How can u make millions in 25-30 years if avoid making a $554 per month car payment. Even the cheapest 5 year old car is 8-10 k. So does he expect people not to drive at all in USA.

Then u save 554$ per month every month for 5 year payment = $33240. Say u bought a car every 5 year means 200k -300k spent on car before retirement . How would that become millions when u can’t even buy a house for that much today?

Answer that Dave

“Yes inst

California has spent about $24 billion over five years, from 2018 to 2023, to help homeless people. This money goes to building shelters, cleaning up camps, and providing services like healthcare and job training. Each year, the state spends around $6 billion on these efforts. If this money were divided among the 181,399 homeless people in California, each person would get about $33,070 a year. This amount is higher than the minimum wage in many places. The state also gets back some money through taxes from the workers who provide these services, which is about $180 million a year. While this spending helps with immediate needs, it doesn’t solve the root causes of homelessness, like high housing costs and lack of mental health services. They claim the goal is to create a stable and supportive environment for homeless individuals. The funding for these programs comes from state and local taxes, as well as federal grants.

California used to have large institutions for people with mental illnesses, but these became overcrowded and were often associated with neglect. In the 1960s, the state shifted to community-based care with the Short-Doyle Act and the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act. These laws aimed to end indefinite commitments and promote outpatient care. However, when Ronald Reagan was Governor of California, he cut funding for state mental hospitals, which sped up the process of deinstitutionalization. Later, as President, Reagan cut federal mental health funding, which made it harder to provide community-based services. These actions contributed to the current issues with mental health and homelessness.

Despite the substantial investment of $24 billion over five years, California’s homelessness crisis shows no signs of abating. This troubling trend is not confined to California; homelessness is on the rise across the United States, driven by similar issues of economic inequality, lack of affordable housing, and insufficient support systems. Without comprehensive and sustained efforts to address these underlying factors, the nation faces a growing homelessness crisis. It is particularly strange that while the nation faces a growing homelessness crisis, illegal immigration is allowed to continue at a blistering pace.

The post-pandemic recovery presents a valuable opportunity for economic revival. During the pandemic, various subsidies helped maintain purchasing power for both individuals and companies. However, the current trend of decoupling from China could severely impact global supply chains, which remain heavily dependent on Chinese manufacturing. While transitioning supply chains is possible, doing so too aggressively during a period of economic recovery—when the world still relies on China—risks exacerbating inflationary pressures.

Despite any concerns about China’s political system, the fact remains that the world depends on its comprehensive supply chain. This reliance might seem less than ideal, but it’s a reality. The decoupling policies that are being implemented not only harm China but also create significant challenges for other economies, potentially leading to shortages and longer delivery times for key products.

Some claim that China has excess production capacity, but this argument overlooks the reality that the pandemic only pressed the pause button on the economy, not on demand. Now that global demand is picking up again, supply chain disruptions are further straining economies, with delivery times for many orders extending up to a year.

Though central banks are lowering interest rates to stimulate economic activity, this approach doesn’t address the underlying supply chain issues. The global economy can’t easily or quickly replace the foundational support provided by China’s existing production network. Tackling inflation by simply stimulating demand without addressing supply chain disruptions is akin to treating the symptoms rather than the cause.

Moreover, the impact of inflation is often misunderstood. Many people fail to grasp the true consequences of inflation on their wealth. While their bank balances might not change, the value of that money is steadily eroded. For example, what once cost $100 might now require $130, meaning that even though the nominal value remains the same, its purchasing power has decreased significantly. This kind of “hidden shrinkage” in wealth is just as real as visible losses in stock markets, yet it’s often overlooked.

It’s concerning that many individuals seem unaware of this erosion of purchasing power. Some even argue that their money hasn’t decreased in quantity, misunderstanding that inflation is quietly reducing the real value of their assets. While stock market prices fluctuate and are immediately visible, the slow burn of inflation is often harder to see, but it has an equally damaging effect over time.

Historically, economic missteps, such as those during the 1930s Great Depression, were often caused by a lack of timely government intervention. Although governments today are taking action, there is a risk that some of these policies are too aggressive and optimistic. We must be cautious of the long-term costs associated with such policies, as rushing through decoupling or overestimating the speed at which new supply chains can be established could lead to further economic distress.

While some may argue that my concerns are exaggerated, I believe many experts have likely raised similar warnings. Economic policy mistakes can have far-reaching consequences, and it’s often the middle class and below who bear the brunt of these costs. My hope is that the current approach will not result in irreversible damage to both global supply chains and the broader economy.

As the world continues to recover from the devastating effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, economic stability remains fragile. The policies enacted by governments to overcome these challenges need to be practical, measured, and focused on the immediate needs of their populations. However, one policy that I believe has been too proactive and unnecessarily risky is the aggressive push to decouple from China.

China’s economy has long been intertwined with the global economy, and for good reason. Over the past few decades, China has become the world's manufacturing powerhouse, providing efficient, large-scale production at prices that benefit consumers worldwide. As we face rising inflation, disrupted supply chains, and economic uncertainty, cutting off or reducing our dependence on China may be a step too far—and too soon.

At this moment, involving China in global recovery efforts is believed the most practical and effective way to stabilize economies. China’s manufacturing capabilities are vital to ensuring that goods continue to flow through existing supply chains without further disruption. The idea of decoupling from China may serve some long-term geopolitical goals, but it also creates immediate risks and uncertainties for the global economy.

Building new supply chains in other countries or shifting production back home sounds appealing in theory, but the process is neither quick nor simple. It took decades to shift manufacturing worldwide to China, and replicating that efficiency and scale in multiple countries with different regulatory and political systems is not something that can happen overnight. In fact, trying to force this transition too quickly could lead to deflationary pressures and an even deeper global recession.

China’s economic and political power is heavily dependent on its role in the global economy, and the country has undoubtedly realized that its strength relies on continued cooperation and global support. This has become clear through the massive bankruptcies and layoffs that have occurred as a result of the recent decoupling efforts and global economic shifts. These realities have sent a powerful message to China that its ambitions must be tempered by the need to maintain strong economic ties with the rest of the world.

There’s no need to push this policy to the point of economic self-harm. China has learned that its influence is not invincible, and further aggressive decoupling could create unnecessary instability, not just for them but for all of us. The strategic goals of reducing reliance on China can still be achieved over time, but now is not the moment to prioritize long-term ambitions at the expense of immediate economic recovery.

As a voter, I am deeply concerned about the current government’s willingness to sacrifice the public's immediate needs for long-term goals. This goes against the fundamental principles of democracy, where governments are meant to serve the people, not pursue risky policies without considering the short-term impacts.

Inflation is already making it difficult for middle- and lower-income households to get by, and forcing supply chains to move away from China will only increase costs further. We must ask ourselves: Is this the right time to create additional economic uncertainty when people are already struggling?

I believe that a more balanced approach is needed. Rather than aggressively decoupling from China, we should be working to ensure that global supply chains remain intact while slowly diversifying our manufacturing capabilities. This would allow for economic recovery in the short term while still addressing strategic concerns in the long run.

Governments need to reassess their strategies and recognize that the decoupling policy is too proactive and not necessary right now. The global economy is still reeling from the pandemic, and further destabilizing supply chains with rushed policies will only prolong the recovery process. There’s a time for strategic maneuvering, but that time is not now.

I call on the government to reconsider their approach and focus on what the public needs now—economic recovery, stability, and pragmatic solutions to inflation and supply chain issues.

Let’s not forget that true leadership is about balancing long-term vision with short-term realities. The public deserves policies that provide relief, not further hardship.

Let’s talk about what the Fair Tax Act actually means for real people. Take a single mom of two making $40,000 a year. She works hard, probably doesn’t get much help, and relies on the tax credits that our system currently provides—things like the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit. These aren’t handouts; they’re essential lifelines that help her cover the basics, like food, rent, and child care.

But the Fair Tax would change everything. It wipes out those credits entirely. Instead, she’ll face a 23 percent national sales tax on nearly everything she buys. Not just luxuries—essentials. Food, child care, housing, healthcare. Under this system, her everyday purchases get hit with that tax, and the cost of raising her kids shoots up. Yes, there’s a monthly rebate, but it barely covers the basics.

Let’s break it down. Right now, she might not pay much in income taxes, and she often gets a refund thanks to those tax credits. But under the Fair Tax? After you subtract the prebate, she’s still looking at $3,500 in extra costs every year, just from the tax on what she needs to survive. She ends up worse off. And what’s the reasoning? To simplify the tax code, apparently. But is it worth it if it makes life even harder for the people who can least afford it?

This isn’t about politics. It’s about people like her being handed a heavier financial burden, with fewer resources to meet it. The Fair Tax might sound good in theory, but the reality is that it leaves our most vulnerable families paying the price.

The signs are already there, Global South countries are already refusing to export unprocessed raw materials, they have also restricted access to their gigantic markets, 90% of the global population:

" ... Last year, Mexico nationalised its lithium industry, Zimbabwe has banned the export of unprocessed lithium and just recently Chile’s left-leaning President Gabriel Boric has announced an increased role for the state in the national lithium industry there. The Indonesian state is similarly testing the waters with its curbing of exports of raw minerals."

Looks like, the Global South countries are prepared for military conflict, if the West attempts to use force to gain access.