YAWN. There you go again, Beck Haters. Call names. Use clever profanity. But strangely you guys never - F'ING EVER - document any supposed lie, racism or "insane babble" by Mr. Beck. Well... still waiting... LOL
Simple solution 99% of the world knows( Or will realize) that most cash transactions are abstract or digital :This is the world bankers( banksters ) smoke and mirrors .Wealth is tangible.America re-industrialize.What Happen to Yankee ingenuity? Quit believing in the World bankers Paper and digital icons,it is just Smoke and mirrors. The two Windbags(fear mongers)on the clip above have no answers .There just Banker loving scarecrows with smoke and mirror Kowtowing to an false idol.Try Reciprocity
@ThatHaloGuy117"Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it." - Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, October 3, 2001
U.S will continue to be the greatest power nation in the world ...... It's just a bad time, but the U.S never can be underestimated ..... I hope the U.S stand up again.Hi from Brazil
This free fall economy will be so hard on all americans when the big crash comes! Most know the train is going off the tracks but no one gets off this train and just hopes the crash will come later on! Thankyou. James Sasse.
@ReddoFreddo: wow, you are very delusional. We in Holland/Denmark have, as said before, a much better happiness rating, much more stable economy and balanced politics than the US. And even if you stick to more traditional metrics of wealth and standard of living Holland and Denmark are at least on the same level, and in most metrics ahead of the U.S. e.g. take the HDI 2010: Holland 0.818, Denmark 0.810, USA 0.799. GDP/PPP per capita: Holland and Denmark closely following the US. Look it up.
In the past hour the keepers of the power in the modern democratic society had the following to say to the world.
"There's nothing more important to us than making sure we do whatever is necessary to respond to any concerns," 8 January, from an office in the United States
Thank you for pointing out your previous intention, your intention and your coming intention with the world, others. I could not have unmasked your criminal objectives so smoothly without your help.
If you want to see the badness of socialism... search Holland or Denemark or whatever on google. all those poore people that dont have money for corvettes swimmingpools etc.. Just because their goverment wants that everyone can go to the hospital if they have cancer or aids. Or that everyone has a warm house. So sad. I live in Holland and I could have a bigger car but the goverment wants to help people so now i only have an a4 instaid of an a8. And the a4 daoesnt have 400 hp but only 250...
@ReddoFreddo The data does not support what you're saying. Denmark is #1 on the global happiness index listing, and Holland is 15. I currently have a car with less than 250 horsepower, and I see no reason to purchase one with more. I'd also much rather have a heated house and have healthcare than a more powerful car. I live in the U.S. If my employer doesn't give me health insurance, I'm out of luck because of my pre-existing condition. Allergies.
I guarantee all the Republican idiots posting here making under 100k. I also guarantee most make under 50k. Do you realize your own party FUCKS do DAILY because of that? Yet you're so stupid you can't even see it. I bet you're mostly Christian too. What about helping your fellow man? Does it say help your fellow man - except if you make under 100k, you're a minority, you're gay, you're concerned about the environment or you want healthcare for EVERYONE so no one suffers? Hypocritcal racists.
@liquifex Do you realize that if taxes are raised on those earning over $250,000, it would effect countless small businesses? GM and big labor can't employ everybody, small businesses are vital. I doubt it, since virtually everyone on the left is an economic illiterate who makes financial decisions based on emotion rather than facts.
@jimbad05 I don't think you understand this, but maybe you do and you've seen far different numbers than me. If we were to tax those earning over $250,000 at a specially high rate it would certainly hurt. But that's not how taxes work. Taxing those earning over $250,000 would tax only the income ABOVE the $250,000 mark. The rest would be left alone. I'm also not sure if you can consider something a "small business" if the owner is making over a quarter of a million.
@Saefroch Your local grocery store may very well make over $250,000. I think they're the standard small business people think of, and a major employer and economic player at the local level. Taxing them more means less employees, less bakery personnell, fewer donations to the local school, reduced hours for the butchers, longer payment times to vendors, etc etc. A business is a very complex thing, I don't think a former community organizer can really understand this.
@jimbad05 This is income tax on the individual, not businesses. Taxing the individual owner of a grocery store will not result in less employment. Let's use economic thinking for a bit. If the owner quit his job, what's his next best option. The income he'd make doing that plus $1 is the amount of money that will induce him to keep his job. Everything above that is economic rent, and the government can take a portion of that without hurting his employees.
@Saefroch If the owner is a sole proprietor, his profits from the store are considered the same as individual profits. Corporate tax rates are another matter entirely. A tax hike, at a time when many sole proprietorships are struggling due to this long recession, will undoubtedly force some businesses to close.
I find it laughable that the president can spend $787 Billion on failed economic stimulus, yet claim that there is no money to extend current tax rates.
@jimbad05 If you are making 250k in Profits you would be a moron to be a sole proprietor, a complete moron. You would become a C-Corp and pay way less in taxes. It is very simple if you make 250k a year or more Vote Republican, if you make less Vote Democrat to do otherwise is voting against your own financial interest. It would be like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders.
@thecomicsitedotcom So people should just automatically vote for whichever party promises the bigger handout? I'm shocked to see that the old Democrat vote-buying scandals of the Tammany Hall days haven't ended, they've just evolved.
I prefer to vote on principle. I believe that low taxes help everyone, and can actually raise government revenue (via the Laffer Curve). I believe that demonizing success, wealth, and business leads us down a dangerous, destructive and non-prosperous path.
Taxes are a handout? Really? As a percentage of discretionary income people earning the national average ~40k pay nearly 90% while people above 250k pay 25%. To make matters worse most of the 500k+ crowd earn it from unearned income. So we tax people like teachers,police,firefighters more than we tax a pile of money. Sounds like an Oligarchy not a Democracy to me.
@thecomicsitedotcom You're right, higher than necessary taxes suck for everyone. It's one reason I hate government waste fraud and abuse. I'm also livid at the fact that the average government worked earns $120,000/year (when counting benefits) compared to an average of $60,000/year in the private sector. Also, about 50% of Americans pay no income tax. You're advocating the creation of a permanent recipient underclass on the backs of the rich. Does that sound like prosperity to you?
@jimbad05 Right now we have a recipient class of rich (I'm talking top 1% here) on the backs of every day joes that go to work and are taxed at a higher rate than a pile of money? That seems equitable to you? We tax UNEARNED income lower than earned income does that seem right to you?
@thecomicsitedotcom Most economists actually agree with limited taxation of capital gains. Would you rather a rich person blow their cash on champagne and ice sculptures, or plow their money back into the economy via stocks, bonds and new business startups? Investments help others and create jobs, consumption... not so much. It's important, from an economic sense, to encourage investment rather than consumption.
Educate yourself. Don't be another economically illiterate liberal.
@jimbad05 I'm a little confused. Maybe I'm economically illiterate, but I don't quite see the difference between capital investment and consumption. To me, capital investment is consumption by a business in the factor market.
Purchase of stocks and bonds is not stimulative.
All economists agree that progressive taxation (like the U.S. income tax) distorts incentives, and causes problems for the economy. They also agree that a proportional tax does not distort incentives.
I'm interested, where did you get that figure "50% of Americans pay no income tax"
I also haven't found any results that show a difference of 100% between average public and private sector incomes, can you tell me where you got that figure as well?
@jimbad05 Do you know how many people make over $250,000? Avg in come is ~$39,000. The economic stimulus didn't fail. Not by a long shot. Many economists now saw we should have spent MORE. If the economic stimulus failed, we'd see unemployment probably over 20%, and a permanent unemployment >10%, which will happen anyway if nobody does anything to fix the economy.
@Saefroch Uh huh. Those same economists have now fled the White House (Summers, Romer). They claimed we needed to pass it immediately to contain unemployment under 8%. It's currently near 10%. They claimed it would be free of fraud, while investigations showed thousands going to non-existent Congressional districts. All it accomplished is it supposedly delayed the layoff of many teachers, police and firefighters, though it's impossible to know how many of the threatened layoffs were BS bluster.
@xdudeyourcool Here's what I know: The idea is to cut taxes for the rich, who are assumed to be business-owners, and thus by cutting taxes, you increase jobs and income for the workers, who then pay more in income taxes and more than make up for the lost tax revenue. I however, see two large flaws: No business that I know of will produce if there is no demand, and I've never seen any data supporting supply-side economics. If you can find some, I'd be very interested.
@Saefroch Income tax... not only is it a nuisance but it is against the constitution. that is not Trickle-down economics. You got some of it right but its not about making up for the tax cuts but more about what it would do to the economy. People will spend more because their income is raised. If more people are spending more, which is an indicator of a healthy economy, then the tax cuts would be made up by the increase in sales tax. Read about it. Its very interesting how it all fits together.
@xdudeyourcool Amendment 16. I think it's very interesting how supply-side economics is supposed to work, but what I find more surprising is that every time I try to explain that to a businessperson, they're confused. Businesses are demand-driven. They don't produce if there is no demand.
So can you explain to me how the income of workers is raised? I'm still a little confused there...
@Saefroch trickle down economics/supply side economics... doesn't work at all..... It failed during reagan's presidency and failed during bush's presidency. All people do (btw the middle class and poor don't get the tax breaks) is get their massive paychecks due to low income tax, and store their wealth in untaxable offshore bank accounts. That's trickle down failed economics for you, a ploy for the rich.
@Andy180084 You pretty much just stated my current opinion on supply-side economics. I was hoping that maybe I could have some sort of fact or statistic-based discussion of it with somebody who disagrees with us, but I guess they all flee as soon as you ask for things like that.
@xdudeyourcool you just gave the exact definition of trickle down economics... it doesn't work at all..... It failed during reagan's presidency and failed during bush's presidency. All people do (btw the middle class and poor don't get the tax breaks) is get their massive paychecks due to low income tax, and store their wealth in untaxable offshore bank accounts. That's trickle down failed economics for you, a ploy for the rich.
@breagadoir Not sure you understand the words you used in that last comment. While Beck is a Rightest, most all his facts can be researched and proven positive.
What a MORON... and guess what? Now the UPPER middle class or mid business owners are next...because NOW the UPPER ESCHILON..is picking them next for extermination..like the lower middle class people just went through. And because most of them are republicans who think they are in the rich "CLUB"..are going to soon realize they will be in the "other club" where they are starving with the majority. It will be too late to LOOK UP as the cause of their problems and not downwards to point blame.
Glenn, like usual, is correct. You can't help but like a guy who thinks before he speaks and believes in human RIGHTS as well as human RESPONSIBILITIES. The latter may be even more important.
No body in Washington, or any state government is going to do anything to save any of us.........WE are the only thing that is going to Save Us! What are we waiting for? Stop giving your power away. Stop listening to everyone else. Your knowledge based on your own experience is the only thing to be trusted....Regan said "Trust, with verification". Believe in only YOURSELVES
Funny thing is, ever since GB joined Fox News he's the target of the leftist media. But, while he was with HLN they didn't have a problem with him putting down Bush. Regardless, of the fact that he's a libertarian.
our debt multiplied 5 fold in one year under the lord and savior obama. we need a TRUE CONSERVATIVE to get us out of this mess then a libertarian to keep us out.
As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice. ...And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly, it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people -Adolf Hitler
Nah. Reagan and Cheney were both RepubliCons. Eighty percent of our national debt was run up under just three presidents: Reagan, Bush and Junior Bush. All RepubliCons.
I entirely blame junior Bush for his deficit, as he was an irresponsible neocon. Reagan cut taxes dramatically, but still had to deal with a Democratic Congress which wasn't willing to cut government programs enough. Even so, the economic growth from Reagan's tax cuts had begun to outstrip the national debt.
Meanwhile, Bush Sr. made the unpopular decision to raise taxes, which later allowed Clinton to balance the budget.
As to Reagan, you'll find that he never once in eight years submitted a balanced budget to Congress. You'll also find that Reagan Republicans controlled the Senate until 1983. The 1983 - 1987 expansion that Republicans are always thumping their chests about was a typical strong recovery from a brutal recession.
yeah being a fairly moderate person who believes in limited government I hate people who get true conservatives mixed up with this tragically cool fad of neoconservative. Oh well. Although Ron Paul's ideas are kind of out there, and I don't think they all work. They run more with the traditional pre WWII united states version of conservatism.
How can we spread Capitalism and Democracy when our economy is sustained by Communist and Facist governments. We have to correct ourselves via a national reset. We must scale back to the gold standard and reduce cost of living. 40yrs ago the average worker worked 30yrs retired owned his home outright had a pension, social security, and medicare. If your uder the age of 50 there is a good chance you won't have any of this at retirement.
@gruhonjic that's a good idea except that you remove the free market, prices of everything will go way up (because we won't work for as little as we will), and good luck keeping the big companies in the united states.
@mikejp2008 First off, why should you guys 'Spread Democracy and Capitalism'... Secondly I don't think you understand the terms 'Communist' and 'Facist', like most Americans do... Go to college before you start talking
We should only be spreading capitalism by example not by gun nor should we be spreading democracy but the idea to use democracy as a tool. People get confused that America is a democracy. It's not, its a republic. The founders knew this and wanted America to stay out of foreign wars and foreign alliances. We've somehow came to the point that the country is being ran like a Democracy.. that needs fixed along with alot of other stuff.
@mikejp2008 Using the gold standard again would hit the economy hard, something we really don't need. There simply isn't enough gold on the earth to insure all the money that exists. And who's to say who's money would be destroyed? The only other option is to make money worthless. 40 years ago the average worker lived for 7 less years. The last few years of life are the most costly (in terms of healthcare) of any person's life. That's why Medicare and Social Security seem in such dire straights.
Buying a house or refinancing is a total rip off. No wonder States are having budget deficits. I tried to refinance my house and to avoid the PMI, I needed $4000 in closing costs. This was even after I had put 20% down back in 2006. I know I am going save something on the interest in the long run, but I said screw it. If I loose my job, I will take my 401k and pay for the house. I don't care about the 40% hit. At least I will have the house and maybe social security to buy food.
The bottom line is that if you're my age, you were raised by the only culture that celebrates getting something for nothing. Everyone wants to be Paris Hilton and Ferris fucking Bueller. All this free market dogma just reinforces that, because it is basically telling you to go ahead and be a totally selfish prick because the system is fueled by greed.
Americans are the problem; It's as clear as day, but everone prefers to go back into the shadows, for fear of the consequences.
gov. and efficient aren't allowed in the same sentence - like obama said i love this quote "fedex and ups do fine and look at the u.s. postal service" i love when idiots show their stupidity.
"gov. and efficient aren't allowed in the same sentence"
Canada's system is so effecient that only 8% of all money spent on health care is needed for administrative costs. Our government-free system spends about 25% on admin costs, which increases to about 32% if you look strictly at for-profit hospitals.
Because if a cashier at McDonalds hands me a cup of coffee through the drive through and I put it in my lap and burn myself. If a court rewards me millions of dollars, "How dare McDonalds give me a cup of HOT coffee", then my friends and family are going to see this as an easy way to get money. No different in the health care sector. A doctor orders tests that aren't needed to "cover their ass", there by driving the price of health care through the roof.
"Or should we only let those who can afford their own roads to drive?" In previous times that what happened. Until Hitler invented super highways to move his tanks around, and paid for the highways through theft on a continental scale. There are limits to what tax can provide since we will not go down that option we are limited in what we can tac to produce.
You have to admit that it's a bit more effecient to build roads with tax dollars. I would argue the same is true for health care.
And I'll admit there are limits to what taxes can provide. We have more than enough money to take care of our sick if we stop policing the globe, and close down the bureacratic DHS, and cut a little fat off our defence spending. We are in the nuclear age.
You are mistaken that it is "more efficient to build roads with tax dollars (or health care)". There is a long history of private roads and the first American Turnpike was a private road. Government doesn't do "efficient".
When I said "build roads", I meant build roads, not build one turnpike, or just the category of highways. It may be more efficient for the occasional highway, but imagine building Chicago's infrastructure without government intervention. It would be a nightmare. How would you pay for it? Would you stop at every light and pay a toll? If there was competition, then probably you would. If there wasn't competition, the roads would be atrocious. Either way, it would be significantly less efficient.
I'm looking to buy some retirement land in Utah. Part of the contract is that I'll be responsible for a 1 mile stretch of the road that runs along the property. The broker actually said, "If you keep this clean and mowed, the city can't tax us and we save about $2,000 a year in property tax". Would I pay someone $2,000 to do a job that I can do once a month, or even 4 times a year if I'm lazy?
Does this make Beck's fan base feel smart because they think they know something that requires research. Well maybe Beck should research the fall of the Soviet Union. It had NOTHING to do with a lack of financing for the military. Their military was financed better than ours. The problem was that their entire military was blind drunk 24/7, so nothing ever worked.
Actually their entire economy was destroyed slowly over 80 years. Production targets using outdated methods were always increased to keep pace with us, the West, which was unachievable. Their products when completed were absolute rubbish. Nothing worked. Have you heard of the food queues? Research them. Plus the brightest people were always sent to die in Siberia. A great system, hey US Democratic Party, isn't that your model?
Of course the Soviet Union's economy was slowly destroyed by a 100% command economy (which is not socialism by the way, go read Capital if you think I'm joking).
And it's well documented that, even up until the end, they spent more money than we did on defence almost every year and produced more nukes than we did, less accurate, but certainly not "rubbish". Their economic collapse was one of the reasons the USSR dissolved, but it had nothing to do with a lack of defence spending.
I could talk about defence spending but I'm not. I'm talking regular economic activity. Televisions, cars, pipes, trousers, carpets. They were ALL rubbish. E.g. Televisions towards the end, to meet yearly production targets, were assembled by hammering the screws towards the end of the target year.
Without consumers having the choice to reject that simple product, the society failed. And in a macroeconomic scale, to choice in the large decisions, the society failed.
"I could talk about defence spending but I'm not."
I'm guessing this is because I began the conversation talking about defence spending, and because you aren't a grown up, you don't yet fully understand how to carry on a proper conversation.
And we're agreed that command economies suck. But as I said, command economies are not the trademark of a proper socialist society, nor are they by any means a good tool for comparison for you and your comrade.
So explain how socialist models are not command economies. The governments end up controlling more than 50% of economic activity. The people not working draw welfare up and up until the profitable workforce that remains end up paying for those who can't work rather than churn profits into developing society.
Why do I talk about OTHER than defence spending? Despite the Soviet military being the biggest sector of their economy, they collapsed as nothing else worked apart from the Moscow trains
Well, first of all, I believe everyone in the USSR was employed. No one got paid, and life was generally horrible for them, that is correct.
However, the idea of people who don't work living off of the profits of those who work the hardest seems to fit capitalism a lot better. Ideal socialism would have no government. The dictatorship of the proletariat that Lenin instituted was his way of bridging the gap to the ideal socialist state, which a true Marxist may consider a rediculous proposal.
Where do you think Profits go? Into thin air? They are either paid as dividends to real people, who spend them in the real economy, or reinvested into growing new plantations, or mines, or airports, or designing better freight ships, or inventing products to make people's lives better.
Welfare does nothing but pay unprofitable people the fruits of working people's labour. And since it is limited they don't go off to make their own businesses on welfare money. It all goes on sloth or survival
The majority of it in the U.S. right now? Fewer and fewer hands in larger and larger piles. Disparity is good and natural in capitalism up to a point. Then it creates ineffeciency, under-consumption, and highly above average interest rates.
What do you think is more of a contribution to the "real economy": the local grocer's food stamp revenue, or the average lobbyist's seven figure salary?
What inefficiency can you name. Heres some: Democratic Congress mandating a bank to give loans to people who can never repay (Freddie/Fannie). All sorts of people have said that's bad policy for 15 years but no one listened until the bubble burst.
Food stamps? More inefficient welfare, people should be out earning money to pay for their own groceries.
Lobbyists are a symptom of unrestricted excessive government, they are suckers of a nations' wealth.
It's theoretically ineffecient all the way around. I mean imagine one person with all the money, and everyone else with none. Can that one person come up with all the necessary innovations and cost-saving measures to be truly productive in every single market? Of course not, and it doesn't work with two people, or three. Where the line is, is not crystal clear, but it is more than obvious, that at some point, a concentration of wealth is ineffecient.
Ahh...the 'concentration of wealth'...have you been reading Marx? Look around you, in the last 300 years the middle class, people who have wealth to spend on themselves rather than base survival, has grown and grown. They all have cars, holidays, nice houses. Are they concentrating wealth? Have you ever looked at the accounts of a major corporation? Wooo hey make evil profits... oooo evil. But each spend millions on salaries and trade expenses. There are also rich people, and there always willbe
I actually have read Marx, and since you are so adamant about arguing against socialism, I highly suggest that you brush up on him. One thing he would tell you is that the move from feudalism to capitalism (that took place "in the last 300 years") has created more equity, but before the capitalist revolution, feudalism created a growing disparity of wealth and power. The same thing that one could argue is happening within the capitalistic stage.
My family are descended from an unremarkable ancestry and my grandparents were poor before WWII. But better off than their grandparents. Capitalism has led my parents who started as teachers to near retirement living in a $2million house, with millions more in investment property. I personally have 2 cars including one 'classic', 3 degrees and a comfortable life. I and my parents are middle class and worked for ourselves to gain what we have. There is no disparity of wealth. Common people own it
Than you still enjoy the fruits of a remarkably fortunate situation. But you can't argue with the numbers, the disparity is growing, and the middle class is becoming a thing of the past. I am from Youngstown Ohio, and I have seen where this country is going, because it has already happened there.
And yes, a good amount of blame rests on the shoulders of the people with there hands out, but more so on several lazy, negligent, and incompetent millionaires.
So the fact that something like 0.5% of the population reaped about 80% of the GDP for the last 20 years doesn't constitute disparity in your mind? Where are your 3 degrees from? U of Phoenix?
and that 0.5% sold all their stock to china, and now they're hanging in the Hamptons, and China now owns 80% of America. The really sad thing is that pretty soon in won't matter if you "buy American", because the "American"companies will be owned by the Chinese. Not that the Chinese are bad or anything, it's just a factual point that Chinese investors will sell any second for a profit. China is just being noticed because China is the first one of many.
"Have you ever looked at the accounts of a major corporation?"
If you're talking about financial statements, a few dozen actually. I am about to graduate magna cum laude with a B.S.B.A. I'm all for wal-mart, they are remarkably effecient and productive; they deserve to be "big". Insurance companies on the other hand don't add any productivity to the economy. They provide a service we could provide for ourselves, and because of that their profits are necessarily a source of ineffeciency.
Neither of us are able to convince one another to change their views. I believe in freedom, small government and individual liberty that lead to the generation of wealth, and the power of Christ to guide people morally to live well and share their blessings with their fellow man.
You have 'socialism' but did not spell out what it is to you. No doubt you will reply sarcastically but I have to get back to the real world and focus on my work. Best of luck with your studies. Grow out of socialism!
Should the govt have gotten involved with the housing market? Probably not, but if they had done everything the same, and also regulated the realtors that were doling out no-doc sub prime loans to any random speculator like cotton candy at a state fair, we would probably have not had any housing crisis.
Not to mention that by taking this line of reasoning you are standing behind some of the most atrocious practices like red-lining.
Russia's economy was only one reason why they dissolved the Union. One of the most remarkable reasons is because the military (who arguably profited the most from the Soviet regime) stayed out of the political revolution, and allowed Yeltsin and a wave of Russian nationalism to overturn the Socialists. Not to mention that this was after they already attempted a coup.
The idea that somehow socialism just grinds to a halt on its own because of economic woes is a dangerous simplification.
Again: 'explain how socialist models are not command economies'. What model IN THE REAL WORLD works outside fantasies. Norway/Sweden: Massive government, never ceasing welfare. Burma: Military socialist dictatorship. Zimbabwe: Racist socialism, massive government that steals from the only people left with any money. Cuba: Bankrupt socialism since the day the Soviets dissolved. People can't wait to escape to Florida, capitalism and Freedom. Venezuela/Bolivia : Only just beginning to steal wealth
Not all governments are what they say they are, e.g. Iran claims to be a democracy.
The point is that there is no reason for you to align yourself against socialism. Tyranny, dictatorships, an unfair distribution of wealth, and maybe social welfare are the things you should be arguing against.
It's dangerous and innaccurate to call any govt. action "socialism". You're just exploiting the negative connotation of the word and people's general ignorance of the actual ideology it represents.
I'm not calling all govt action socialism. Small governments that respect their consitutions, encourage business and personal enterprise by low tax rates, enforce their borders justly, do not regulate every action of the common man...that is good government.
Government can steer society by policy, but the engine is business, the wheels and drive train are the common people and culture, the door locks are the courts and police and the airbags are the church. Govt cannot be all the above too.
Then you should have no problem with the public option health care proposal.
After all, I'm sure you aren't opposed to tax funded infrastructure like the roads you drive on. Or should we only let those who can afford their own roads to drive?
Oh, and considering the progress that the Soviets made from 1917 through WWII, it is reasonable to expect that they could have come to match our technological prowess if we hadn't shut them off, taken West Germany, and allied NATO against them. They had an agrarian economy prior to 1917, it's amazing that they even tried to compete with the whole of the industrialized world.
Are you revising history? Glorifying a failed system which is relegated to history?
Even the agrarian policy of the Soviets, collective farms, was a failure.
Read 'Return to the Future' by Sigrid Undset, published 1942. It has chapters on the misery of the Soviet working class before the Soviets were betrayed in their alliance with the National Socialists.
Read 'Hunted Through Central Asia' by Paul/Pavel Nazaroff (1932, reprint 2002) which describes the early destruction of industry.
"Glorifying a failed system which is relegated to history"
A) An adult would be hard pressed to interperet my previous comments as praise for the Soviet Union. I was merely trying to point out the inaccuracy of Beck's comments. I was not trying to say that he was wrong for being a capitalist. Go get your father maybe he can explain this to you.
B) If it's relegated to history, why are you guys so concerned about it?
gogo you mormon cult loving hater of life. forever happy to hear your hot ass blowing in the wind. shut this tub of shit up. he's dangerous for us repubs. palin for pres in 2012
really? have you looked at what he is talking about? give me some really "smart people" talk with proper research to prove otherwise. Please use small words as we are all "dumb rednecks." Can't wait till all you "smart people" get to run health care, and the Post office (posting a 9 Billion dollar Loss this year), wow, maybe then i can get free some free Sun Screen, sit in my house and watch TV and not have to worry about that pesky task called "work" and earning my own money.
That number 10-12 trillion is rather irrelvant considering it doesn't include other liabilities incurred of over 24 trillion just in the past year plus the other 50-60 trillion off the books liabilities that have bee accumulating since the 70's, from Social Security, Medicare, etc.The government can't sell it's assets to payoff the debts, so it's rather irrelevant to dispute the number anyway.Well, maybe if the Chinese would accept some of our National Parks,it could help retire some of our debt
Who are the straw men and what is the Randian bullshit I used. Please reply in detail not generalities. Yes, I use principles not some whim. So, call me an idealogue, if you wish. How does a liberal such as yourself take a position? You just randomly decide right from wrong? How do you know right from wrong without any principles? Explain in detail. Your friends Bush and Obama admit to US debts of 10-12 Trillion which is more than the assets of the government.
Friend of Bush? Hardly. Bush was the worst president since Herbert Hoover.
"US debts of 10-12 Trillion which is more than the assets of the government."
Got any support for this silly claim or did you just pull it out of your ass? The national debt is about $11 trillion. Do you know what federal government assets total?
Obama and Bush are one and the same. Obama was very happy to continue the Bush policies of bailing out your banker and corporate friends. Whoever contributed the most money to your DemoRepub elite got the bailouts, such as Goldman Sachs with numerous former lobbyists in the Obama Administration. You've been brainwashed into thinking Dems and Repub politicians hate each other. No, they are both in on the game and just share the spoils. Obama received million from corporate America.
"Hey. Hey you. You reading this: Your country of birth, and therefore you, owe me a trillion trillion, trillion dollars."
What happened to every person is born free? Its a slavery that you are born into; owing that debt.
Who or what is this entity that a country can owe an incomprehensible amount of money to? Has anyone wondered this? If it is mortal, use reason, or bullets. If it is an idea, deny it. Repeat step one for mortals who try to stop you. Freedom isn't free: A buck-o-five.
Hey, Spanky. You're kinda naive. Most people know that the money is owed primarily to American citizens and institutions. Are you gonna use bullets on your fellow citizens? Are you repudiate your country's debts? Get a clue.
Typical Glenn Beck. He's a Republican shill just like all the Faux News hacks. He conveniently fails to mention that 80% of our national debt was run up under just three presidents: Reagan, Bush and Bush. All Republicans.
Yeah. Under democrat congresses. At least Fox News attempts to present both sides of an issue. CNN is bitching and moaning because their ratings are slipping while Fox's is going up.
Uh, andyguenin, you Republicans controlled the presidency, Congress and the Federal Reserve from 2001 to 2007 when the bubble and the banking collapse were taking place. How are you gonna blame that on Democrats?
you are clearly mistaken, neither of the bushes were great presidents but under Reagan his tax cuts helped the economy so much over time the government began recieving record record revenues and while he did spend a lot on weapons and defense programs the new weapons technology and number of arms we were producing was to much competition for and helped bankrupt the soviet union leading to its collapse
Consider studying some history & economics if you get into college. With the opening of the Soviet archives most reputable historians now agree that Reagan had very little to do with the collapse of the USSR. That collapse was a fait accompli long before Reagan came along. Further, the recovery from the 1982 recession was nothing special. Typical recovery from a brutal contraction. Reagan's hagiographers have spent 20 years and millions of dollars trying to falsely give Reagan credit for this.
I've studied economics and the housing bubble was brought about by the government guaranteeing that Freddie Mac and Frannie Mae would be bailed out if they bought sub prime loans. When banks started making loans that they knew were bad investments because they knew the FMs would buy them, the housing bubble started. It burst when people realized they were buying property worth less than they were paying. These policies were started under Clinton and the GOP tried to reverse these policies.
andy, please. Your GOP controlled the entire government when those policies were implemented. Can't you Republicans take responsibility for anything you've done? It's always someone else's fault with you GOPers.
andyguenin and Atlas Shruggery, both of you have been sucked into playing this partisan game of blaming the other side. The fact is the Dem and Repub political elite collaborated on creating the housing bubble.The Fed was the lead player with Congress and the President playing smaller parts.They have both been sharing power since 2001 and are both at fault. Those are the facts without the partisan blame gamemanship.
YAWN. There you go again, Beck Haters. Call names. Use clever profanity. But strangely you guys never - F'ING EVER - document any supposed lie, racism or "insane babble" by Mr. Beck. Well... still waiting... LOL
Steinbacker4001 3 months ago
Glenn Beck is a fascist moron.
Mangina9000 4 months ago
Simple solution 99% of the world knows( Or will realize) that most cash transactions are abstract or digital :This is the world bankers( banksters ) smoke and mirrors .Wealth is tangible.America re-industrialize.What Happen to Yankee ingenuity? Quit believing in the World bankers Paper and digital icons,it is just Smoke and mirrors. The two Windbags(fear mongers)on the clip above have no answers .There just Banker loving scarecrows with smoke and mirror Kowtowing to an false idol.Try Reciprocity
NewWorldEconomics 4 months ago
Comment removed
NewWorldEconomics 4 months ago
Comment removed
NewWorldEconomics 4 months ago
@wishmolly I didnt knew anyone could be that awful to actually mean that so i thought everybody would know i was being sarcastic
ReddoFreddo 6 months ago
@wishmolly i was being sarcastic because i hat glenn beck
ReddoFreddo 6 months ago
End the fed...
shippyshiphead 8 months ago
All I'm saying is, this is part of some person's plan, prepare for war.
ThatHaloGuy117 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ThatHaloGuy117"Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it." - Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, October 3, 2001
wilatemodel 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
U.S will continue to be the greatest power nation in the world ...... It's just a bad time, but the U.S never can be underestimated ..... I hope the U.S stand up again.Hi from Brazil
Interinvicto 11 months ago
This free fall economy will be so hard on all americans when the big crash comes! Most know the train is going off the tracks but no one gets off this train and just hopes the crash will come later on! Thankyou. James Sasse.
indiajesuslovesyou 11 months ago
@ReddoFreddo: wow, you are very delusional. We in Holland/Denmark have, as said before, a much better happiness rating, much more stable economy and balanced politics than the US. And even if you stick to more traditional metrics of wealth and standard of living Holland and Denmark are at least on the same level, and in most metrics ahead of the U.S. e.g. take the HDI 2010: Holland 0.818, Denmark 0.810, USA 0.799. GDP/PPP per capita: Holland and Denmark closely following the US. Look it up.
ssj3gohan456 1 year ago
In the past hour the keepers of the power in the modern democratic society had the following to say to the world.
"There's nothing more important to us than making sure we do whatever is necessary to respond to any concerns," 8 January, from an office in the United States
Thank you for pointing out your previous intention, your intention and your coming intention with the world, others. I could not have unmasked your criminal objectives so smoothly without your help.
ImperatorKuzco 1 year ago
If you want to see the badness of socialism... search Holland or Denemark or whatever on google. all those poore people that dont have money for corvettes swimmingpools etc.. Just because their goverment wants that everyone can go to the hospital if they have cancer or aids. Or that everyone has a warm house. So sad. I live in Holland and I could have a bigger car but the goverment wants to help people so now i only have an a4 instaid of an a8. And the a4 daoesnt have 400 hp but only 250...
ReddoFreddo 1 year ago
@ReddoFreddo The data does not support what you're saying. Denmark is #1 on the global happiness index listing, and Holland is 15. I currently have a car with less than 250 horsepower, and I see no reason to purchase one with more. I'd also much rather have a heated house and have healthcare than a more powerful car. I live in the U.S. If my employer doesn't give me health insurance, I'm out of luck because of my pre-existing condition. Allergies.
Saefroch 1 year ago
THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE!!!
BullionLimitedotcom 1 year ago
Sounds like Republic of Molova where if there is no revenew from taxes then they have to be hight at list to benefit some people in socity!
vladpuha 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Well, even if we have a republican president, we will still be broke.
neobattle2 1 year ago
what an idiot
bhutanmanclan 1 year ago
I guarantee all the Republican idiots posting here making under 100k. I also guarantee most make under 50k. Do you realize your own party FUCKS do DAILY because of that? Yet you're so stupid you can't even see it. I bet you're mostly Christian too. What about helping your fellow man? Does it say help your fellow man - except if you make under 100k, you're a minority, you're gay, you're concerned about the environment or you want healthcare for EVERYONE so no one suffers? Hypocritcal racists.
liquifex 1 year ago
@liquifex (Yawn)... is that all you've got? People like you bore me..
ghendric 1 year ago
@liquifex Do you realize that if taxes are raised on those earning over $250,000, it would effect countless small businesses? GM and big labor can't employ everybody, small businesses are vital. I doubt it, since virtually everyone on the left is an economic illiterate who makes financial decisions based on emotion rather than facts.
jimbad05 1 year ago
Comment removed
Saefroch 1 year ago
@jimbad05 I don't think you understand this, but maybe you do and you've seen far different numbers than me. If we were to tax those earning over $250,000 at a specially high rate it would certainly hurt. But that's not how taxes work. Taxing those earning over $250,000 would tax only the income ABOVE the $250,000 mark. The rest would be left alone. I'm also not sure if you can consider something a "small business" if the owner is making over a quarter of a million.
Saefroch 1 year ago
@Saefroch Your local grocery store may very well make over $250,000. I think they're the standard small business people think of, and a major employer and economic player at the local level. Taxing them more means less employees, less bakery personnell, fewer donations to the local school, reduced hours for the butchers, longer payment times to vendors, etc etc. A business is a very complex thing, I don't think a former community organizer can really understand this.
jimbad05 1 year ago
@jimbad05 This is income tax on the individual, not businesses. Taxing the individual owner of a grocery store will not result in less employment. Let's use economic thinking for a bit. If the owner quit his job, what's his next best option. The income he'd make doing that plus $1 is the amount of money that will induce him to keep his job. Everything above that is economic rent, and the government can take a portion of that without hurting his employees.
Saefroch 1 year ago
@Saefroch If the owner is a sole proprietor, his profits from the store are considered the same as individual profits. Corporate tax rates are another matter entirely. A tax hike, at a time when many sole proprietorships are struggling due to this long recession, will undoubtedly force some businesses to close.
I find it laughable that the president can spend $787 Billion on failed economic stimulus, yet claim that there is no money to extend current tax rates.
jimbad05 1 year ago
@jimbad05 If you are making 250k in Profits you would be a moron to be a sole proprietor, a complete moron. You would become a C-Corp and pay way less in taxes. It is very simple if you make 250k a year or more Vote Republican, if you make less Vote Democrat to do otherwise is voting against your own financial interest. It would be like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders.
thecomicsitedotcom 1 year ago
@thecomicsitedotcom So people should just automatically vote for whichever party promises the bigger handout? I'm shocked to see that the old Democrat vote-buying scandals of the Tammany Hall days haven't ended, they've just evolved.
I prefer to vote on principle. I believe that low taxes help everyone, and can actually raise government revenue (via the Laffer Curve). I believe that demonizing success, wealth, and business leads us down a dangerous, destructive and non-prosperous path.
jimbad05 1 year ago
@jimbad05
Taxes are a handout? Really? As a percentage of discretionary income people earning the national average ~40k pay nearly 90% while people above 250k pay 25%. To make matters worse most of the 500k+ crowd earn it from unearned income. So we tax people like teachers,police,firefighters more than we tax a pile of money. Sounds like an Oligarchy not a Democracy to me.
thecomicsitedotcom 1 year ago
@thecomicsitedotcom You're right, higher than necessary taxes suck for everyone. It's one reason I hate government waste fraud and abuse. I'm also livid at the fact that the average government worked earns $120,000/year (when counting benefits) compared to an average of $60,000/year in the private sector. Also, about 50% of Americans pay no income tax. You're advocating the creation of a permanent recipient underclass on the backs of the rich. Does that sound like prosperity to you?
jimbad05 1 year ago
@jimbad05 Right now we have a recipient class of rich (I'm talking top 1% here) on the backs of every day joes that go to work and are taxed at a higher rate than a pile of money? That seems equitable to you? We tax UNEARNED income lower than earned income does that seem right to you?
thecomicsitedotcom 1 year ago
@thecomicsitedotcom Most economists actually agree with limited taxation of capital gains. Would you rather a rich person blow their cash on champagne and ice sculptures, or plow their money back into the economy via stocks, bonds and new business startups? Investments help others and create jobs, consumption... not so much. It's important, from an economic sense, to encourage investment rather than consumption.
Educate yourself. Don't be another economically illiterate liberal.
jimbad05 1 year ago
@jimbad05 I'm a little confused. Maybe I'm economically illiterate, but I don't quite see the difference between capital investment and consumption. To me, capital investment is consumption by a business in the factor market.
Purchase of stocks and bonds is not stimulative.
All economists agree that progressive taxation (like the U.S. income tax) distorts incentives, and causes problems for the economy. They also agree that a proportional tax does not distort incentives.
Saefroch 1 year ago
@jimbad05 Wikipedia: Public Good. Just an FYI
I'm interested, where did you get that figure "50% of Americans pay no income tax"
I also haven't found any results that show a difference of 100% between average public and private sector incomes, can you tell me where you got that figure as well?
Saefroch 1 year ago
@jimbad05 Do you know how many people make over $250,000? Avg in come is ~$39,000. The economic stimulus didn't fail. Not by a long shot. Many economists now saw we should have spent MORE. If the economic stimulus failed, we'd see unemployment probably over 20%, and a permanent unemployment >10%, which will happen anyway if nobody does anything to fix the economy.
Saefroch 1 year ago
@Saefroch Uh huh. Those same economists have now fled the White House (Summers, Romer). They claimed we needed to pass it immediately to contain unemployment under 8%. It's currently near 10%. They claimed it would be free of fraud, while investigations showed thousands going to non-existent Congressional districts. All it accomplished is it supposedly delayed the layoff of many teachers, police and firefighters, though it's impossible to know how many of the threatened layoffs were BS bluster.
jimbad05 1 year ago
@jimbad05 You've been brainwashed. I'm sorry.
Saefroch 1 year ago
@Saefroch Excellent argument... and you people have the temerity to call Conservatives stupid.
jimbad05 1 year ago
@jimbad05 Explain...
Saefroch 1 year ago
@Saefroch read up on Trickle-down economics.
xdudeyourcool 1 year ago
@xdudeyourcool Here's what I know: The idea is to cut taxes for the rich, who are assumed to be business-owners, and thus by cutting taxes, you increase jobs and income for the workers, who then pay more in income taxes and more than make up for the lost tax revenue. I however, see two large flaws: No business that I know of will produce if there is no demand, and I've never seen any data supporting supply-side economics. If you can find some, I'd be very interested.
Saefroch 1 year ago
@Saefroch Income tax... not only is it a nuisance but it is against the constitution. that is not Trickle-down economics. You got some of it right but its not about making up for the tax cuts but more about what it would do to the economy. People will spend more because their income is raised. If more people are spending more, which is an indicator of a healthy economy, then the tax cuts would be made up by the increase in sales tax. Read about it. Its very interesting how it all fits together.
xdudeyourcool 1 year ago
@xdudeyourcool Amendment 16. I think it's very interesting how supply-side economics is supposed to work, but what I find more surprising is that every time I try to explain that to a businessperson, they're confused. Businesses are demand-driven. They don't produce if there is no demand.
So can you explain to me how the income of workers is raised? I'm still a little confused there...
Saefroch 1 year ago
@Saefroch trickle down economics/supply side economics... doesn't work at all..... It failed during reagan's presidency and failed during bush's presidency. All people do (btw the middle class and poor don't get the tax breaks) is get their massive paychecks due to low income tax, and store their wealth in untaxable offshore bank accounts. That's trickle down failed economics for you, a ploy for the rich.
Andy180084 1 year ago
@Andy180084 You pretty much just stated my current opinion on supply-side economics. I was hoping that maybe I could have some sort of fact or statistic-based discussion of it with somebody who disagrees with us, but I guess they all flee as soon as you ask for things like that.
Saefroch 1 year ago
@xdudeyourcool you just gave the exact definition of trickle down economics... it doesn't work at all..... It failed during reagan's presidency and failed during bush's presidency. All people do (btw the middle class and poor don't get the tax breaks) is get their massive paychecks due to low income tax, and store their wealth in untaxable offshore bank accounts. That's trickle down failed economics for you, a ploy for the rich.
Andy180084 1 year ago
Such a shame that such a good-looking guy is such a dickhead, asshole, lunatic, Nazi, Fascist, narrow-minded...idiot.
breagadoir 1 year ago
Comment removed
Kew67 1 year ago
@breagadoir Not sure you understand the words you used in that last comment. While Beck is a Rightest, most all his facts can be researched and proven positive.
Kew67 1 year ago
@Kew67
Yeah, He can be a bit radical sometimes but he proves his points exceptionally.
NickyAmerica 1 year ago
The US debt is amazing.
FreeAgain2 1 year ago
What a MORON... and guess what? Now the UPPER middle class or mid business owners are next...because NOW the UPPER ESCHILON..is picking them next for extermination..like the lower middle class people just went through. And because most of them are republicans who think they are in the rich "CLUB"..are going to soon realize they will be in the "other club" where they are starving with the majority. It will be too late to LOOK UP as the cause of their problems and not downwards to point blame.
blewvelvet 1 year ago
more people need to see this.. most of the US citizens are oblivious to whats going on.. or if they do.. they dont realize the intensity behind it
jus10rh 1 year ago
Glenn, like usual, is correct. You can't help but like a guy who thinks before he speaks and believes in human RIGHTS as well as human RESPONSIBILITIES. The latter may be even more important.
dlstb 1 year ago
Ou yea, I would recommend everybody to read about why Soviet Union cracked, and it had NOTHING to do with losing military power, absolutely NOTHING.
Just saying...
Blirk9999 1 year ago
@Blirk9999
It kinda did.
Kinda.
We bankrupted them with an Arms Race.
F-117 Anyone?
NickyAmerica 1 year ago
No body in Washington, or any state government is going to do anything to save any of us.........WE are the only thing that is going to Save Us! What are we waiting for? Stop giving your power away. Stop listening to everyone else. Your knowledge based on your own experience is the only thing to be trusted....Regan said "Trust, with verification". Believe in only YOURSELVES
FreedomMinded 1 year ago
Funny thing is, ever since GB joined Fox News he's the target of the leftist media. But, while he was with HLN they didn't have a problem with him putting down Bush. Regardless, of the fact that he's a libertarian.
yankeecrankee 1 year ago
way to go glenn. check out my song hey there obama.
erikdoubbleu 1 year ago
why is this happening ... very simple ... you are fucking greedy ... and that will be your death
NobbyBear08 1 year ago 2
our debt multiplied 5 fold in one year under the lord and savior obama. we need a TRUE CONSERVATIVE to get us out of this mess then a libertarian to keep us out.
CommunistProgressive 1 year ago
There is only one way out - THE LORD SAVES. We must trust in him.
americanpolitic1 1 year ago
meet ur new boss Hop Sing....The Yanks are broke
glx750 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
卍 HASHEM bless ADOLF THE WONDERFUL 卍
As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice. ...And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly, it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people -Adolf Hitler
MsRawrPink 2 years ago
looking back on him now, in 2010, you almost wanted to listen to him... you bastards
genkidesukaxoxo 2 years ago
The sole purpose of Fox employing Beck is to influence the coming revolution.
ZionistWorldOrder 2 years ago
Beck has mental problems, he's admitted it.
reverandjames 2 years ago
ADD is a pretty severe mental problem. I'm probably rather mentally deranged as well.
DallinCoons 2 years ago
"I don't worry about the deficit." - Ronald Reagan
"Reagan taught us deficits don't matter." - Dick Cheney
AtlasShruggery 2 years ago
@AtlasShruggery
Well, Reagan wasn't dealing with a debt in the TRILLIONS.
And Dick Cheney? Well he is an idiot and a neocon; by no means a conservative
Albyiscool 2 years ago 2
Nah. Reagan and Cheney were both RepubliCons. Eighty percent of our national debt was run up under just three presidents: Reagan, Bush and Junior Bush. All RepubliCons.
AtlasShruggery 2 years ago
@AtlasShruggery
I entirely blame junior Bush for his deficit, as he was an irresponsible neocon. Reagan cut taxes dramatically, but still had to deal with a Democratic Congress which wasn't willing to cut government programs enough. Even so, the economic growth from Reagan's tax cuts had begun to outstrip the national debt.
Meanwhile, Bush Sr. made the unpopular decision to raise taxes, which later allowed Clinton to balance the budget.
Albyiscool 2 years ago
Hey, at least we agree on Junior Bush.
As to Reagan, you'll find that he never once in eight years submitted a balanced budget to Congress. You'll also find that Reagan Republicans controlled the Senate until 1983. The 1983 - 1987 expansion that Republicans are always thumping their chests about was a typical strong recovery from a brutal recession.
AtlasShruggery 2 years ago
yeah being a fairly moderate person who believes in limited government I hate people who get true conservatives mixed up with this tragically cool fad of neoconservative. Oh well. Although Ron Paul's ideas are kind of out there, and I don't think they all work. They run more with the traditional pre WWII united states version of conservatism.
PsychoticCat723 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
gleen Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990
nietzscheflake 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Glenn Beck is a complete tard. Someone slap him for me please.
TheSpankymonkey 2 years ago
Why? Because he's telling the truth in this video? Yes, in some other videos he's a tard, but this one isn't one of them.
He's right, we're broke! What's wrong with saying that?
SKUNKBALLScom 2 years ago
How can we spread Capitalism and Democracy when our economy is sustained by Communist and Facist governments. We have to correct ourselves via a national reset. We must scale back to the gold standard and reduce cost of living. 40yrs ago the average worker worked 30yrs retired owned his home outright had a pension, social security, and medicare. If your uder the age of 50 there is a good chance you won't have any of this at retirement.
mikejp2008 2 years ago 14
@mikejp2008 It's simple. Turn everything that was "Made in China" to "Made in America", boom economic problem solved. Now you can thank me
gruhonjic 1 year ago 2
@gruhonjic that's a good idea except that you remove the free market, prices of everything will go way up (because we won't work for as little as we will), and good luck keeping the big companies in the united states.
ismdism 1 year ago
@mikejp2008 First off, why should you guys 'Spread Democracy and Capitalism'... Secondly I don't think you understand the terms 'Communist' and 'Facist', like most Americans do... Go to college before you start talking
Ifakedwheniwaswithu 1 year ago
@mikejp2008
We should only be spreading capitalism by example not by gun nor should we be spreading democracy but the idea to use democracy as a tool. People get confused that America is a democracy. It's not, its a republic. The founders knew this and wanted America to stay out of foreign wars and foreign alliances. We've somehow came to the point that the country is being ran like a Democracy.. that needs fixed along with alot of other stuff.
ghendric 1 year ago
@ghendric Well said well said.
lilblake90 1 year ago
@mikejp2008 Using the gold standard again would hit the economy hard, something we really don't need. There simply isn't enough gold on the earth to insure all the money that exists. And who's to say who's money would be destroyed? The only other option is to make money worthless. 40 years ago the average worker lived for 7 less years. The last few years of life are the most costly (in terms of healthcare) of any person's life. That's why Medicare and Social Security seem in such dire straights.
Saefroch 1 year ago
Buying a house or refinancing is a total rip off. No wonder States are having budget deficits. I tried to refinance my house and to avoid the PMI, I needed $4000 in closing costs. This was even after I had put 20% down back in 2006. I know I am going save something on the interest in the long run, but I said screw it. If I loose my job, I will take my 401k and pay for the house. I don't care about the 40% hit. At least I will have the house and maybe social security to buy food.
olh1152 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Glenn Bleccch, high priest for the hopeless dumbasses who continued to get sheared by rightwing corporations.
wankervon 2 years ago
The bottom line is that if you're my age, you were raised by the only culture that celebrates getting something for nothing. Everyone wants to be Paris Hilton and Ferris fucking Bueller. All this free market dogma just reinforces that, because it is basically telling you to go ahead and be a totally selfish prick because the system is fueled by greed.
Americans are the problem; It's as clear as day, but everone prefers to go back into the shadows, for fear of the consequences.
Zarathustra34 2 years ago
gov. and efficient aren't allowed in the same sentence - like obama said i love this quote "fedex and ups do fine and look at the u.s. postal service" i love when idiots show their stupidity.
dustynuts17 2 years ago
"gov. and efficient aren't allowed in the same sentence"
Canada's system is so effecient that only 8% of all money spent on health care is needed for administrative costs. Our government-free system spends about 25% on admin costs, which increases to about 32% if you look strictly at for-profit hospitals.
"i love when idiots show their stupidity."
me too
Zarathustra34 2 years ago
That cost structure has much to do with lawsuits - there are almost none in Canada. The US is so ripe with medical lawsuits it is silly.
You want HealthCare reform? So do I. Let's start by hammering the Trail Lawyers Association.
FreeAgain2 2 years ago
Let's start by burning Americans and importing Canadians.
All seriousness aside, if our system is so good, why are so many people suing?
Zarathustra34 2 years ago
Because you can - and the Pockets are DEEP - so the Trail lawyers strike.
FreeAgain2 2 years ago
Because if a cashier at McDonalds hands me a cup of coffee through the drive through and I put it in my lap and burn myself. If a court rewards me millions of dollars, "How dare McDonalds give me a cup of HOT coffee", then my friends and family are going to see this as an easy way to get money. No different in the health care sector. A doctor orders tests that aren't needed to "cover their ass", there by driving the price of health care through the roof.
HighTyro05 2 years ago
That's part of it, but be honest about the whole thing. Don't oversimplify the issue to only one aspect.
Blazhei 2 years ago
Glenn Beck exposed! Now that's something I don't need to see!
NakedWombat666 2 years ago
"Or should we only let those who can afford their own roads to drive?" In previous times that what happened. Until Hitler invented super highways to move his tanks around, and paid for the highways through theft on a continental scale. There are limits to what tax can provide since we will not go down that option we are limited in what we can tac to produce.
Siegetower 2 years ago
You have to admit that it's a bit more effecient to build roads with tax dollars. I would argue the same is true for health care.
And I'll admit there are limits to what taxes can provide. We have more than enough money to take care of our sick if we stop policing the globe, and close down the bureacratic DHS, and cut a little fat off our defence spending. We are in the nuclear age.
Zarathustra34 2 years ago
You are mistaken that it is "more efficient to build roads with tax dollars (or health care)". There is a long history of private roads and the first American Turnpike was a private road. Government doesn't do "efficient".
jscottupton 2 years ago
When I said "build roads", I meant build roads, not build one turnpike, or just the category of highways. It may be more efficient for the occasional highway, but imagine building Chicago's infrastructure without government intervention. It would be a nightmare. How would you pay for it? Would you stop at every light and pay a toll? If there was competition, then probably you would. If there wasn't competition, the roads would be atrocious. Either way, it would be significantly less efficient.
Zarathustra34 2 years ago
I'm looking to buy some retirement land in Utah. Part of the contract is that I'll be responsible for a 1 mile stretch of the road that runs along the property. The broker actually said, "If you keep this clean and mowed, the city can't tax us and we save about $2,000 a year in property tax". Would I pay someone $2,000 to do a job that I can do once a month, or even 4 times a year if I'm lazy?
HighTyro05 2 years ago 6
@HighTyro05 Name that broker for us. I will report his piece of shit ass for fraudulent tax practices.
REPUBLICANS ARE UNAMERICAN GARBAGE
beesleeper 1 year ago
"just research the fall of the Soviet Union"
Does this make Beck's fan base feel smart because they think they know something that requires research. Well maybe Beck should research the fall of the Soviet Union. It had NOTHING to do with a lack of financing for the military. Their military was financed better than ours. The problem was that their entire military was blind drunk 24/7, so nothing ever worked.
Zarathustra34 2 years ago
Actually their entire economy was destroyed slowly over 80 years. Production targets using outdated methods were always increased to keep pace with us, the West, which was unachievable. Their products when completed were absolute rubbish. Nothing worked. Have you heard of the food queues? Research them. Plus the brightest people were always sent to die in Siberia. A great system, hey US Democratic Party, isn't that your model?
Siegetower 2 years ago
Of course the Soviet Union's economy was slowly destroyed by a 100% command economy (which is not socialism by the way, go read Capital if you think I'm joking).
And it's well documented that, even up until the end, they spent more money than we did on defence almost every year and produced more nukes than we did, less accurate, but certainly not "rubbish". Their economic collapse was one of the reasons the USSR dissolved, but it had nothing to do with a lack of defence spending.
Zarathustra34 2 years ago
I could talk about defence spending but I'm not. I'm talking regular economic activity. Televisions, cars, pipes, trousers, carpets. They were ALL rubbish. E.g. Televisions towards the end, to meet yearly production targets, were assembled by hammering the screws towards the end of the target year.
Without consumers having the choice to reject that simple product, the society failed. And in a macroeconomic scale, to choice in the large decisions, the society failed.
Siegetower 2 years ago
"I could talk about defence spending but I'm not."
I'm guessing this is because I began the conversation talking about defence spending, and because you aren't a grown up, you don't yet fully understand how to carry on a proper conversation.
And we're agreed that command economies suck. But as I said, command economies are not the trademark of a proper socialist society, nor are they by any means a good tool for comparison for you and your comrade.
Zarathustra34 2 years ago
So explain how socialist models are not command economies. The governments end up controlling more than 50% of economic activity. The people not working draw welfare up and up until the profitable workforce that remains end up paying for those who can't work rather than churn profits into developing society.
Why do I talk about OTHER than defence spending? Despite the Soviet military being the biggest sector of their economy, they collapsed as nothing else worked apart from the Moscow trains
Siegetower 2 years ago
Well, first of all, I believe everyone in the USSR was employed. No one got paid, and life was generally horrible for them, that is correct.
However, the idea of people who don't work living off of the profits of those who work the hardest seems to fit capitalism a lot better. Ideal socialism would have no government. The dictatorship of the proletariat that Lenin instituted was his way of bridging the gap to the ideal socialist state, which a true Marxist may consider a rediculous proposal.
Zarathustra34 2 years ago
Where do you think Profits go? Into thin air? They are either paid as dividends to real people, who spend them in the real economy, or reinvested into growing new plantations, or mines, or airports, or designing better freight ships, or inventing products to make people's lives better.
Welfare does nothing but pay unprofitable people the fruits of working people's labour. And since it is limited they don't go off to make their own businesses on welfare money. It all goes on sloth or survival
Siegetower 2 years ago
"Where do you think Profits go"
The majority of it in the U.S. right now? Fewer and fewer hands in larger and larger piles. Disparity is good and natural in capitalism up to a point. Then it creates ineffeciency, under-consumption, and highly above average interest rates.
What do you think is more of a contribution to the "real economy": the local grocer's food stamp revenue, or the average lobbyist's seven figure salary?
Zarathustra34 2 years ago
What inefficiency can you name. Heres some: Democratic Congress mandating a bank to give loans to people who can never repay (Freddie/Fannie). All sorts of people have said that's bad policy for 15 years but no one listened until the bubble burst.
Food stamps? More inefficient welfare, people should be out earning money to pay for their own groceries.
Lobbyists are a symptom of unrestricted excessive government, they are suckers of a nations' wealth.
Siegetower 2 years ago
It's theoretically ineffecient all the way around. I mean imagine one person with all the money, and everyone else with none. Can that one person come up with all the necessary innovations and cost-saving measures to be truly productive in every single market? Of course not, and it doesn't work with two people, or three. Where the line is, is not crystal clear, but it is more than obvious, that at some point, a concentration of wealth is ineffecient.
Zarathustra34 2 years ago
Ahh...the 'concentration of wealth'...have you been reading Marx? Look around you, in the last 300 years the middle class, people who have wealth to spend on themselves rather than base survival, has grown and grown. They all have cars, holidays, nice houses. Are they concentrating wealth? Have you ever looked at the accounts of a major corporation? Wooo hey make evil profits... oooo evil. But each spend millions on salaries and trade expenses. There are also rich people, and there always willbe
Siegetower 2 years ago
"have you been reading Marx?"
I actually have read Marx, and since you are so adamant about arguing against socialism, I highly suggest that you brush up on him. One thing he would tell you is that the move from feudalism to capitalism (that took place "in the last 300 years") has created more equity, but before the capitalist revolution, feudalism created a growing disparity of wealth and power. The same thing that one could argue is happening within the capitalistic stage.
Zarathustra34 2 years ago
My family are descended from an unremarkable ancestry and my grandparents were poor before WWII. But better off than their grandparents. Capitalism has led my parents who started as teachers to near retirement living in a $2million house, with millions more in investment property. I personally have 2 cars including one 'classic', 3 degrees and a comfortable life. I and my parents are middle class and worked for ourselves to gain what we have. There is no disparity of wealth. Common people own it
Siegetower 2 years ago
Than you still enjoy the fruits of a remarkably fortunate situation. But you can't argue with the numbers, the disparity is growing, and the middle class is becoming a thing of the past. I am from Youngstown Ohio, and I have seen where this country is going, because it has already happened there.
And yes, a good amount of blame rests on the shoulders of the people with there hands out, but more so on several lazy, negligent, and incompetent millionaires.
Zarathustra34 2 years ago
So the fact that something like 0.5% of the population reaped about 80% of the GDP for the last 20 years doesn't constitute disparity in your mind? Where are your 3 degrees from? U of Phoenix?
Pseudologic 2 years ago
and that 0.5% sold all their stock to china, and now they're hanging in the Hamptons, and China now owns 80% of America. The really sad thing is that pretty soon in won't matter if you "buy American", because the "American"companies will be owned by the Chinese. Not that the Chinese are bad or anything, it's just a factual point that Chinese investors will sell any second for a profit. China is just being noticed because China is the first one of many.
supbeotchizzl 2 years ago
You assume Profit is the goal.
BlackJacx1 2 years ago
"Have you ever looked at the accounts of a major corporation?"
If you're talking about financial statements, a few dozen actually. I am about to graduate magna cum laude with a B.S.B.A. I'm all for wal-mart, they are remarkably effecient and productive; they deserve to be "big". Insurance companies on the other hand don't add any productivity to the economy. They provide a service we could provide for ourselves, and because of that their profits are necessarily a source of ineffeciency.
Zarathustra34 2 years ago
Neither of us are able to convince one another to change their views. I believe in freedom, small government and individual liberty that lead to the generation of wealth, and the power of Christ to guide people morally to live well and share their blessings with their fellow man.
You have 'socialism' but did not spell out what it is to you. No doubt you will reply sarcastically but I have to get back to the real world and focus on my work. Best of luck with your studies. Grow out of socialism!
Siegetower 2 years ago
I am a Randian if you must group me. I despise socialism, but even more dangerous than socialism itself are
"convictions [which] are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies". ~NIetzsche
Zarathustra34 2 years ago
Ew Randian? You mean a theory that cant exist in the real world like communism?
Pseudologic 2 years ago
Should the govt have gotten involved with the housing market? Probably not, but if they had done everything the same, and also regulated the realtors that were doling out no-doc sub prime loans to any random speculator like cotton candy at a state fair, we would probably have not had any housing crisis.
Not to mention that by taking this line of reasoning you are standing behind some of the most atrocious practices like red-lining.
Zarathustra34 2 years ago
"All sorts of people have said that's bad policy for 15 years"
That's funny, cuz I think repubs have been in charge of the legislature for at least 12 of those years.
Zarathustra34 2 years ago
Russia's economy was only one reason why they dissolved the Union. One of the most remarkable reasons is because the military (who arguably profited the most from the Soviet regime) stayed out of the political revolution, and allowed Yeltsin and a wave of Russian nationalism to overturn the Socialists. Not to mention that this was after they already attempted a coup.
The idea that somehow socialism just grinds to a halt on its own because of economic woes is a dangerous simplification.
Zarathustra34 2 years ago
Again: 'explain how socialist models are not command economies'. What model IN THE REAL WORLD works outside fantasies. Norway/Sweden: Massive government, never ceasing welfare. Burma: Military socialist dictatorship. Zimbabwe: Racist socialism, massive government that steals from the only people left with any money. Cuba: Bankrupt socialism since the day the Soviets dissolved. People can't wait to escape to Florida, capitalism and Freedom. Venezuela/Bolivia : Only just beginning to steal wealth
Siegetower 2 years ago
Not all governments are what they say they are, e.g. Iran claims to be a democracy.
The point is that there is no reason for you to align yourself against socialism. Tyranny, dictatorships, an unfair distribution of wealth, and maybe social welfare are the things you should be arguing against.
It's dangerous and innaccurate to call any govt. action "socialism". You're just exploiting the negative connotation of the word and people's general ignorance of the actual ideology it represents.
Zarathustra34 2 years ago
I'm not calling all govt action socialism. Small governments that respect their consitutions, encourage business and personal enterprise by low tax rates, enforce their borders justly, do not regulate every action of the common man...that is good government.
Government can steer society by policy, but the engine is business, the wheels and drive train are the common people and culture, the door locks are the courts and police and the airbags are the church. Govt cannot be all the above too.
Siegetower 2 years ago
Then you should have no problem with the public option health care proposal.
After all, I'm sure you aren't opposed to tax funded infrastructure like the roads you drive on. Or should we only let those who can afford their own roads to drive?
Zarathustra34 2 years ago
"Have you heard of the food queues"
My wife was in food queues in Poland. She says she prefers capitalism, but that she never went hungry under the command economy.
Zarathustra34 2 years ago
Oh, and considering the progress that the Soviets made from 1917 through WWII, it is reasonable to expect that they could have come to match our technological prowess if we hadn't shut them off, taken West Germany, and allied NATO against them. They had an agrarian economy prior to 1917, it's amazing that they even tried to compete with the whole of the industrialized world.
Zarathustra34 2 years ago
Are you revising history? Glorifying a failed system which is relegated to history?
Even the agrarian policy of the Soviets, collective farms, was a failure.
Read 'Return to the Future' by Sigrid Undset, published 1942. It has chapters on the misery of the Soviet working class before the Soviets were betrayed in their alliance with the National Socialists.
Read 'Hunted Through Central Asia' by Paul/Pavel Nazaroff (1932, reprint 2002) which describes the early destruction of industry.
Siegetower 2 years ago
"Glorifying a failed system which is relegated to history"
A) An adult would be hard pressed to interperet my previous comments as praise for the Soviet Union. I was merely trying to point out the inaccuracy of Beck's comments. I was not trying to say that he was wrong for being a capitalist. Go get your father maybe he can explain this to you.
B) If it's relegated to history, why are you guys so concerned about it?
Zarathustra34 2 years ago
gogo you mormon cult loving hater of life. forever happy to hear your hot ass blowing in the wind. shut this tub of shit up. he's dangerous for us repubs. palin for pres in 2012
MrNymoron 2 years ago
Glenn Beck is spot on!
chubbysis1 2 years ago 4
spot on in your mouth!
wake up!
Palin for pres in 2012
MrNymoron 2 years ago
Glenn u silly billy, go get ur ass spanked by Cenk of TYT
totylee 2 years ago
Zeitgeist is crap, you don't need amateur fifth rate documentaries to figure out some stuff.
Ilovedachau 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Just a typical dumb redneck republican who doesn't know what the hell he 's talking about.
zragen7 2 years ago
really? have you looked at what he is talking about? give me some really "smart people" talk with proper research to prove otherwise. Please use small words as we are all "dumb rednecks." Can't wait till all you "smart people" get to run health care, and the Post office (posting a 9 Billion dollar Loss this year), wow, maybe then i can get free some free Sun Screen, sit in my house and watch TV and not have to worry about that pesky task called "work" and earning my own money.
wadi717 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
momFEARSmyMUSIC 2 years ago
This is from CNN Headline news.
TheDoctorofSurgery 2 years ago
Yeah, glenn beck only got on fox recently, last January according to Wikipedia.
quuaa1 2 years ago
well you must suffer of the mental deviation commonly known as homosexuality.
Ilovedachau 2 years ago
Comment removed
Zacharybinx34 2 years ago
That number 10-12 trillion is rather irrelvant considering it doesn't include other liabilities incurred of over 24 trillion just in the past year plus the other 50-60 trillion off the books liabilities that have bee accumulating since the 70's, from Social Security, Medicare, etc.The government can't sell it's assets to payoff the debts, so it's rather irrelevant to dispute the number anyway.Well, maybe if the Chinese would accept some of our National Parks,it could help retire some of our debt
ftsmallwood 2 years ago
The US is already broke. Why extrapolate out 20 years.
ftsmallwood 2 years ago 3
You rebutted nothing. You set up straw men and then gave your opinions by repeating the usual Randian bullshit. Then you whine about "smears".
Conclude whatever you want. You're an idealogue. It's not a matter of reason with you.
The US is broke? Hardly. Do you define as "broke" anyone who has a mortgage loan on their home?
AtlasShruggery 2 years ago
Who are the straw men and what is the Randian bullshit I used. Please reply in detail not generalities. Yes, I use principles not some whim. So, call me an idealogue, if you wish. How does a liberal such as yourself take a position? You just randomly decide right from wrong? How do you know right from wrong without any principles? Explain in detail. Your friends Bush and Obama admit to US debts of 10-12 Trillion which is more than the assets of the government.
ftsmallwood 2 years ago
Friend of Bush? Hardly. Bush was the worst president since Herbert Hoover.
"US debts of 10-12 Trillion which is more than the assets of the government."
Got any support for this silly claim or did you just pull it out of your ass? The national debt is about $11 trillion. Do you know what federal government assets total?
AtlasShruggery 2 years ago
Obama and Bush are one and the same. Obama was very happy to continue the Bush policies of bailing out your banker and corporate friends. Whoever contributed the most money to your DemoRepub elite got the bailouts, such as Goldman Sachs with numerous former lobbyists in the Obama Administration. You've been brainwashed into thinking Dems and Repub politicians hate each other. No, they are both in on the game and just share the spoils. Obama received million from corporate America.
ftsmallwood 2 years ago 2
"Hey. Hey you. You reading this: Your country of birth, and therefore you, owe me a trillion trillion, trillion dollars."
What happened to every person is born free? Its a slavery that you are born into; owing that debt.
Who or what is this entity that a country can owe an incomprehensible amount of money to? Has anyone wondered this? If it is mortal, use reason, or bullets. If it is an idea, deny it. Repeat step one for mortals who try to stop you. Freedom isn't free: A buck-o-five.
Spanky00Cheeks 2 years ago
Hey, Spanky. You're kinda naive. Most people know that the money is owed primarily to American citizens and institutions. Are you gonna use bullets on your fellow citizens? Are you repudiate your country's debts? Get a clue.
No, freedom isn't free. That's why we pay taxes.
AtlasShruggery 2 years ago
Typical Glenn Beck. He's a Republican shill just like all the Faux News hacks. He conveniently fails to mention that 80% of our national debt was run up under just three presidents: Reagan, Bush and Bush. All Republicans.
AtlasShruggery 2 years ago
Yeah. Under democrat congresses. At least Fox News attempts to present both sides of an issue. CNN is bitching and moaning because their ratings are slipping while Fox's is going up.
andyguenin 2 years ago
Uh, andyguenin, you Republicans controlled the presidency, Congress and the Federal Reserve from 2001 to 2007 when the bubble and the banking collapse were taking place. How are you gonna blame that on Democrats?
AtlasShruggery 2 years ago
you are clearly mistaken, neither of the bushes were great presidents but under Reagan his tax cuts helped the economy so much over time the government began recieving record record revenues and while he did spend a lot on weapons and defense programs the new weapons technology and number of arms we were producing was to much competition for and helped bankrupt the soviet union leading to its collapse
pipboy3003 2 years ago
Consider studying some history & economics if you get into college. With the opening of the Soviet archives most reputable historians now agree that Reagan had very little to do with the collapse of the USSR. That collapse was a fait accompli long before Reagan came along. Further, the recovery from the 1982 recession was nothing special. Typical recovery from a brutal contraction. Reagan's hagiographers have spent 20 years and millions of dollars trying to falsely give Reagan credit for this.
AtlasShruggery 2 years ago
I've studied economics and the housing bubble was brought about by the government guaranteeing that Freddie Mac and Frannie Mae would be bailed out if they bought sub prime loans. When banks started making loans that they knew were bad investments because they knew the FMs would buy them, the housing bubble started. It burst when people realized they were buying property worth less than they were paying. These policies were started under Clinton and the GOP tried to reverse these policies.
andyguenin 2 years ago
andy, please. Your GOP controlled the entire government when those policies were implemented. Can't you Republicans take responsibility for anything you've done? It's always someone else's fault with you GOPers.
AtlasShruggery 2 years ago
andyguenin and Atlas Shruggery, both of you have been sucked into playing this partisan game of blaming the other side. The fact is the Dem and Repub political elite collaborated on creating the housing bubble.The Fed was the lead player with Congress and the President playing smaller parts.They have both been sharing power since 2001 and are both at fault. Those are the facts without the partisan blame gamemanship.
ftsmallwood 2 years ago <