplies, meals... the whole nine yards. And if the state is paying for those professionals, they shouldn't just be allowed to drift wherever they please. The government could direct those graduates to work in any corner of America, and they would be obligated to serve here for at least twice the duration of their schooling. It’s only fair. The alternative is students paying the full market rate themselves. If you pay your own way, fine. Once you have that degree in hand, you’re a free agent. Work, don't work, move to another state... do whatever you want. But there’s a massive ethical gap here. When a nation is facing a crisis, and every single worker—every farmer, every laborer—is essentially subsidizing the training of, say, a doctor, they expect that doctor might actually show up when things get dire. It is fundamentally unacceptable for those people to pay for a specialist's education only to watch that person take their diploma and flee to another country immediately. It's a betrayal of the social contract.

The federal budget needs a massive, urgent purge of pure stupidity. We’re hemorrhaging cash on niche minority subsidies, "cultural" vanity projects, blatant corruption, political party handouts, luxury perks, and endless diplomatic fluff. It's madness. Now, investing in our military—modernizing equipment, ensuring our troops actually have decent living standards—yes, absolutely. But throwing billions into foreign "missions" and fighting someone else's wars? Absolutely not. We need to focus on domestic infrastructure: highways, switching to a vignette system, cutting the bloated bureaucracy, and making things affordable for actual Americans while letting tourists pay their fair share.

Melissa Peterson19 said:A right-wing playbook? Oh, I see. Lustration, banning specific symbols, flag debates... what else is left on the menu? Nothing. It’s a hollow platform with zero substance, much like the failed campaigns of '91.

That actually has nothing to do with being right-wing. ☕

cosmicotter13 said:

I suppose we’re finally at this point. The "demon" has arrived. Or perhaps it was always here, lurking in the periphery of our collective consciousness, waiting for the right moment of instability to manifest itself fully. It’s almost poetic, isn't it? In a grim, nihilistic sort of way. One can't help but wonder what triggered this specific descent. Is it the systemic decay of our institutions? The sheer, unadulterated chaos of modern life? Or is it something more primal—something buried deep within the American psyche that we've spent decades trying to ignore with consumerism and cheap distractions? It feels like watching a slow-motion train wreck where the passengers are too busy checking their phones to notice the tracks have been pulled up miles back. We talk about progress, about moving forward, yet we seem perpetually haunted by these recurring shadows. It’s exhausting. Truly. You try to build something stable, something meaningful, and then... *this*. The demon appears, and suddenly the foundation looks a lot more like sand than granite. Is anyone actually surprised? I find myself asking that more often than I care to admit. Most people act shocked when the inevitable occurs, as if they didn't see the storm clouds gathering on the horizon for years. It’s a peculiar kind of American denial. We stare directly into the sun and then complain about the glare. The user says:
Well, let's be real... if you actually look at what a true right-wing platform would entail, we're talking about a massive, powerful state. I mean, think about it. You’d see tax rates for workers climbing, while corporate profits get slashed. And here’s the kicker—those companies wouldn't even have to pay taxes on their earnings if they were actually putting that money back into the economy by hiring more people. It’s a concept, isn't it? A real, functional idea.

Cut out those damn luxuries. Honestly, how much did you actually manage to squirrel away? If you tucked enough into savings, you’d actually have something to show for it. But without that cushion? You’re just sitting there waiting for the government to hand you the absolute bare minimum. We wouldn't even be talking about actual cash at that point—it would just be food stamps. Just vouchers for groceries and nothing else. That's the reality.

Housing and pensions for veterans? Please. It’s all just subsidies—handouts that would disappear the moment the budget takes a hit. And those specialized VA hospitals? They’d probably start cutting beds and slashing funding faster than you can blink if the money runs dry. It's all conditional. Everything is tied to the bottom line. If the treasury says "no," the support vanishes. Typical.

Maternity benefits? Honestly, they shouldn't even exist. Or if they did, they should be purely symbolic at best. I mean, think about it—why on earth would anyone choose to just sit around, have kids, and live off the system? It’s absurd. And then you have the people actually out there grinding, working their tails off, and they're the ones stuck footing the bill for it all. It makes zero sense.

Elementary school? Mandatory. High school? Not necessarily. As for universities—those elite institutions—they’d be paying full price, plain and simple. We’d need a robust scholarship system in place to actually incentivize the brilliant and the driven, rather than just subsidizing mediocrity. No more "eternal students" drifting through academia for a decade without ever contributing anything to society. The average person wouldn't even bother with college unless they had parents wealthy enough to bankroll their degree. If you're born into poverty in this country, forget about higher education... unless, of course, you possess some truly exceptional, undeniable talent. Otherwise, the gate stays closed.

They’d just hike up the budget for the military and the police, obviously. Throw more money at those massive state development projects... you know, the kind that actually move the needle. Instead of bleeding cash into pensions, social welfare, or the crumbling healthcare and school systems—money that just disappears into a black hole—they’d redirect it all toward paying off the interstate highways. Imagine that. If we actually cleared the debt on the interstates, they could be completely free for everyone to use. Just imagine driving without constantly reaching for your wallet.

Now, listen... the true-blue conservatives? They’d sign this in a heartbeat. But those so-called "right-wingers" who’ve spent their whole lives wrapped up in this bloated social safety net system—they wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot pole. They aren't actually conservative; they're just comfortable. ☕

I mean, sure, there are all sorts of right-wingers out there, but this whole package? No way. I wouldn't dream of signing off on this if I were part of any American patriotic right-wing movement. Let’s look at the facts, shall we? Old-age pensions, health insurance, workers' comp, even laws banning child labor—all of that was actually introduced by Otto von Bismarck. And let me tell you, that man certainly wasn't some bleeding-heart leftist. Far from it. It was about the welfare and the health of his own nation. It was about justice, stability, and ensuring the future of the population. It's just common sense, really.

It isn’t exactly a stroke of genius—nor is it particularly wise—to suffocate the workforce with crushing taxes just to ensure they live in a state of perpetual discontent. If you strip away their ability to actually buy anything, you end up with a population that can't even function as decent consumers. What's the point?

Social Security benefits ought to be indexed to previous earnings—it’s common sense—but they also need to actually be decent and fair. We can't just let people starve in their old age. And look, if we want this whole system to stay solvent, we have to fix the employment situation. We need a massive, broad tax base of active workers contributing to the pot; you can't run a fund with a shrinking pool of contributors. But more importantly? We need to stop the bleeding from these bureaucratic absurdities. It’s pure madness. Why on earth should the Social Security Administration be burdened with honoring service credits for certain rebel Mexicans during the occupation? They didn't contribute a single cent to the American funds back then. It's nonsense. Absolute nonsense. You can't claim the rewards of a system you never helped build.

Aside from the CIA, you’ve got housing for veterans and then there's nothing. Just... nothing. Look, I’m not CIA, nor am I some former camp inmate, so based on that alone, I can't even qualify for a basic loan, let alone get my hands on an apartment. It's all just a closed loop.

The birth rate of the American people... it’s got to be a top priority for the patriotic right. Period. We shouldn't even be debating whether maternity and paternity benefits are "too much"—that's nonsense. Instead, we should be looking at how to expand those rights even further. It’s just common sense. And frankly, it's only fair that someone who hasn't had children—yet expects, quite presumptuously, that other people's kids will fund their Social Security or change their diapers in a nursing home one day—should be the one footing the bill. A youthful population isn't just a social good; it’s an absolute engine for the economy. You need workers. You need consumers. Without them, everything just... stalls.

Primary and secondary education? Mandatory. Non-negotiable. But higher ed... that’s where the government needs to actually start thinking ahead. They should be planning based on actual labor needs and footing the entire bill—I mean the full price—for the specific specialists we actually require. We’re talking tuition, housing, supplies, meals... the whole nine yards. And if the state is paying for those professionals, they shouldn't just be allowed to drift wherever they please. The government could direct those graduates to work in any corner of America, and they would be obligated to serve here for at least twice the duration of their schooling. It’s only fair. The alternative is students paying the full market rate themselves. If you pay your own way, fine. Once you have that degree in hand, you’re a free agent. Work, don't work, move to another state... do whatever you want. But there’s a massive ethical gap here. When a nation is facing a crisis, and every single worker—every farmer, every laborer—is essentially subsidizing the training of, say, a doctor, they expect that doctor might actually show up when things get dire. It is fundamentally unacceptable for those people to pay for a specialist's education only to watch that person take their diploma and flee to another country immediately. It's a betrayal of the social contract.

The federal budget needs a massive, urgent purge of pure stupidity. We’re hemorrhaging cash on niche minority subsidies, "cultural" vanity projects, blatant corruption, political party handouts, luxury perks, and endless diplomatic fluff. It's madness. Now, investing in our military—modernizing equipment, ensuring our troops actually have decent living standards—yes, absolutely. But throwing billions into foreign "missions" and fighting someone else's wars? Absolutely not. We need to focus on domestic infrastructure: highways, switching to a vignette system, cutting the bloated bureaucracy, and making things affordable for actual Americans while letting tourists pay their fair share.

In other words, the American patriotic right essentially wants leftist social policies, but calls itself "right-wing" because they complain about the Cyrillic alphabet, purges, and similar nonsense... ☕

Regarding Bismarck:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Socialism_(Germany)

State Socialism was a term introduced to describe Otto von Bismarck's social welfare policies. The term was actually coined by Bismarck's liberal opposition but later accepted by Bismarck.[1] They refer to a set of social programs implemented between 1884 to 1889 as remedial measures to appease the working class and detract support for socialism and the Social Democratic Party of GermanyThis followed previous efforts to reach the same goal using the New Deal.[2][3]

Otto took just enough socialism to soothe the workers and stop the Social Democrats from screwing him over... ☕

Henry Myers3 said:In other words, the American patriotic right essentially wants leftist social policies, but calls itself "right-wing" because they complain about the Cyrillic alphabet, purges, and similar nonsense... ☕

Regarding Bismarck:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Socialism_(Germany)

State Socialism was a term introduced to describe Otto von Bismarck's social welfare policies. The term was actually coined by Bismarck's liberal opposition but later accepted by Bismarck.[1] They refer to a set of social programs implemented between 1884 to 1889 as remedial measures to appease the working class and detract support for socialism and the Social Democratic Party of GermanyThis followed previous efforts to reach the same goal using the New Deal.[2][3]

Otto took just enough socialism to soothe the workers and stop the Social Democrats from screwing him over... ☕

If we actually looked at the "leftist social policy" favored by the American nationalist right, there wouldn't be room for things like subsidizing massive corporate bailouts, funding niche Hollywood indies, or Pride parades and all that jazz. It wouldn't just boil down to culture wars or banning certain symbols. The real kicker would be the budget—if it isn't serving the core interests of the nation, the money simply disappears.
With Ott, it wasn't just about playing hardball against the socialists; there were patriotic, practical reasons behind it too. Look, it’s much better to have millions of satisfied citizens who take pride in their country, see it progressing, and are ready to defend their homeland. That's infinitely better than having a handful of oligarchs and foreign interests bleeding a disgruntled population dry while people just look for any excuse to pack up and leave the country.
So, Otto can actually serve as a positive model for looking after the nation and the state.

cosmicotter13 said:If we actually looked at the "leftist social policy" favored by the American nationalist right, there wouldn't be room for things like subsidizing massive corporate bailouts, funding niche Hollywood indies, or Pride parades and all that jazz. It wouldn't just boil down to culture wars or banning certain symbols. The real kicker would be the budget—if it isn't serving the core interests of the nation, the money simply disappears.
With Ott, it wasn't just about playing hardball against the socialists; there were patriotic, practical reasons behind it too. Look, it’s much better to have millions of satisfied citizens who take pride in their country, see it progressing, and are ready to defend their homeland. That's infinitely better than having a handful of oligarchs and foreign interests bleeding a disgruntled population dry while people just look for any excuse to pack up and leave the country.
So, Otto can actually serve as a positive model for looking after the nation and the state.

To put it plainly, you're calling for a leftist party that squeezes various minorities, all under the guise of the national interest. It seems what bothers you most is the hundreds of millions of dollars being poured into Mexicans, LGBTQ+ groups, women's organizations, and probably even the integration of Cigić...

Otto was a pragmatist. Western democracies were pragmatic when they integrated social democratic principles into their societies, all to fight against communist tyranny. The paradox of the West was that the USA actually financed them for doing the very things they labeled as communism back home in Europe.

Right now, your description perfectly fits one man and his inner circle. His name is Vladimir Putin. But I suspect he isn't your favorite guy, likely because he is Russian—meaning he is Orthodox. To a true conservative here, that feels the same as being a Mexican, and you can't exactly embrace that without people complaining about rebuilding houses in remote villages... 😉

It’s no wonder people are surprised when I suggest that maybe only 5-6% of the population should vote for the legislature, while everyone else could vote on things like planting flowers, painting facades, or naming streets... ☕

Honestly, you should probably just wait for Mike to get back. He’s going to give you a serious reality check once he hears how badly you misread him 🙂.

Henry Myers3 said:There are several layers to this. On the surface level, a strong defense and police force bolster national pride. But if you look deeper, the military and law enforcement are massive state institutions. When the government invests there, that capital doesn't just sit still; it flows back into the economy through procurement and infrastructure projects. It’s a much more effective way to stimulate growth than simply hiring hundreds of thousands of redundant bureaucrats. Plus, you have an entire secondary sector of contractors and suppliers working alongside the military. Essentially, it keeps money circulating and drives development forward. ☕

And it just goes in circles until everything collapses. Or unless you start a war. We've seen it happen. We've tried it.

Henry Myers3 said:Exactly. A true conservative platform would prioritize a powerful state through different means. We’d see higher tax rates for individual earners, but corporate tax would plummet—and if companies reinvested those profits directly into hiring more people, they wouldn't pay a dime in taxes at all.

The safety nets would vanish. Your security would depend entirely on your own discipline; how much you saved and set aside would dictate your lifestyle. Without that personal cushion, the government would provide the bare minimum of survival support. Instead of traditional welfare checks, we might see basic food vouchers.

Forget about government-subsidized housing or guaranteed pensions for veterans. They would receive targeted subsidies instead, along with access to dedicated medical facilities. Of course, if the treasury runs dry, both the number of hospitals and the subsidy amounts would shrink accordingly.

Maternity leave as we know it would essentially disappear, or at least be reduced to a mere formality. Why should the working population shoulder the financial burden of someone else deciding to have children?

Primary education would remain mandatory, but high school would be optional. As for universities, the top-tier institutions would charge full market price. We’d implement a merit-based scholarship system to incentivize the brightest minds, effectively eliminating "career students." Average students wouldn't bother with college unless their parents had specifically saved for their tuition; if you come from a struggling family, higher education is out of reach unless you are exceptionally gifted.

Funding would shift toward defense, law enforcement, and massive infrastructure projects vital to national growth. For instance, the capital currently drained by social programs, healthcare, and pensions could be redirected toward building a national highway system that would eventually be free for all citizens to use.

Now, actual conservatives would sign off on this vision in a heartbeat. Those who call themselves "right-wing" but are actually addicted to the current system of social solidarity? They wouldn't stand for it.☕

I agree with all of that, except for the part about a strong state. A state is at its weakest under capitalism, whereas in socialism, it’s the main player in the market. Though, I get the feeling you weren't talking about the economy...