After the Bush '03 tax cuts, the 4-year rate of growth of the national debt as %GDP was nearly halved; from 5.2% over the period of 2000-2003 to 2.2% over the period from 2003-2006. That rate of growth increased 31.6% (!!!) once Democrats took total control of Congress in 2007. Socialists are defined in part as people to whom such facts don't matter. They are people on a stupid ego trip and have no interest in reality. I can't fix stupid. Stupid is as stupid does. O-bots will do as they do...
Correction: it increased TO 31.6% under the strong influence of socialist-Democrat policies--including Bush "abandoning capitalism to save capitalism". It had previously decreased to 2.2% under Bush's earlier, pro-capitalist policies.
@happystance9able You do realize those percentage increases were the result of conservative policies...? '07 was the start of the mortgage crisis which was a direct consequence of Reagan's bank deregulation. And you know what happens when the economy takes a nosedive? Fiscal policy. So, yeah, democrats did spend a lot during '07 and onwards. That's what you're supposed to do to fight the recession. Can't say Bush had to go through the same troubles though.
@waxrock >>democrats did spend a lot...That's what you're supposed to do to fight the recession<<
That statement runs counter to all evidence. It's an assertion first made by Herbert Hoover; the first president who thought his job was to control the economy through fiscal policy. But history shows our deepest and longest recessions to be those our politicians did the most tinkering with. Reagan debunked your fraud during the 1987 crash. He left things alone and it came and went quickly.
@waxrock >>a direct consequence of Reagan's bank deregulation<<
Again, what you believe is the direct opposite of the truth as evidenced by this video:
watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs
There, you can see socialist Democrats in 2004 attacking Bush regulators who sought to imposed sensible restrictions on lending practices. Socialist Democrats are seen there leading the crusade for lax lending standards. Clinton's Justice Department literally forced lenders to make bad loans to Democrat-constituent groups.
@mrusskevin What happened? The cynical Republicans in the house backed down when they realized that the crazy tea party caucus was actually serious about defaulting on our debt and throwing the U.S. into a depression. They negotiated a borderline unconstitutional deal with the president to set up a super committee that would identify cuts.
This committee failed to identify adequate cuts, mainly due to Republicans not wanting to raise taxes, so automatic cuts are now in effect.
If you agree with Ron Paul's Plan to Restore America, help him out on Dec 16th at ronpaul2012(dot)com or by helping him win Iowa supervoterbomb(dot)com
What the is point in raising the debt ceiling if that extra money is just going to be used to fund corporations and institutions which are of such a nature, the more money you put into them, the more rapidly the quantities of this country's deficits increase? What's the point in stopping too? -- how will taking an anti-progressive stance on this matter help an iota? The solution to this quandary is to cute useless funding like that of military endeavors, bullshit war on drugs, etc.
Your channel is a precious gift for mankind, u r doing such a great job. I just want to request u to plz also add Electricity/Electronics lectures with ur channel It's the only important subject that i think is lacking at ur channel.
It would be nice if we could view this for what it is (a tutorial) and keep our politcal statements to our selves. If you are conservative or liberal no one is going to change your mind. Can't we all just get along, agree to disagree, and live in peace. Lets us be united, like the United States of America. Oh and by the way Mr. Khan, this was a good tutorial. The deficit and debt always confused me. Thanks good job.
CONGRESS doesn't make ANY sense to ME. All they're doing right now is sitting there like a pincushion voting down every single thing presented to them, and they're doing it on our dime.
I don't vote for people to do nothing at all besides shoot down every proposal they get.
If I acted like they do on their job, everybody who ever needed an ambulance would be dead right now.
Before talking about the debt ceiling it's important to realize the difference between reality and Leftist rhetoric. In reality, what Leftists and duped moderates call the "debt ceiling" isn't a ceiling at all. Ceilings impose limits on how high something can go. The "debt ceiling" has NEVER done that. Rather, what Leftists call the "debt ceiling" is really a DEBT TARGET. It's a level of debt Leftists aim for as they pursue their endless spending. Once reached, they set a new, higher TARGET.
Your statement assumes the only leftists ever raise the debt ceiling and this is not true, it also assumes that leftists are never against raising the debt ceiling and considering I think in 2006 they all voted against it I would say it's not true either.
The truth is the debt ceiling is just a partisan football with no real reason to exist other then to remind congress that they should be ashamed of themselves for not keeping a balanced budget, obviously that hasn't worked either.
@waxrock >>I've been fooled all along. REAGAN WAS A LEFTIST!<<
Reagan called for raising the Debt Target to fight the Cold War because socialists like FDR, Johnson and Carter already had all government revenue being dumped into the flaming pits of unconstitutional, economically stupid, financially insolvent social programs. While it took the Cold War to get Reagan to want to raise the Debt Target, it only takes imperfection in the world to make Leftists want to set it higher. Where's that lead?
@happystance9able I can already tell this argument would go nowhere. But let's see: it wasn't until the aug2 raise that you rightwingers decided to be all cautious about raising the limit, despite the fact that the only reason why we need to in the first place is because of conservative policies. So you know what? It IS a debt CEILING. We only delay it because fucking idiots like Reagan and Bush put us in that situation.
@waxrock >>the only reason...is because of conservative policies<<
That assertion is exactly the opposite of the truth. From 2004-2007, in response to Bush's 2003 cuts on capital gains taxes, the U.S. Treasury saw its revenue INCREASE by $785 Billion; the largest 4-year increase in American history. Therefore, conservative policies were, in fact, a mitigating factor in the rising national debt. The debt took off when Bush began, in his own words, "abandoning capitalism to save capitalism".
@happystance9able I'm sorry? Conservative policies were a mitigating factor in debt? Bush put us $6.1 trillion in debt. Why? Because of conservative policies like tax cuts while going to war in Iraq and Afghanistan at the same time. And to FURTHER put us in shit, banks gave out subprime loans because of Reagan's deregulation. And here we are: Obama inheriting Bush's incredible debt+deficit and having to make sure the banks wouldn't fail as a result of the 07-09 housing crisis.
@waxrock >>Conservative policies...a mitigating factor in debt?<<
Yes. After Bush's '03 capital gains tax cuts, the national debt only increased 2.2% of GDP over 4 years; from 61.8% in '03 to 64% in '06. That was a tremendous improvement over the previous four-year increase in debt of 4.2% from 57.6% GDP in 2000 to 61.8% in '03. So yes, it's clear to anyone with a functioning brain that conservative policies mitigate the harm socialists cause.
@waxrock In stark contrast to the reduced, 2.2%-GDP 4-year increase in debt following the Bush tax cuts, socialist Democrats taking total control of both houses of Congress in '07 and then also the White House in '09 resulted in a 4-year national debt increase of 31.6% GDP; from 64.8% in 2007 to 93.4% in 2010. Congress controls the purse strings to the Treasury; not the President. From all this, it's obvious to anyone with a functioning brain how socialism does harm while conservatism does good.
Man, I heard Sal said we had a Triple A rating, then I was like, "What?! We got it back?!!" But then I looked at the date this tutorial was made and my heart sank.
I know you probably won't do it, but I'm wondering what you think about the current suggestion to raise the debt ceiling. I mean are you for or against it?
I would understand if you didn't want to say, b/c so many people are abusive when you don't think exactly what THEY do. Anyway, I'm constantly curious.
removing the bush tax cuts will flatten the debt forecast. Increasing taxes on the wealthest as well as renovating the SS and medicare such as increasing retirement age as people are living longer. Lastly, reduce spending on defense and prisons while simultaniously increasing spending on high tech, schools, medical and small business formation. This is the recipe we need to follow, so simple!
If we compare Microsoft to Edi Amin, you might get a small picture of how a dictator, any dictator, is far FAR worse for a countries population than a monopolizing company.
I personally find it amazing you don't see that. You have to ignore a LOT of stuff to equalize the two.
I'm trying to think of a justification for your thinking and all I can come up with is that you either don't know much about monopolies or dictatorships, or your socialist leanings are blinding you.
@Goohuman Microsoft isn't a monopoly, are you crazy? You're the one who sounds like you have political leanings, if you assume my questioning monopolies is akin to socialism. Monopolies kill competition.
@parkj238 Alright. I don't care to debate with you as to what you consider a monopoly. Just tell me. Tell us all an example of a monopoly here in the US.
And then, if your willing, tell us what you consider a dictator.
I'm sure you will attempt to find the most horrific monopoly and the most mild dictator to make your point. Just know, the only person you are fooling is yourself.
@Goohuman I don't understand what you don't get about monopolies not being accountable for inefficiencies or lack of innovation. There is no internal check when you have total market power. We have an antitrust division, there are lawsuits filed against collusion and monopolistic behavior in the U.S. all the time to try prevent such a thing from coming into being. Go to a third world to see what a company with monopolistic control provides to its citizens in terms of service and support.
@parkj238 At least the monopoly would be providing services while the dictator in that same 3rd world country is killing the people.
Never mind. I'm not defending monopolies. I'm defending capitalism. The worst case scenario under capitalism is far less destructive than the worst case under socialist rule.
Khan dishonestly blurs the definition of "default" to encompass all of our expenses. He correctly notes that the conventional definition of default applies only to interest on our debt, then asserts that "default could be on any of our obligations: Social Security, Medicare, defense, etc..." He then trails off, as though to imply that not covering discretionary programs constitutes default. However, it does not. And we have more than enough revenue to cover interest, SS, Medicare, and defense.
@sleepyasthesouth as a teacher, it's not his job to give you the answer. He gave you the tools of understanding so you could figure it out yourself. But I like @lordcroesus answer.
Step 1. Cut the 'Defense' budget / pull out of the wars
Step 2. increase taxation on the wealthiest section and close certain loopholes to bring a more balanced tax incidence
Step 3. Stop treating the majority of the population with such contempt.
Ok, do you've explained why enforcing the debt ceiling is not the solution to our debt problem, but you have not exactly offered any kind of solution or end to national debt yourself.
@faithnotneeded Man, you really like the literal end of things. It was an allusion to what private companies do in the Insurance Industry. You obviously haven't lived in Europe or China or Japan for that matter. Trust me, their lifestyle is way cheaper, and way more sustainable than ours. They're nearly a century ahead of us in quality of life. They work less, live longer, and don't worry about healthcare, paying for college, etc. Their economies depend on private and public sector initiatives.
Greenspan said to the Senate that a Small tax cut only if-and-only-if the law ensured the Tax cut eliminated if the surplus needed to cover social security was in trouble. Clinton and Greenspan together targeted US Surplus to save Social Security. Deficit started 1 Month after Bush signed into Law.
even if they reach a deficit cutting deal there is still going to be a 1trillion plus surplus. How can the US sustain running deficits of over 1 trillion per year? How can we keep borrowing money we don't have and can never pay back?
@faithnotneeded My prior comment was pure sarcasm. If SS was privatized we'd have companies denying seniors payments for pre-existing conditions. There should always be a collaboration between government and the private sector, to give the people options, regulate prices and prevent essential aspects of our societal structure from becoming consumed and corrupted by the search for wealth. If you can afford it, pay for it, if not, you're still good. It's not good to depend heavily on either side.
Look all this debt ceiling stuff is SIMPLE-Obama is spending $3 Trillion/YR-our tax dollars=only $1.5 Trillion/YR, Tea Party wants to cut Big Gov Spending but Liberals want to keep spending on Hand outs &free everything to Non working-since only working middle class is paying taxes-Liberal spending will keep over spending to non working-that will erode the $ to become worthless. The liberal attitude is a PLAN for Self Destruction & Economic Collapse & Civil WAR but that was always their PLANS!
The USA is spending an eye watering $2.5bn a day (Yes a day) on fighting wars when the USA is not even under attack but they don’t seem to put that on the table when they talk about debt spending and stopping people pensions who have paid for them all their lives.
@88roro11 I agree, we are spending too much on nonproductive government functions such as military and industry subsidies whilst taxation (revenue) is anemic. Once Bush tax cuts are repealed, military is cut, and taxes on the wealthiest are increased, we will be much better off. I agree, the Teahadists have betrayed their constituents and now they're going to destroy America and our future as well. Americans cannot (and must not) tolerate economically-violent right wing extremists.
@mestizzo The Fed owns most of the debt so the Fed will raise the interest on that debt. They generally base it on a risk analysis of lending the US the money. As the risk rises, so does the cost of the loan.
we could raise taxes on big corporations (ones that have majority of manufacturing capacity out of the country) then offer tax breaks to those companies to bring the work back to America... also raise taxes on super rich, they can take a hit they already own a tremendous amount of wealth. end unpopular wars, failed drug war and programs like (tsa,dea,fbi,cia, and atf) these secrete police aren't very popular with the people.. and finally end the fed give issuance of currency back to treasury..
@88roro11 Bringing more money in via taxation or selling assets is not the problem. The problem is we are living far above our ability to pay. Our politicians have been buying us off with our own money and now they are running out of it and our future money as well. We simply can't go forward spending so much money.
@Goohuman agreed thats why we gotta make actual cuts.. more then 4 trillion over 10 years we gotta make popular cut of at least 2trillion this budget.. STOP all spending over our means.. or shrink the huge lumbering government... i just was giving an idea of how we could bring all our jobs back from "globalism" which just makes cheap labor available.. but you are right tho... i should have been more specific
While we are on the subject of jobs, I have a suggestion. I suggest the Gov get out of the business of taking over businesses. The Gov is notoriously inefficient and expensive. If we privatize everything exept the military, the executive, legislative, and judicial branches and maybe hang onto the secret service, I bet we could really cut costs. It would be chaotic at first, but it would settle into a lean, mean government machine. Then all the jobs would come back.
@Goohuman exactly we need a small government.. of they cannot pay for it they cannot have big government.. we should also end these "free trading" agreements which just let jobs to be sent to countries to benefit the wages for corporate hogs and stocks.. we should recoup our manufacturing capacity from china and the third world... start rebuilding our failing infrastructure.. and try exporting instead of importing.. how ever the cheap labor has spoiled every one with cheap crap we call goods...
ooh and also re issue a precious metal standard or take away the issuance of currency from a private bank, and give it back to the treasury as to retain the value of the currency.. and to not devalue it and loose its position as the worlds reserve currency, which is happening right now unfortunately...
@Goohuman Really? Privatize everything? Where do you want to live? United States of Monsanto and Walmart?
Really, you obviously have no perspective to even comment on such a topic. Privatize everything, lol, small government, lol, you sound like Jefferson preaching about slavery.
@sirmarlonblack Yes. The US was at it's most free and prosperous when the government was small and stayed out of the people's business. If you like the way it's going now, just wait. With the powers the gov is giving itself (particularly the president), they will soon have the power to tell you where to live and what job to work at, even when you should die. I doubt it will get that bad, but that's the direction it's going now.
Me? I'd rather choose for myself. Let Freedom Reign!
@Goohuman The Golden Age that you speak of also had progressive income tax up to 90% on the top-earning bracket. Also, an interstate highway system, national school system and cutting-edge aerospace program funded underwritten with public funds. Modern conservatives don't talk about that part so much.
@Goohuman Some historical facts to unwind your creed of liberty in America since it's inception: slavery, women couldn't vote until the 1960s, only rich white land owners could vote in the beginning. It's always been for the rich, by the rich; they depend on people like you to propagate their agenda and solidify their policy, while getting poorer. John Adams wrote a paper where he talked about giving the lower classes just enough so they wouldn't feel the urge to rebel against the upper classes.
@sirmarlonblack I think you are mistaking the intro of the ERA with voting rights. Slavery still exists, as does racism and poverty etc. Being imperfect and open about it is a sign of freedom. All injustice is open to see.
Though your interpretation is tainted, there was a law tying voting rights to land ownership. This was given up early on as racism and slavery took hold. A free country overcomes these problems as a people. No better way IMO.
@Goohuman How would you classify early sedition laws? Are they an example of openness? How would you classify the fact that from the start there was a conscious effort to decentralize the people's power to unite and impose their interests upon the government? Further, how do you explain the fact that the Treasury, as an example of how it favors the institution rather than the individual, has already promised that it will pay the creditors first on Tuesday, and run IOUs on all public debts?
@Goohuman It wasn't an interpretation, it's fact. If you can point out a historical fact that nullifies that such a law existed, then I'll agree. Slavery operated in America even before the constitution was written, therefore it didn't "replace" voting rights. Voting rights only happened for poor white men because they were organizing and fighting against the government. Policies were created to guarantee indentured servants received land at the end of their contract (cont.)
@Goohuman The politicians at the time had an interest in developing a base (aka a middle class) that wouldn't oppose the established power.
I don't know if you know this, but the founding fathers were the richest men in America when they wrote the constitution. Many of the its amendments and provisions are to guarantee their power. George Washington for example was the single richest and largest land owner in America at the time... (cont.)
@Goohuman They had specific interest to not end slavery (that's why it wasn't originally in the constitution); they had specific interest to not give voting power to the poor whites (indentured servant, squatters, landless whites) because they didn't want them to tip the scale of power established after the revolution. Land was only given out at a great amount of debt.
Get your facts right. Slavery always existed in the US, it wasn't a replacement for voting rights to landless white men.
@Goohuman Also, the US was the most free and prosperous when the government was small? Name one fact to support that. What was the median income? How much did the average American family make?
You will find that you are more than erroneous, you're wandering deep into the regurgitation of talking points area.
@sirmarlonblack Got all these emails, you musta learned your history from a liberal/socialist school or something, I can't figure it out, but I'm here to straighten it out.
Let me start with a disclaimer. My point is that freedom allowed for real ingenuity, which leads naturally to prosperity, so it may be more accurate to say that when we had a small government and were the most free, we grew the most rapidly. We stepped into the Industrial Age, starting right here in the US.
@sirmarlonblack It looks like you or the vid owner deleted some of your comments. That is unfortunate. An honest debate must include everything.
On that note, you dodged defending your own position. Do you believe a big gov is better than a smaller one? You seem to support the communist concept of calling it "power to the people" and actually handing all the people's power to a big government.
You better pray power doesn't corrupt if that is what you want. Is it?
@sirmarlonblack Yes. Privatize everything that can be privatized. I would not privatize the military, as you want to keep that loyal and secure and specifically responsive to the US population as a whole, not business. Otherwise, privatize and keep it fair. Let the competition streamline the processes. Monopolies will arise. Some good, some bad. It is no different than big government out of control except you can legally compete against a business.
@Goohuman How do you legally compete against a monopoly, the definition of a monopoly is that it would not be cost efficient to try to compete against one.
@parkj238 Yet monopolies fall. If a business is run so well that they become a monopoly, then I am fine with that. If a monopoly exists because they manipulate the laws to kill the competition, then that is an example of a monopoly that should be dismantled by the government.
We've seen steel, oil and communications monopolies in the past that were broken up. Regardless, I believe they would have fallen anyway when the top guy leaves or passes on. Watch Walmart. I give it 10 more years.
@McGarrityMichaelP if they default, the USD will be crap so they shouldn't do that. Also, they won't default even if they run out of money. Obama will just keep borrowing and say "screw you" to the republicans who won't do anything to stop it because, if they do, everyone will hate them for being tight asses about "following the law" when if they do what's "legal", it'll screw up the economy. Sal explained this in the 2nd (old) video before he took them down.
The explanation in this video was very well done. I understood everything except I have one question. WHO are the people/organizations that increase the interest rates on the United States? WHO are the ones giving the credit ratings?
@SRImperio The interest rate is increased by the lending market. All the people who lend money to the US would demand a higher interest for those same loans given the fact that now there is a higher perceived risk that they may not be paid back. Think of it this way: If you want to make a profit by lending your money and charging interest on it, who will you charge more interest to? Someone who you're sure will pay back all of the money? or someone who may only able to pay back 95% of the money?
@echelecopao Interest rates are not technically increased by the lending market. The way they price their interest typically follows Federal Reserve policies, because much of the time, they're getting their loans at rates defined by the Fed. It does trickle down to the lending market, and the companies that are a part of it, but it begins with Fed policy.
@echelecopao Also what you're referring to at the end is unclear. Loan differentiation is common practice in the every industry that deals with lending. That's why you have credit ratings to individuals and institutions. A group of people's credit worthiness does not define the interest rates of the market, they're a result of the government policies, and the big financial institutions that depend on it to get the money to borrow.
@SRImperio Interest rates are regulated by the Federal Reserve.
Credit ratings are designated by private financial institutions. The big three are: Moody's, S&P and Fitch.
The big three are the same institutions that gave AAA ratings to collateralized debt obligations (aka - mortgage backed securities). I think you remember what those assets caused.
@lordcroesus Don't think taxing the wealthiest is the best idea. Who creates the jobs? The 'wealthy' people want to keep their lifestyle, they would just not hire anyone new if they got taxed more per employee or because they are successful. You don't get ahead by punishing people for rising above.
This is it: Unions have their uses but they scream for more jobs and job security while also campaigning for measures which inevitably make hiring someone more difficult.
@Draelren Seriously! You are still buying that con job? The trickle down theory has had 30 years to prove itself and has failed to do so in a BIG way.
@lordcroesus I agree to cut the military, we have far more than we need and people can take care of themselves, but I believe income tax is immoral. Without it everyone could do whatever they want with their money, the nation would have a sane budget and would try to please donators. (no one gets rich by catering to the rich, the government would do what the vast majority wants) I hope you left-winger one day understand that some rich are honest and deserving and others cheat. I'm not prejudice.
@aydarsh Good question. No. We have both here in Maine and the government still spends crazy, especially under the left. It hurts the poor (not as much as inflation) and is simply immoral. Most forms of tax are theft. We once just did user fees and tariffs. Tariffs are like consumption tax so I don't promote them. I would like to see the government depend on user fees and donations, but it would need to cut at lest 90% to work, maybe 98%. I think everyone would be richer if it did shrink.
I understand that the world runs on debt and credit, and I know the US isn't the only country in debt or running in debt (not alone by a long chalk) but realistically this is rubbish!!! The US will never be able to pay off 14 trillion in complete. The UK is the same, it has a massive debt yet it will never pay it off!
Why is national debt allowed to get this big!?? How can countries pay off debt completely??
I really can't understand why only a law is sufficent to prevent U.S. default. U.S. colud set the debt limit to infinite... and, theoretically, they won't default any more!
You failed to mention that the FED sets interest rates so even if the US defaults it doesn't matter interest rates won't go up. Also you seem to be under the delusion that the US doesn't have any leverage with other countries that can "convince" them to keep borrowing. The US happens to be the only superpower left in the world and if you don't think it takes advantage of that fact you're mistaken.
@McDicker96 This is a mistaken view. The FED only controls the inter bank lending rate not the "world interest rate". If the US defaults it won't matter what the federal funds rate is, loss of confidence in the dollar will make foreign capital for American business very expensive. The point where I would agree with you is that the US has taken advantage of it's reserve currency status - it is because of this that the US has been able to benefit from very cheap credit flows.
@MrPlender I know there's no world interest rate the FED can set, however if other countries want access to T-bonds, they have no where to turn except the US. Where else are they going to get AAA rated T bonds? Even if the US defaults, which is highly doubtful since anyone who follows US politics knows its a mere formality, its not as if there's some other country that's going to step in. Its as absurd as thinking another fiat could replace the dollar as a reserve currency.
@McDicker96 To continue from my previous post: That said, the FED has very little power over foreign credit flows and whether there is any empirically discernible correlation between the federal funds rate and foreign capital flows is a contentious area of debate.
@MrPlender And look at interest rates, now with all this talk of a putative apocalypse right around the corner, and they're as placid as they ever were. There's not going to any real world consequence to any of this outside the realm of partisan politics.
Can you make a video of this in relation to fiat currency? The government is the source of our money. If the government ran surpluses then eventually all the money would be pulled out of circulation. A debt ceiling wouldn't just stop the government from growing, but also the economy.
@homousios I was watching another video which suggested that the Federal Reserve loan the Government money, with interest. This interest can never be repaid (it just creates more debt, perpetually), thus resulting in, as you say, eternal slavery. There are some select few right at the top of this pyramid scheme (scam), who have everything, and care about nothing below them. The debt/slavery system is just a method of control to enslave people, and I think it's on the verge of collapse, globally.
The August 2nd deadline is ridiculous because it matches congress recess is not a real deadline, Geithner is basically lying to us in order to make sure congress get this done sooner, and do it like in the past which is "just raise it forever"; Which to be honest doesn't make any sense at all!
No matter how you put it, you need to cut spending. You can't just maintain a deficit and raise the debt ceiling when required forever, eventually you're going to have to cut spending and reduce the debt. Of course, this is going to fall on young people like me. I say we let the old people get evicted from their homes. They're the one's that got us into this mess, only seems fair.
I have come up with the solution which would help USA out of the debt.
Remember how we used to thought that USA invaded Iraq because of its oil?If that indeed was the case, then this would be the perfect time to start selling Iraqi oil to the rest of the world!
6:56 "Companies have to support"... Freudian slip? Our country has been sold to the highest bidders and works for this company. We don't have to, but in an honest world we should default to validate our system, but since our system isn't valid anyways, we really shouldn't default.
Fantastic job shedding much needed light on this issue by defining the terminology, explaining the history of these routine debt ceiliing increases, and exploring economic outcomes. All of which, mainstream media/education doesn't do which leaves 80% of citizens with feelings of confusion & hopelessness, thus making them disenfranchised and/or polarized. Your students, especially kids, are smarter because of you. For society's sake, these topics may be your most important to make Sal. Thank you!
@volcomguy72 yeah a senile ultra religious guy who want the states to decide so if a state wants to bring back segregation they could would be a great president, get real
So? I'm atheist and I don't care about his religion. Yeah there are some retarded messed up rednecks out there but do you honestly believe the majority of people would vote in segregation again? Even in that ULTRA-RARE chance, a much bigger number of people (which are also more educated and motivated) would do everything they could to stomp it out, and that segregation won't even have a blink in history. Why are you so scared? How about you get real lol.
What I just said in that last comment, that's how it should be. The PEOPLE should have the right to have what they want, under the constitution. Cause once that fictional "segregation" is stomped out then maybe, under Ron's smaller government, we'll realize our power and not let dumbass politicians rule over our lives. The govt makes the dumbest mistakes, bullies its citizens around, and even violates its own constitution. You might be OK with that but I'm not.
Sal for president!!!
apricotsnms516 2 weeks ago 3
worth watching video...
phonesplanet 4 weeks ago
Eewwerqww
DChuck0855 2 months ago
After the Bush '03 tax cuts, the 4-year rate of growth of the national debt as %GDP was nearly halved; from 5.2% over the period of 2000-2003 to 2.2% over the period from 2003-2006. That rate of growth increased 31.6% (!!!) once Democrats took total control of Congress in 2007. Socialists are defined in part as people to whom such facts don't matter. They are people on a stupid ego trip and have no interest in reality. I can't fix stupid. Stupid is as stupid does. O-bots will do as they do...
happystance9able 2 months ago
@happystance9able >>That rate of growth increased 31.6%<<
Correction: it increased TO 31.6% under the strong influence of socialist-Democrat policies--including Bush "abandoning capitalism to save capitalism". It had previously decreased to 2.2% under Bush's earlier, pro-capitalist policies.
happystance9able 2 months ago
@happystance9able You do realize those percentage increases were the result of conservative policies...? '07 was the start of the mortgage crisis which was a direct consequence of Reagan's bank deregulation. And you know what happens when the economy takes a nosedive? Fiscal policy. So, yeah, democrats did spend a lot during '07 and onwards. That's what you're supposed to do to fight the recession. Can't say Bush had to go through the same troubles though.
waxrock 2 months ago
@waxrock >>democrats did spend a lot...That's what you're supposed to do to fight the recession<<
That statement runs counter to all evidence. It's an assertion first made by Herbert Hoover; the first president who thought his job was to control the economy through fiscal policy. But history shows our deepest and longest recessions to be those our politicians did the most tinkering with. Reagan debunked your fraud during the 1987 crash. He left things alone and it came and went quickly.
happystance9able 2 months ago
@waxrock >>a direct consequence of Reagan's bank deregulation<<
Again, what you believe is the direct opposite of the truth as evidenced by this video:
watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs
There, you can see socialist Democrats in 2004 attacking Bush regulators who sought to imposed sensible restrictions on lending practices. Socialist Democrats are seen there leading the crusade for lax lending standards. Clinton's Justice Department literally forced lenders to make bad loans to Democrat-constituent groups.
happystance9able 2 months ago
No one wants to see pensioners aircraft-carriers go without fuel...
theantiantichrist 2 months ago
SO WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED?
mrusskevin 3 months ago
@mrusskevin What happened? The cynical Republicans in the house backed down when they realized that the crazy tea party caucus was actually serious about defaulting on our debt and throwing the U.S. into a depression. They negotiated a borderline unconstitutional deal with the president to set up a super committee that would identify cuts.
This committee failed to identify adequate cuts, mainly due to Republicans not wanting to raise taxes, so automatic cuts are now in effect.
shalcall 2 months ago
If you agree with Ron Paul's Plan to Restore America, help him out on Dec 16th at ronpaul2012(dot)com or by helping him win Iowa supervoterbomb(dot)com
enermaster123 3 months ago
Sorry for the grammar lol, I'm kn my Ipad haha..
MarvelsofaLifetime 3 months ago
What the is point in raising the debt ceiling if that extra money is just going to be used to fund corporations and institutions which are of such a nature, the more money you put into them, the more rapidly the quantities of this country's deficits increase? What's the point in stopping too? -- how will taking an anti-progressive stance on this matter help an iota? The solution to this quandary is to cute useless funding like that of military endeavors, bullshit war on drugs, etc.
MarvelsofaLifetime 3 months ago
Your channel is a precious gift for mankind, u r doing such a great job. I just want to request u to plz also add Electricity/Electronics lectures with ur channel It's the only important subject that i think is lacking at ur channel.
HomoSapien2012 3 months ago
It would be nice if we could view this for what it is (a tutorial) and keep our politcal statements to our selves. If you are conservative or liberal no one is going to change your mind. Can't we all just get along, agree to disagree, and live in peace. Lets us be united, like the United States of America. Oh and by the way Mr. Khan, this was a good tutorial. The deficit and debt always confused me. Thanks good job.
cherlove777 3 months ago 2
CONGRESS doesn't make ANY sense to ME. All they're doing right now is sitting there like a pincushion voting down every single thing presented to them, and they're doing it on our dime.
I don't vote for people to do nothing at all besides shoot down every proposal they get.
If I acted like they do on their job, everybody who ever needed an ambulance would be dead right now.
vickiormindyb 3 months ago
Good explanation
debtcc 4 months ago
Before talking about the debt ceiling it's important to realize the difference between reality and Leftist rhetoric. In reality, what Leftists and duped moderates call the "debt ceiling" isn't a ceiling at all. Ceilings impose limits on how high something can go. The "debt ceiling" has NEVER done that. Rather, what Leftists call the "debt ceiling" is really a DEBT TARGET. It's a level of debt Leftists aim for as they pursue their endless spending. Once reached, they set a new, higher TARGET.
happystance9able 4 months ago 31
@happystance9able Like George W. Bush did. We've got to stop these Leftists; they're out of control. Lead the way, genius.
ybulldog14 4 months ago
Your statement assumes the only leftists ever raise the debt ceiling and this is not true, it also assumes that leftists are never against raising the debt ceiling and considering I think in 2006 they all voted against it I would say it's not true either.
The truth is the debt ceiling is just a partisan football with no real reason to exist other then to remind congress that they should be ashamed of themselves for not keeping a balanced budget, obviously that hasn't worked either.
rivercraig 4 months ago in playlist American Civics
@happystance9able
Ronald Reagan was a leftist?
MogManDog 3 months ago
@happystance9able I've been fooled all along. REAGAN WAS A LEFTIST!
waxrock 3 months ago
@waxrock >>I've been fooled all along. REAGAN WAS A LEFTIST!<<
Reagan called for raising the Debt Target to fight the Cold War because socialists like FDR, Johnson and Carter already had all government revenue being dumped into the flaming pits of unconstitutional, economically stupid, financially insolvent social programs. While it took the Cold War to get Reagan to want to raise the Debt Target, it only takes imperfection in the world to make Leftists want to set it higher. Where's that lead?
happystance9able 3 months ago
@happystance9able I can already tell this argument would go nowhere. But let's see: it wasn't until the aug2 raise that you rightwingers decided to be all cautious about raising the limit, despite the fact that the only reason why we need to in the first place is because of conservative policies. So you know what? It IS a debt CEILING. We only delay it because fucking idiots like Reagan and Bush put us in that situation.
waxrock 3 months ago
@waxrock >>the only reason...is because of conservative policies<<
That assertion is exactly the opposite of the truth. From 2004-2007, in response to Bush's 2003 cuts on capital gains taxes, the U.S. Treasury saw its revenue INCREASE by $785 Billion; the largest 4-year increase in American history. Therefore, conservative policies were, in fact, a mitigating factor in the rising national debt. The debt took off when Bush began, in his own words, "abandoning capitalism to save capitalism".
happystance9able 3 months ago
@happystance9able I'm sorry? Conservative policies were a mitigating factor in debt? Bush put us $6.1 trillion in debt. Why? Because of conservative policies like tax cuts while going to war in Iraq and Afghanistan at the same time. And to FURTHER put us in shit, banks gave out subprime loans because of Reagan's deregulation. And here we are: Obama inheriting Bush's incredible debt+deficit and having to make sure the banks wouldn't fail as a result of the 07-09 housing crisis.
waxrock 3 months ago
@waxrock >>Conservative policies...a mitigating factor in debt?<<
Yes. After Bush's '03 capital gains tax cuts, the national debt only increased 2.2% of GDP over 4 years; from 61.8% in '03 to 64% in '06. That was a tremendous improvement over the previous four-year increase in debt of 4.2% from 57.6% GDP in 2000 to 61.8% in '03. So yes, it's clear to anyone with a functioning brain that conservative policies mitigate the harm socialists cause.
happystance9able 2 months ago
@waxrock In stark contrast to the reduced, 2.2%-GDP 4-year increase in debt following the Bush tax cuts, socialist Democrats taking total control of both houses of Congress in '07 and then also the White House in '09 resulted in a 4-year national debt increase of 31.6% GDP; from 64.8% in 2007 to 93.4% in 2010. Congress controls the purse strings to the Treasury; not the President. From all this, it's obvious to anyone with a functioning brain how socialism does harm while conservatism does good.
happystance9able 2 months ago
Man, I heard Sal said we had a Triple A rating, then I was like, "What?! We got it back?!!" But then I looked at the date this tutorial was made and my heart sank.
animals0feel1pain2 5 months ago
I know you probably won't do it, but I'm wondering what you think about the current suggestion to raise the debt ceiling. I mean are you for or against it?
I would understand if you didn't want to say, b/c so many people are abusive when you don't think exactly what THEY do. Anyway, I'm constantly curious.
vickiormindyb 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Money is imaginary, and who are we paying interest to? Oh our masters, the banks, magic money makers.
reynoldsmjx 5 months ago
Money is imaginary, and who are we paying interest to? Oh our masters, the banks, magic money makers.
reynoldsmjx 5 months ago
removing the bush tax cuts will flatten the debt forecast. Increasing taxes on the wealthest as well as renovating the SS and medicare such as increasing retirement age as people are living longer. Lastly, reduce spending on defense and prisons while simultaniously increasing spending on high tech, schools, medical and small business formation. This is the recipe we need to follow, so simple!
bdhcarbon 6 months ago
Lets seriously get this guy as the president. Super smart and a great humanitarian.
TheRoadsidePicnic 6 months ago
Salman for president, I second the motion
Dolphinsintheocean 6 months ago
I don't see too much of a difference between monopolies and dictatorship regimes. Dictatorship regimes fall too.
parkj238 6 months ago
@parkj238 You don't?
If we compare Microsoft to Edi Amin, you might get a small picture of how a dictator, any dictator, is far FAR worse for a countries population than a monopolizing company.
I personally find it amazing you don't see that. You have to ignore a LOT of stuff to equalize the two.
I'm trying to think of a justification for your thinking and all I can come up with is that you either don't know much about monopolies or dictatorships, or your socialist leanings are blinding you.
Goohuman 6 months ago
@Goohuman Microsoft isn't a monopoly, are you crazy? You're the one who sounds like you have political leanings, if you assume my questioning monopolies is akin to socialism. Monopolies kill competition.
parkj238 6 months ago
@parkj238 Alright. I don't care to debate with you as to what you consider a monopoly. Just tell me. Tell us all an example of a monopoly here in the US.
And then, if your willing, tell us what you consider a dictator.
I'm sure you will attempt to find the most horrific monopoly and the most mild dictator to make your point. Just know, the only person you are fooling is yourself.
Goohuman 6 months ago
@Goohuman I don't understand what you don't get about monopolies not being accountable for inefficiencies or lack of innovation. There is no internal check when you have total market power. We have an antitrust division, there are lawsuits filed against collusion and monopolistic behavior in the U.S. all the time to try prevent such a thing from coming into being. Go to a third world to see what a company with monopolistic control provides to its citizens in terms of service and support.
parkj238 6 months ago
@parkj238 At least the monopoly would be providing services while the dictator in that same 3rd world country is killing the people.
Never mind. I'm not defending monopolies. I'm defending capitalism. The worst case scenario under capitalism is far less destructive than the worst case under socialist rule.
Goohuman 6 months ago
Khan dishonestly blurs the definition of "default" to encompass all of our expenses. He correctly notes that the conventional definition of default applies only to interest on our debt, then asserts that "default could be on any of our obligations: Social Security, Medicare, defense, etc..." He then trails off, as though to imply that not covering discretionary programs constitutes default. However, it does not. And we have more than enough revenue to cover interest, SS, Medicare, and defense.
spiegelscott 6 months ago
@spiegelscott Indeed. I would add that I've heard some Democrats say that a cut in any such program would also be considered a default.
I guess Mirriam-Webster should just start rewriting the whole language right away .. then do it again in 3 years.
Goohuman 6 months ago
amazing.
MBogie203 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ron Paul 2012 - END THE WARS - END THE FED - LEGALIZE IT
toneofmysoul 7 months ago
excellent - keep up the good work!
jdgnevada 7 months ago
thank you!
palthainon 7 months ago
flat tax!!! 10% for ALL people, rich, poor, black, white, everyone!!! Then cut spending.
TheBarcan 7 months ago
@TheBarcan Did you even watch the video? lol
Donsknotts 7 months ago
@TheBarcan That would raise taxes on poor people and cut them on rich people, interesting plan you've developed.
rivercraig 4 months ago in playlist American Civics
@sleepyasthesouth as a teacher, it's not his job to give you the answer. He gave you the tools of understanding so you could figure it out yourself. But I like @lordcroesus answer.
Step 1. Cut the 'Defense' budget / pull out of the wars
Step 2. increase taxation on the wealthiest section and close certain loopholes to bring a more balanced tax incidence
Step 3. Stop treating the majority of the population with such contempt.
pogokero 7 months ago
Long story short, get real, start cutting military spending....
EVERY other solution is a band aid fix that isnt going to work long term.
RedGrobo 7 months ago
Excellent explanation of the Debt Ceiling by @KhanAcademy and sharing via @bendehghan #SystemDynamics #stocks #flows
RalfLippold 7 months ago
Ok, do you've explained why enforcing the debt ceiling is not the solution to our debt problem, but you have not exactly offered any kind of solution or end to national debt yourself.
sleepyasthesouth 7 months ago
i want this guy as my teacher. hands down.
rhno091 7 months ago
What % of our spending is from the wars? We could do without those.
Katfellow 7 months ago
@faithnotneeded Man, you really like the literal end of things. It was an allusion to what private companies do in the Insurance Industry. You obviously haven't lived in Europe or China or Japan for that matter. Trust me, their lifestyle is way cheaper, and way more sustainable than ours. They're nearly a century ahead of us in quality of life. They work less, live longer, and don't worry about healthcare, paying for college, etc. Their economies depend on private and public sector initiatives.
sirmarlonblack 7 months ago
so... bottom line is that america is screwed?... Good thing I live in Canada!
Dwerden93 7 months ago
From Alan Greenspan (The Age of Turbulence) pages:
The Deficit started with the Bush Tax Cuts! See the above reference: Pages -
Page 184-5, Page 186, Page 215, Pages 219-20, Pages 223-24!
Greenspan said to the Senate that a Small tax cut only if-and-only-if the law ensured the Tax cut eliminated if the surplus needed to cover social security was in trouble. Clinton and Greenspan together targeted US Surplus to save Social Security. Deficit started 1 Month after Bush signed into Law.
mgmontini1 7 months ago
even if they reach a deficit cutting deal there is still going to be a 1trillion plus surplus. How can the US sustain running deficits of over 1 trillion per year? How can we keep borrowing money we don't have and can never pay back?
sanjor8r 7 months ago
You should be a teacher. This video explained it brilliantly!
JAStewart 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
lordcroesus said 1 day ago
Worth repeating!]
Step 1. Cut the 'Defense' budget / pull out of the wars
Step 2. increase taxation on the wealthiest section and close certain loopholes to bring a more balanced tax incidence
Step 3. Stop treating the majority of the population with such contempt.
lordcroesus 1 day ago
sumware 7 months ago
thanks for the video, very clear
culditbemagik 7 months ago
I have this nagging feeling that Republicans (or the Tea Party in particular) WANT America to fail. They're essentially just saying "Let Rome burn"
13WhiteFang37 7 months ago
@faithnotneeded My prior comment was pure sarcasm. If SS was privatized we'd have companies denying seniors payments for pre-existing conditions. There should always be a collaboration between government and the private sector, to give the people options, regulate prices and prevent essential aspects of our societal structure from becoming consumed and corrupted by the search for wealth. If you can afford it, pay for it, if not, you're still good. It's not good to depend heavily on either side.
sirmarlonblack 7 months ago
btw i think you were BORN to TEACH PEOPLE
Eagleman201 7 months ago
Look all this debt ceiling stuff is SIMPLE-Obama is spending $3 Trillion/YR-our tax dollars=only $1.5 Trillion/YR, Tea Party wants to cut Big Gov Spending but Liberals want to keep spending on Hand outs &free everything to Non working-since only working middle class is paying taxes-Liberal spending will keep over spending to non working-that will erode the $ to become worthless. The liberal attitude is a PLAN for Self Destruction & Economic Collapse & Civil WAR but that was always their PLANS!
libertydogfight 7 months ago
@libertydogfight Haha, you sound utterly psychotic. Liberals wants Economic Collapse and Civil War?Sounds serious!
FranklinPiercePierce 7 months ago
The USA is spending an eye watering $2.5bn a day (Yes a day) on fighting wars when the USA is not even under attack but they don’t seem to put that on the table when they talk about debt spending and stopping people pensions who have paid for them all their lives.
MrFlashInvader 7 months ago 3
@MrFlashInvader But the wars are keeping people working in the gun industry busy. And that industry is big in the US
p4ul1z 5 months ago
Aircraft carriers are nuclear powered. But I get your point.
TheHortond 7 months ago
@88roro11 I agree, we are spending too much on nonproductive government functions such as military and industry subsidies whilst taxation (revenue) is anemic. Once Bush tax cuts are repealed, military is cut, and taxes on the wealthiest are increased, we will be much better off. I agree, the Teahadists have betrayed their constituents and now they're going to destroy America and our future as well. Americans cannot (and must not) tolerate economically-violent right wing extremists.
pogokero 7 months ago 2
Comment removed
volcomguy72 7 months ago
Who raises the interest and how does such entity determine how much is the interest raised? So, after all, uncle Sam does have a FICA score, huh
mestizzo 7 months ago
@mestizzo The Fed owns most of the debt so the Fed will raise the interest on that debt. They generally base it on a risk analysis of lending the US the money. As the risk rises, so does the cost of the loan.
Goohuman 7 months ago
@mestizzo See my answer to @SRImperio
echelecopao 7 months ago
we could raise taxes on big corporations (ones that have majority of manufacturing capacity out of the country) then offer tax breaks to those companies to bring the work back to America... also raise taxes on super rich, they can take a hit they already own a tremendous amount of wealth. end unpopular wars, failed drug war and programs like (tsa,dea,fbi,cia, and atf) these secrete police aren't very popular with the people.. and finally end the fed give issuance of currency back to treasury..
88roro11 7 months ago
@88roro11 Bringing more money in via taxation or selling assets is not the problem. The problem is we are living far above our ability to pay. Our politicians have been buying us off with our own money and now they are running out of it and our future money as well. We simply can't go forward spending so much money.
Goohuman 7 months ago
@Goohuman agreed thats why we gotta make actual cuts.. more then 4 trillion over 10 years we gotta make popular cut of at least 2trillion this budget.. STOP all spending over our means.. or shrink the huge lumbering government... i just was giving an idea of how we could bring all our jobs back from "globalism" which just makes cheap labor available.. but you are right tho... i should have been more specific
88roro11 7 months ago
@88roro11 Glad to hear it.
While we are on the subject of jobs, I have a suggestion. I suggest the Gov get out of the business of taking over businesses. The Gov is notoriously inefficient and expensive. If we privatize everything exept the military, the executive, legislative, and judicial branches and maybe hang onto the secret service, I bet we could really cut costs. It would be chaotic at first, but it would settle into a lean, mean government machine. Then all the jobs would come back.
Goohuman 7 months ago
@Goohuman exactly we need a small government.. of they cannot pay for it they cannot have big government.. we should also end these "free trading" agreements which just let jobs to be sent to countries to benefit the wages for corporate hogs and stocks.. we should recoup our manufacturing capacity from china and the third world... start rebuilding our failing infrastructure.. and try exporting instead of importing.. how ever the cheap labor has spoiled every one with cheap crap we call goods...
88roro11 7 months ago
ooh and also re issue a precious metal standard or take away the issuance of currency from a private bank, and give it back to the treasury as to retain the value of the currency.. and to not devalue it and loose its position as the worlds reserve currency, which is happening right now unfortunately...
88roro11 7 months ago
@Goohuman Really? Privatize everything? Where do you want to live? United States of Monsanto and Walmart?
Really, you obviously have no perspective to even comment on such a topic. Privatize everything, lol, small government, lol, you sound like Jefferson preaching about slavery.
sirmarlonblack 7 months ago 3
@sirmarlonblack Yes. The US was at it's most free and prosperous when the government was small and stayed out of the people's business. If you like the way it's going now, just wait. With the powers the gov is giving itself (particularly the president), they will soon have the power to tell you where to live and what job to work at, even when you should die. I doubt it will get that bad, but that's the direction it's going now.
Me? I'd rather choose for myself. Let Freedom Reign!
Goohuman 7 months ago
@Goohuman The Golden Age that you speak of also had progressive income tax up to 90% on the top-earning bracket. Also, an interstate highway system, national school system and cutting-edge aerospace program funded underwritten with public funds. Modern conservatives don't talk about that part so much.
FranklinPiercePierce 7 months ago
@Goohuman foregins involment is not only problem
-foreign involvement
-illegal people
-too much money on military( how could 1 country spend more money than the WHOLE EUROPE)
-education system
-people not paying tax
etc etc
Eagleman201 7 months ago
@Goohuman Some historical facts to unwind your creed of liberty in America since it's inception: slavery, women couldn't vote until the 1960s, only rich white land owners could vote in the beginning. It's always been for the rich, by the rich; they depend on people like you to propagate their agenda and solidify their policy, while getting poorer. John Adams wrote a paper where he talked about giving the lower classes just enough so they wouldn't feel the urge to rebel against the upper classes.
sirmarlonblack 7 months ago
@sirmarlonblack I think you are mistaking the intro of the ERA with voting rights. Slavery still exists, as does racism and poverty etc. Being imperfect and open about it is a sign of freedom. All injustice is open to see.
Though your interpretation is tainted, there was a law tying voting rights to land ownership. This was given up early on as racism and slavery took hold. A free country overcomes these problems as a people. No better way IMO.
Goohuman 7 months ago
@Goohuman How would you classify early sedition laws? Are they an example of openness? How would you classify the fact that from the start there was a conscious effort to decentralize the people's power to unite and impose their interests upon the government? Further, how do you explain the fact that the Treasury, as an example of how it favors the institution rather than the individual, has already promised that it will pay the creditors first on Tuesday, and run IOUs on all public debts?
sirmarlonblack 7 months ago
@Goohuman It wasn't an interpretation, it's fact. If you can point out a historical fact that nullifies that such a law existed, then I'll agree. Slavery operated in America even before the constitution was written, therefore it didn't "replace" voting rights. Voting rights only happened for poor white men because they were organizing and fighting against the government. Policies were created to guarantee indentured servants received land at the end of their contract (cont.)
sirmarlonblack 7 months ago
@Goohuman The politicians at the time had an interest in developing a base (aka a middle class) that wouldn't oppose the established power.
I don't know if you know this, but the founding fathers were the richest men in America when they wrote the constitution. Many of the its amendments and provisions are to guarantee their power. George Washington for example was the single richest and largest land owner in America at the time... (cont.)
sirmarlonblack 7 months ago
@Goohuman They had specific interest to not end slavery (that's why it wasn't originally in the constitution); they had specific interest to not give voting power to the poor whites (indentured servant, squatters, landless whites) because they didn't want them to tip the scale of power established after the revolution. Land was only given out at a great amount of debt.
Get your facts right. Slavery always existed in the US, it wasn't a replacement for voting rights to landless white men.
sirmarlonblack 7 months ago
@Goohuman Also, the US was the most free and prosperous when the government was small? Name one fact to support that. What was the median income? How much did the average American family make?
You will find that you are more than erroneous, you're wandering deep into the regurgitation of talking points area.
sirmarlonblack 7 months ago
@sirmarlonblack Got all these emails, you musta learned your history from a liberal/socialist school or something, I can't figure it out, but I'm here to straighten it out.
Let me start with a disclaimer. My point is that freedom allowed for real ingenuity, which leads naturally to prosperity, so it may be more accurate to say that when we had a small government and were the most free, we grew the most rapidly. We stepped into the Industrial Age, starting right here in the US.
Goohuman 7 months ago
@sirmarlonblack It looks like you or the vid owner deleted some of your comments. That is unfortunate. An honest debate must include everything.
On that note, you dodged defending your own position. Do you believe a big gov is better than a smaller one? You seem to support the communist concept of calling it "power to the people" and actually handing all the people's power to a big government.
You better pray power doesn't corrupt if that is what you want. Is it?
Goohuman 7 months ago
@sirmarlonblack Yes. Privatize everything that can be privatized. I would not privatize the military, as you want to keep that loyal and secure and specifically responsive to the US population as a whole, not business. Otherwise, privatize and keep it fair. Let the competition streamline the processes. Monopolies will arise. Some good, some bad. It is no different than big government out of control except you can legally compete against a business.
Goohuman 7 months ago
@Goohuman How do you legally compete against a monopoly, the definition of a monopoly is that it would not be cost efficient to try to compete against one.
parkj238 6 months ago
@parkj238 Yet monopolies fall. If a business is run so well that they become a monopoly, then I am fine with that. If a monopoly exists because they manipulate the laws to kill the competition, then that is an example of a monopoly that should be dismantled by the government.
We've seen steel, oil and communications monopolies in the past that were broken up. Regardless, I believe they would have fallen anyway when the top guy leaves or passes on. Watch Walmart. I give it 10 more years.
Goohuman 6 months ago
@Goohuman I don't see too much of a difference between monopolies and dictatorship regimes. Dictatorship regimes fall too.
parkj238 6 months ago
@McGarrityMichaelP if they default, the USD will be crap so they shouldn't do that. Also, they won't default even if they run out of money. Obama will just keep borrowing and say "screw you" to the republicans who won't do anything to stop it because, if they do, everyone will hate them for being tight asses about "following the law" when if they do what's "legal", it'll screw up the economy. Sal explained this in the 2nd (old) video before he took them down.
davidleger11 7 months ago
The explanation in this video was very well done. I understood everything except I have one question. WHO are the people/organizations that increase the interest rates on the United States? WHO are the ones giving the credit ratings?
SRImperio 7 months ago
@SRImperio The interest rate is increased by the lending market. All the people who lend money to the US would demand a higher interest for those same loans given the fact that now there is a higher perceived risk that they may not be paid back. Think of it this way: If you want to make a profit by lending your money and charging interest on it, who will you charge more interest to? Someone who you're sure will pay back all of the money? or someone who may only able to pay back 95% of the money?
echelecopao 7 months ago
@echelecopao Interest rates are not technically increased by the lending market. The way they price their interest typically follows Federal Reserve policies, because much of the time, they're getting their loans at rates defined by the Fed. It does trickle down to the lending market, and the companies that are a part of it, but it begins with Fed policy.
sirmarlonblack 7 months ago
@echelecopao Also what you're referring to at the end is unclear. Loan differentiation is common practice in the every industry that deals with lending. That's why you have credit ratings to individuals and institutions. A group of people's credit worthiness does not define the interest rates of the market, they're a result of the government policies, and the big financial institutions that depend on it to get the money to borrow.
sirmarlonblack 7 months ago
@echelecopao (cont.) Basically, you're confusing industry practices with government policy.
sirmarlonblack 7 months ago
@SRImperio Interest rates are regulated by the Federal Reserve.
Credit ratings are designated by private financial institutions. The big three are: Moody's, S&P and Fitch.
The big three are the same institutions that gave AAA ratings to collateralized debt obligations (aka - mortgage backed securities). I think you remember what those assets caused.
sirmarlonblack 7 months ago
Step 1. Cut the 'Defense' budget / pull out of the wars
Step 2. increase taxation on the wealthiest section and close certain loopholes to bring a more balanced tax incidence
Step 3. Stop treating the majority of the population with such contempt.
lordcroesus 7 months ago 36
@lordcroesus: Right on.
yarafeld 7 months ago
@lordcroesus Don't think taxing the wealthiest is the best idea. Who creates the jobs? The 'wealthy' people want to keep their lifestyle, they would just not hire anyone new if they got taxed more per employee or because they are successful. You don't get ahead by punishing people for rising above.
Draelren 7 months ago
@Draelren
This is it: Unions have their uses but they scream for more jobs and job security while also campaigning for measures which inevitably make hiring someone more difficult.
JAStewart 7 months ago
@Draelren Seriously! You are still buying that con job? The trickle down theory has had 30 years to prove itself and has failed to do so in a BIG way.
disisdkat 7 months ago
@lordcroesus Congratulations, you're a Democrat. That solves everything!
djadvance22 7 months ago
@lordcroesus If I could give you a high five through the internet I would
SpideysEvilTwin 7 months ago
@lordcroesus
lol @ ignorant trolls from reddit
l33tpwnzord 7 months ago
Comment removed
21scuderia 7 months ago
@lordcroesus why should the wealthiest bear more of the burden? What is meant by treating the majority of the population w/ such contempt?
thefish103 6 months ago
@lordcroesus What about Glass-Steagall?!
ComfortablyUnnumb 6 months ago
@lordcroesus I agree to cut the military, we have far more than we need and people can take care of themselves, but I believe income tax is immoral. Without it everyone could do whatever they want with their money, the nation would have a sane budget and would try to please donators. (no one gets rich by catering to the rich, the government would do what the vast majority wants) I hope you left-winger one day understand that some rich are honest and deserving and others cheat. I'm not prejudice.
TravistheHuman 6 months ago
Comment removed
aydarsh 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TravistheHuman Do you think that a consumption tax is a better alternative instead of the income tax?
aydarsh 6 months ago
@aydarsh Good question. No. We have both here in Maine and the government still spends crazy, especially under the left. It hurts the poor (not as much as inflation) and is simply immoral. Most forms of tax are theft. We once just did user fees and tariffs. Tariffs are like consumption tax so I don't promote them. I would like to see the government depend on user fees and donations, but it would need to cut at lest 90% to work, maybe 98%. I think everyone would be richer if it did shrink.
TravistheHuman 6 months ago
@lordcroesus
step 4. reset all the bank system
lefantomedepanam 6 months ago
I understand that the world runs on debt and credit, and I know the US isn't the only country in debt or running in debt (not alone by a long chalk) but realistically this is rubbish!!! The US will never be able to pay off 14 trillion in complete. The UK is the same, it has a massive debt yet it will never pay it off!
Why is national debt allowed to get this big!?? How can countries pay off debt completely??
clodester 7 months ago
makes sense
guitarczar15 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
vote Gary Johnson
sheppa60 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
vote Gary Johnson
sheppa60 7 months ago
What are the debt markets? How do they operate?
212jbh 7 months ago
Man thanks for explaining it! Thats crazy!!!!! This country is going downhill!
ElectricRocklee 7 months ago
Agreed, Sal should actually run for presidency. Who wouldn't vote for him?
HarryHumpo 7 months ago 3
Salman Khan for president cause he tells things as it is.
hexapod2000 7 months ago 27
all the banks should bail us out of debt
mghostproductions 7 months ago
You deserve a noble prize Sal, thanks for all your videos. we need more ppl like you in this day and age.
yusifamda 7 months ago 2
I really can't understand why only a law is sufficent to prevent U.S. default. U.S. colud set the debt limit to infinite... and, theoretically, they won't default any more!
nanotube09 7 months ago
Pls Mr Sal, 2011 debt ceiling crisis video
oaraboi 7 months ago
You failed to mention that the FED sets interest rates so even if the US defaults it doesn't matter interest rates won't go up. Also you seem to be under the delusion that the US doesn't have any leverage with other countries that can "convince" them to keep borrowing. The US happens to be the only superpower left in the world and if you don't think it takes advantage of that fact you're mistaken.
McDicker96 7 months ago
@McDicker96 This is a mistaken view. The FED only controls the inter bank lending rate not the "world interest rate". If the US defaults it won't matter what the federal funds rate is, loss of confidence in the dollar will make foreign capital for American business very expensive. The point where I would agree with you is that the US has taken advantage of it's reserve currency status - it is because of this that the US has been able to benefit from very cheap credit flows.
MrPlender 7 months ago
@MrPlender I know there's no world interest rate the FED can set, however if other countries want access to T-bonds, they have no where to turn except the US. Where else are they going to get AAA rated T bonds? Even if the US defaults, which is highly doubtful since anyone who follows US politics knows its a mere formality, its not as if there's some other country that's going to step in. Its as absurd as thinking another fiat could replace the dollar as a reserve currency.
McDicker96 7 months ago
@McDicker96 To continue from my previous post: That said, the FED has very little power over foreign credit flows and whether there is any empirically discernible correlation between the federal funds rate and foreign capital flows is a contentious area of debate.
MrPlender 7 months ago
@MrPlender And look at interest rates, now with all this talk of a putative apocalypse right around the corner, and they're as placid as they ever were. There's not going to any real world consequence to any of this outside the realm of partisan politics.
McDicker96 7 months ago
George W. Bush raised it 7 times! Where were the teabaggers then? 18 times by Reagan!
lildoeidgrl45 7 months ago
"2011 Debt Ceiling Crisis" please
dimomid 7 months ago
Why were the 2 videos removed? Please put them back. Thank youl;
eburger2 7 months ago
Can you make a video of this in relation to fiat currency? The government is the source of our money. If the government ran surpluses then eventually all the money would be pulled out of circulation. A debt ceiling wouldn't just stop the government from growing, but also the economy.
DeathGodKnight 7 months ago
Watch the video: Peter Schiff Responds to Timothy Geithner on Debt Ceiling - "He's just making this stuff up!"
cilution 7 months ago 2
Why does the United States Government borrow the money it prints?
schroeder8911 7 months ago
Excellent explanation. Thanks!
Mycochef 7 months ago
Plain and Simple Thank YOU as always
12101andyoutub 7 months ago
@PressForFreedom yes you are right debt is slavery
homousios 7 months ago
@homousios I was watching another video which suggested that the Federal Reserve loan the Government money, with interest. This interest can never be repaid (it just creates more debt, perpetually), thus resulting in, as you say, eternal slavery. There are some select few right at the top of this pyramid scheme (scam), who have everything, and care about nothing below them. The debt/slavery system is just a method of control to enslave people, and I think it's on the verge of collapse, globally.
parkamark 7 months ago
The August 2nd deadline is ridiculous because it matches congress recess is not a real deadline, Geithner is basically lying to us in order to make sure congress get this done sooner, and do it like in the past which is "just raise it forever"; Which to be honest doesn't make any sense at all!
igorgue 7 months ago
No matter how you put it, you need to cut spending. You can't just maintain a deficit and raise the debt ceiling when required forever, eventually you're going to have to cut spending and reduce the debt. Of course, this is going to fall on young people like me. I say we let the old people get evicted from their homes. They're the one's that got us into this mess, only seems fair.
NSO3451 7 months ago
The whole thing is tiring. Yes the government is spending too much money, but this tactic isn't smart and will not end well.
Ana1106 7 months ago
I have come up with the solution which would help USA out of the debt.
Remember how we used to thought that USA invaded Iraq because of its oil?If that indeed was the case, then this would be the perfect time to start selling Iraqi oil to the rest of the world!
f0revern0ty0urs2 7 months ago
6:56 "Companies have to support"... Freudian slip? Our country has been sold to the highest bidders and works for this company. We don't have to, but in an honest world we should default to validate our system, but since our system isn't valid anyways, we really shouldn't default.
mnmmoose14 7 months ago
Fantastic job shedding much needed light on this issue by defining the terminology, explaining the history of these routine debt ceiliing increases, and exploring economic outcomes. All of which, mainstream media/education doesn't do which leaves 80% of citizens with feelings of confusion & hopelessness, thus making them disenfranchised and/or polarized. Your students, especially kids, are smarter because of you. For society's sake, these topics may be your most important to make Sal. Thank you!
chrisg220 7 months ago 2
Sal for President!
NaviShergrillz 7 months ago
@NaviShergrillz Ron Paul as president Sal for vice president :)
mikeroweRules12 7 months ago
@mikeroweRules12 Ron Paul would be a terrible president
begalthegreat 7 months ago
@begalthegreat
Btw you made a typo.. it should read "Ron Paul would be an incredible president" :)
volcomguy72 7 months ago
@volcomguy72 yeah a senile ultra religious guy who want the states to decide so if a state wants to bring back segregation they could would be a great president, get real
begalthegreat 7 months ago
@begalthegreat
So? I'm atheist and I don't care about his religion. Yeah there are some retarded messed up rednecks out there but do you honestly believe the majority of people would vote in segregation again? Even in that ULTRA-RARE chance, a much bigger number of people (which are also more educated and motivated) would do everything they could to stomp it out, and that segregation won't even have a blink in history. Why are you so scared? How about you get real lol.
volcomguy72 7 months ago
@begalthegreat
What I just said in that last comment, that's how it should be. The PEOPLE should have the right to have what they want, under the constitution. Cause once that fictional "segregation" is stomped out then maybe, under Ron's smaller government, we'll realize our power and not let dumbass politicians rule over our lives. The govt makes the dumbest mistakes, bullies its citizens around, and even violates its own constitution. You might be OK with that but I'm not.
volcomguy72 7 months ago
@mikeroweRules12 Sal Governale?
spinynorman1982 7 months ago