FAQ

Look at the sources. Immigration fiscal data: the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank founded by Charles Koch. Dark money data: OpenSecrets, which shows Democrats leading in traceable dark money in 2024. War costs: Brown University's nonpartisan Costs of War Project. CEO pay: the Economic Policy Institute. None of these are progressive advocacy organizations. If the conclusions read as left-leaning, it might be because we have been told healthcare is socialism. Both parties helped build the mess.

Agreed, which is why the criticism matters. Real capitalism rewards people who build things and take risks. What this site documents is a system that pays better for financial engineering than for innovation. The argument is not against capitalism. It is that we have drifted from it. The people most harmed by the drift are the ones who believed the original promise.

The data does not support this. The Cato Institute, the Congressional Budget Office, and the National Academy of Sciences have all studied it. Immigrants fill roles in sectors with acute labor shortages: agriculture, construction, healthcare. The documented economic risk is the reverse. Remove that labor force and the sectors collapse, because native-born workers have consistently declined to enter them even when wages rise.

Nothing, if the gains are shared with the people who generated them. Between 1979 and 2023, corporate profits rose 321% in real terms. Worker wages rose 18%. Same economy, same period. The question isn't whether profit is good. It is whether the incentive structures (specifically short-term equity comp that rewards suppressing labor costs) are producing a healthy market or a captured one.

This site does not argue for more government spending. It argues for equal application of the existing rules. Buy Borrow Die is not a loophole. It is the tax code working as designed for people who can structure around it. The lobbying ROI data shows corporations getting a 22,000% return on money spent buying access to the legislators who write those rules. Not bigger government. The same rules for everyone, and a market where the best investment a company can make is a better product, not a better lobbyist.

If money is speech, then the volume of your speech is set by the size of your wallet, and most Americans have nothing to say. Citizens United is not a left-right issue: Democratic-aligned groups accounted for the majority of traceable dark money in 2024. Both parties benefit. Neither will fix it without pressure from outside. The free speech argument also did not exist before 2010. The country was a democracy before corporations had unlimited political spending rights.

No. Wealth is not the problem. The mechanisms that let wealth compound forever, without productive deployment and without market risk, are the problem. Most wealthy people built something real. The concern is a system where accumulated capital generates returns through financial engineering and legislative access instead of innovation. It crowds out the people who are actually trying to build.

Agreed. The argument isn't pacifism. It's accountability. Congress hasn't formally declared war since 1942. Every conflict since has been a presidential decision, made without the constitutional check the founders built in. The cost analysis is not a moral judgment about whether a war was justified. It is an accounting of what those decisions cost and who paid for them. Constitutional originalists should find the absence of congressional war declarations as troubling as anyone.

The goal is the opposite. Outrage content keeps you scrolling and sells ads. This site has no ads and no tracking. The tone is direct because the data is direct. A CFO presenting a balance sheet doesn't soften the numbers to make the board feel better. The numbers are what they are. What you do with them is up to you.