I think most of the jobs that have been created by this administration are "would you like fries with that?". Not impressed. I think Van Jones's point was that wealth has been re-distributed to the top dogs, and that is what he means by we are not broke. This can be easily demonstrated if you do the math. Guess what? CEO's that make millions of dollars do not work any harder than I do, nor are they any smarter. When I make my millions I will help the country before I buy a private jet.
they would have created 50 time the number of jobs if they had given that money to small businesses. and Obama not waking up his asking for more of the same!
You want me pay you for your propaganda thru payapl??? The stimulus package may be a load of crap, but remember the far larger amount of money that went to the financial industry - how much did that work out per job, I wonder - put a video up on that and I may consider contributing....
@youtbeguy Check out what politifact says: "Had it instead gone with the 3.6 million job figure at the top end of the range, it would have come up with a smaller $185,000 per job figure." rofl
I encourage everyone to actually read the politfact article. It's telling. He took the low estimate of jobs, and politifact points out that there were supplies and such assosiated with programs, but YES! As far as job creation goes, it WOULD'VE been cheeper to cut those affected a check for 100k.
Congressional Budget Office report: The results of the ARRA has been in between 600,000 to 1.6 million jobs that would not exist if the Stimulus package did not subsist. It is very disingenuous to say the least, to say that the private sector would find better use for the stimulus funds. Considering that private entities have there own interests that take priority over our economic stability. Either way, these spent resources will be detrimental to us in the future with out increased revenue.
Anybody that supports obungles are people that enjoy getting buttfucked therefor any man that supports Obungles is a fag and women are whores... Must be terrible to be a liberal,
You miss the point. The problem is primarily the FED and the way money is created. There is an inherent fraud in the fractional reserve banking system. Where there is an asymmetryin the money creation process. Cause the demand for money can create credit (bank notes) equivalent to money at no cost. The only risk is not being repaid which is taken care by the government with bank bailouts. This monetary system is a gaint ponzi scheme which requires a perpetual increase in money supply to keep
Yeah short term tax cuts are Keynesian stimulus stuff as well. 1/3rd tax cuts would be similar to the Keynesian ideas (cut taxes in a recession but more important is to boost government spending). Small government types, people who don't think Kaynes was correct should be against short term tax stimulus as well.
I am not trying to be argumentive, but sometimes job creation costs the private sector 1 million dollar per job. Let me give you an example. A manufacturer wants to expand production so he he buys a new 5 million dollar machine which will need 5 workers to run to produce widgets. So, each one of those new jobs costed 1M to create, but over time, that 5million dollar investment is generating revenue that far exceeds the capital and labor cost.
I work in mortgages--namely examining peoples' assets and income. its ridiculous to see the foreigners who aren't descendants of those who fought for our liberty or freedom and are making 6 figures in the government. whenever i have to contact these borrowers directly they're acting busy yet always seem to be sitting back munching on some kind of snack. WTF AMERICA?
I've asked him that several times, he refuses to comment on the subject. He is likely not an anti-statist though, his stance is simply for minimalist government.
Remember that a job "saved or created" is a statistic entirely pulled out of thin air and that there's no actual way to quantify a job "saved or created." It's utter bogus to begin with.
@NinjaHydra That's true, but also nothing new with regards to liberals. It's typical delusional perfunctory acclamation of every thing they dream up or do. HC, stimulus, regulation. etc.
$278,000 per job created or saved? ahh typical liberalism A.K.A. incompetence incarnate. liberals in politics are no different from their spoiled child counterparts. When the language of accountability and spending come up, they reply with "it's ok my MOM will pay for it!" only instead of Mom, it's, us the Tax Paying responsible parents of this country.
@NinjaHydra I understand created, but not jobs saved being bogus. Can you explain this? or if you don't have the time can you send me a link to an article?
Our stimulus goes to other countries? Yes. The U.S. Department of Energy revealed $60 million of the $1.2 billion given to the agency in economic stimulus funds to study climate change. While some might consider the expenditure frivolous, especially given the nation’s financial woes, it should be noted that some of the equipment was not even intended for use in the U.S. but rather was deployed to facilities in the Maldives, India and Australia.
im not seeing what your complaining about. We spend over 70 grand a year on each prisoner in prison every year(not including the cost of actually putting them to trial, getting a jury, a lawyer, judge etc). So if saving a job costs a little under 300grand , then im all for it. Its an attempt to help out the middle class and you can't hate Obama for it. Saving the middle class should come before saving the government's pockets. In my opinion.
htww is a disingenuous, manipulative pundit. and $278K per job is an obvious lie. but here's the explanation anyway:
the gop message machine came up with $278K per job by taking $666Bn, the cost of the recovery act, and dividing it by the low side estimate of jobs created or saved, 2.4M.
so, what's wrong with this?
1) half of the $666Bn "stimulus" was middle class tax cuts. are you railing against the economic wisdom of tax cuts? i mean, obama agrees that more jobs would ...
... have been saved by direct government spending, but come on. shit, let's look at jobs saved or created by the GOP tax cuts for millionaires. no, no, who cares about that?
2) you got a lot more for your money than just jobs. like billions in infrastructure, billions in health care, billions in education, etc. it is wrong to value these things at $0.00, as htww has done.
3) they of course used the low side est. of jobs saved or created. high side was 3.6M, average 3M.
The Obama Admin. did post a weak critique of data showing they spent an exorbitant amount of $ to have higher unemployment. The funny thing about the ARRA, many of the jobs it saved were gov't jobs, such as teachers. Pupils per teacher have gone down significantly since the 50s (federal ed spending has increased markedly) and test scores are flat. They threw money down a hole. We need 10 or 15 more Federal Departments of and we might see full employment.
@USAGymnast I didn't say leftists didn't want to legislate it, I said they don't care about morality. They support hate crime laws because if they marginalize people and divide our population into different groups (gay vs straight, black vs white, women vs men) they effectively gain a base of support bigger than those we stand for something. Why do you think they waited until 1964 to support Civil Rights? Dem President. Leftists feign compassion as they try to force you to be dependent on them.
Obungles will godown in history as the worse president ever even the libtards are defending him will not be able to defend hin.. I lamost feel bad for himm... what am I talking about!!!! I dont feel anything for this fool!
If nobodys say it, nobody will believe it. $278,000 Per Job in the Stimulus Packag its an unbelieble number ! You are right. Troughing the money from an helicopter, will be more stimulating, and better for people.
But Lee, doesn't this beg the question about the right wing trickle down theory which says provide for the job creators, cut their taxes and the jobs will come? This is why the right wing is off their rocker. Boosting the wealth of the rich does nothing but make them richer. But... we already knew that. Didn't we? What it proves is that the "Job Creators" stole money out of the American public's pockets. Google "The House Wives of Wall Street". That's where our tax dollars went.
Sure this is a good video on par with the rest of yours, but I clicked the like button on the bottom because of your scrolling comment at the end about your razor nick on your lip. It's good that you can make fun of yourself. Thanks, Lee!
Look at Japan's economy, their debt to GDP is 200%. They are not in a depression. Their currency is gaining strength and interest rates are low. I dont think that massively cutting government spending with do anything but take wealth out of the hands of the people. If you decrease the money supply, you make it harder to come by. Businesses tighten budgets, jobs lost.
The government's wasteful spending destroyed jobs. It created zero jobs. So however much was spent should be divided by zero.
In computer programming, an attempt to divide by zero may, depending on the programming language and the type of number being divided by zero, generate an exception, generate an error message, crash the program being executed, generate either positive or negative infinity, or could result in a special not-a-number value
That's good but we need to end the wars and legalize lots of stuff and lessen regulations because that would create industry to help the economy and we can't cut the defense until we end the wars.
Cut offense spending, raise taxes on the upper class, kill oil subsidies, kill the tax incentives for corporations outsourcing jobs, give tax incentives for job creation in the US. Would still be a long road, but one that works as opposed to no revenue, and the upper class raping the middle class.
@Swidhelm Sounds great. . . . never works. There's a big difference between right-sounding and actually 'sound'. Revenue increases with lowering of taxes. The upper class isn't raping the middle class, the government is raping the country.
@ViCe1986 How you figure? Seems to me you give tax incentives to big corporations to create jobs here rather than over seas there would be job creation. The current plan, yeah there are lots of jobs created--in China, Thailand, Taiwan, India, Pakistan, etc. Not in America. Why? Because these big companies get tax breaks specifically to outsource. Then they keep their money overseas so it doesn't get taxed here. Your government is against you. The middle class is vanishing.
@Swidhelm Yes that is what happens when the number of people making 100,000 + a year increases 25% they move out of the middle class and into the upper class
@Swidhelm And why do you think they do business overseas? Its because its cheaper to do it there. Overseas doesnt have as many regulations and high taxes that we do in America, you reduce their taxes to something they can deal with, and get rid of the regulations, and let them have some certainty in their businesses, then they would all stay here
@superlucci You're kidding right. Yeah they do business over there because it's cheaper. Get rid of regulations? Are you crazy? Do you know what companies do when there's no regulations? Those regulations are there to protect the consumer, protect the environment, protect the workers. Get rid of all those in America you'd be working in a factory making $8 a day, working 16 hour shifts, and have no safety regulations to reduce things like work place injuries or accidents.
@Swidhelm You obviously have no idea how the Free Markets work.
If a company did do something that accidently hurt somebody, they would get sued millions. Then what would happen? The company would then basically regulate themselves and make sure it never happens again.
The regulations prevent economic growth, they only hinder business's.
The Free Market would purge itself of any evil because a company is going to try and make the most money, and they cant do it by harming other people
@superlucci Some of those US mining companies I don't think got that memo. They tend to ignore safetey, and intimidate workers who bring up safety concerns, and then shrug off 29 deaths, and continue to threaten employees if they talk to the media about it, or refuse to work, etc.
Companies now skirt regulations by paying the right people, and it usually results in work place deaths or environmental disasters. They don't care. BP is a prime example.
@superlucci If companies can get away with screwing people to make money, they will. My company in Canada does it with their warehouse racking. They don't meet the legislation for racking as it pertains to material handling, and have been fined more than once. As a result of their not carin (there have been meetings with union and safetey reps, and still company refuses) there are lots of injuries. My back is fucked because of that racking and I can't keep up to standards now.
@superlucci Why do you think the countries those companies open factories in are in such poor shape? It's because the governments don't give two shits about the people, and those companies pay those governments to keep wages freaky low. As a result, the people that work in those places, though it's considered a good wage compared to many other places to work, make fuck all and barely scrape by. Hey, if you want America to emulate countries like Thailand, or Indonesia . . .
@Swidhelm Its called a voluntary choice. If you choose to work at a factory, you chose to do it. They obviously want to work at the factory because it was better than whatever they were doing previously.
Also, if you dont like a specific job, find another job, or get more skills to get a higher paying job.
Minimum wage keeps unemployment numbers up. Also, minimum wage is not supposed to be a living wage.
We already have laws like Child Labor laws that would prevent kids from working
You're completely missing his point. If we got rid of the government regulations on business that seperate us from countries like Indonesia and Thailand, we WOULDN'T have child labor laws, the ability to sue a corporation or minimum wage. Our standard of living would be reduced to that of the shit hole slums of countries like India and the Philippines.
@yeebuddeh1 You are assuming that Child Labor Laws are what got rid of children working in the first place. I agree that it put the final nail in the coffin.However that wasnt the main cause. The main cause was that business owners realized that hiring kids to do the work was not profitable. They had to be taken care of profusely and ended up being too much of a liability.
I support getting rid of child labor laws. But that doesnt automatically mean children will be working. its voluntary
@yeebuddeh1 A minimum wage is BAD for us. It prevents people with less skills from getting hired. You are discriminating against people who dont have the education for higher paying jobs by telling companies they cant hire anybody below X amount of dollars. Therefore the amount of people they can hire is limited.
Minimum wage is not supposed to be a living wage. Its supposed to be for disposable income.
No our standard of living would not be reduced to a shithole
@superlucci Disposable income? What minimum wage job pays enough to allow someone to have disposable income? That is money above bills and food. None that I know of. So, a company pays it's employees in America $5 a day because there aren't any laws to tell them they have to pay more, no regulations for work place safety, or environmental protection, etc. Where are you going to live? Going to pile in buses overcrowded to get to work? You won't be able to afford a car.
@Swidhelm Dont assume that there is not any disposable income for people who earn minimum wage.
If an employer does not like what they are getting paid, they can leave and work at another company. Also, if you get on the job experience, you can go ahead and get a promotion or get a raise due to your skills. Its all about personal responsibility.
Its in a companys interest to make sure nobody outside of the workplace dies from their services, otherwise they get sued for millions of dollars
Companies get sued millions of dollars all the time for hurting and sometimes even killing people and the environment in the US and all over the globe. Do you know why they keep doing it? If the money they save by skimping on safety for the workers, the consumers and the neighbouring communities is more than the legal fines they had to pay, they'll do it. Because at the end of the day, many bussinesses have only one concern. Increasing short term profits for the stockholders
@yeebuddeh1 There is no way in hell that the legal fines they would have to pay would somehow be lower than the amount of money they get from skimping out on safety.
You mean starving to death with no employment whatsoever? Ofcourse they choose the job in the sweatshops. It might be 16 hour shifts 7 days a week for about 10 cents an hour, but it will pay for the rice they need to feed their families. They still have to live in unsanitary conditions in some of the worst places to live on the planet, but atleast they won't starve and that's a big improvement for them.
@yeebuddeh1 EXACTLY! They were simply scavenging for food and metals to maybe be able to continue living, but that was horrible to factories came along and gave them a job. AND THEY VOLUNTARILY took those jobs.
Why? Why would they take those jobs if they were so bad? Because it was better than what they had before.
Now that isnt to say we shouldnt expect them to be able to do any better. But that is why we want Free Trade in all countries, so companies can compete, and so people can choose
@yeebuddeh1 The point isnt whether its a big improvement or not. The point is that it IS an improvement in their lives. Why would you be against improvement regardless of the size of it?
Free Trade allows for people to voluntarily choose which company to work for. If they dont like the wage they are getting paid, they can leave, if they dont like a job, they can leave.
Its all based around a voluntarily transaction in goods and services. Thats the marvel of Free Trade. Everybody can benefit
@superlucci Those countries are marginally better than they were. However when those governments want to up wages to better the lives of their people, like to say $14 a day instead of $8, those companies pressure the governments, threatening to leave if wages increase--like the companies can't afford to pay those poor bastards in those countries a little more. I get it, you want America to be like the old west, every man for themselves, with sweat shops being the only available jobs. That's cool
@Swidhelm You do know that Unions want their minimum wage rates to increase right? Why is that?
Take South Africa for example. They want the minimum wage rate to increase because they dont want to have to fire black people. It gives them an excuse to not hire blacks because why hire a black for such an increased wage when you can hire a white for such an increased wage?
The minimum wage discriminates against people who have no skills and dont have an education.
@Swidhelm When your talking about other countries. You have to look at what they were doing BEFORE they were working in factories. You will find out that their working conditions were WORSE than working in factories and the reason they chose to work in factories is because it was less hazardous and had better pay.
They make the CHOICE to work there. If they dont want to work there, they dont have to.
If you're looking for the politically incorrect truth about the Casey Anthony......trial, click over to Pinegrove33 & watch the video called "Casey Anthony Freed!".
I still can't make sense of this unending debate. If he statistic show that Obama has "saved or created" more than 2 million jobs with the stimulus, then how the hell is the national unemployment rate still so high? I can't make sense of this mathematically. We added millions of jobs but the jobless rate has increased?! Seriously, wtf?
And keep in mind "jobs saved/created" is a meaningless term. Economic reports do not include a category called "Saved Jobs." It is virtually impossible to prove a job has been "saved." Any time the term "jobs saved" is used, it's to hide the fact that the stimulus is even more of a dismal failure than what liberals are willing to admit.
The mother was a harlot, and acted incredibly weird/suspicious for a woman whose child is dead.
Beyond that, the media seems to want this trial to be the OJ trial all over again. Well as I remember OJ before the murders was a respected athlete and maybe even pillar of his community. This lady wasn't as famous, and seemed like a bad Mother.
We would've been better off if we'd just paid out-of-work construction workers $60,000 a year to build our southern border. That would've been more helpful.
Gov't doesn't need to perform successfully for our money.
220+BILLION dollars a MONTH flows in regardless of the waste, fraud, corruption, graft & the purchasing of votes, loyalty & dependance.
DEMAND an account for EVERY dime spent, & ONLY elect those who sign a legal contract that they will outlaw all acts of bribery like lobbyists, public unions, endless welfare etc... & AGGRESSIVELY PROSECUTE all crime, directly overseen by NON-appointed citizen committees on the threat of recall.
Jobs in Scott Walker's Wisconsin are increasing. How do I know? I live in Madison, WI and am searching for a job. Its interesting that the jobs are increasing in Republican governed states while it sucks for you if your in a Democrap governed state. Conservatism: works every time its tried because it is not the government that creates jobs but the government merely making a business friendly environment that makes the difference! Socialism: never worked in all of world history!!!
@cartoeratos "he final totals show 22 states considered "red", adding the private-sector jobs increased, subtracting the private-sector jobs decreased, left the red states with a plus 451,600 private-sector job increase over the last decade.
The 21 states considered "blue", and DC (making 22)adding the private-sector jobs increased, subtracting the private-sector jobs decreased, left the blue states with a minus 2,041,300 decrease in private-sector jobs." -Business Journal Article
@cartoeratos Check this out. These guys got employment statistics numbers for Wisconsin, as well as many other states, from the official employment statistics data. Take out the spaces and/or punch it into Google. The numbers show job growth has boomed under Scott Walker so far.
h t t p : / / w w w . d e p t o f n u m b e r s . c o m / e m p l o y m en t/ w i s c o n s i n /
I have been watching your videos off and on Lee. I really think I am learning alot from you. I am more right wing then i used to be even though I don't agree with you on everything 100%. I think I would be more libertarian since I want drugs to be legal and i am pro-choice which is kind of a big no no if your an actual republican. Anyways i look forward to learning more from you. Thx.
@skeptictom818 Well there are plenty of Republicans in the libertarian camp, including Ron Paul. Just because you're not a full-out conservative does not mean you can't call yourself a Republican.
Both Libertarians and Republicans are split on Abortion (Republicans not so much with drugs since it has detrimental effects on the economy). The real thing that separates a Libertarian from a Republican is foreign policy, if you support a strong military the protects America from her enemies your Republican, if you support withdrawing the United States military from the dozens of nations we are stationed in around the world so we can be an easy target, then your a Libertarian.
@ViCe1986 Well I just don't think we should be nation building when we have a 14 trillion dollar defeict. I don't mind the idea of a strong army but right now we just can't afford it.
Clinton was nation building, Bush wasn't. It isn't nation building when the people in power are material supporters of an organization that has attacked the United States. In legal terms they are a co-conspirator or accomplice. The funding to Al-Queda from Afghanistan and Iraq made them legitimate targets to American security and freedom.
Libertarians love to see Americans die in terrorist attacks, Republicans don't, if the Libs figured out foreign policy I would return.
@ViCe1986 Well i seriously doubt that they love to see people die. It just seems the more we get involved with other nations. The more enemy we make that want to kill us.
The more we get involved with other nations, the more enemies we make that want to kill us?!?!?
What did you think that when we stop evil people from killing, raping, and repressing other people that the rest of the evil people in the world would stop being evil and start loving everyone else?
Get a grip on reality for a second, Freedom isn't Free.
@ViCe1986 "stop evil people from killing, raping, and repressing other people" This is when people who think of themselves (I presume?) as right-wing begin to sound like leftists. The path to hell is paved with good intentions, that goes for Obama as well as Bush, and it goes for health care as well as for overthrowing autocracies. The "arabian spring" is as leftist a movement as the "democracy" movements in Germany had been back when America intervened in WW1. Look where that got the world.
Well, we have been in Germany and Japan for almost 70 years, Korea for almost 60, and Kuwait for 20 years.
Why would you expect the US to not have a permanent presence in Iraq and Afghanistan?
The United States has always left a military presence behind in every nation that it has fought in to ensure stability and increase the military's ability to rapidly deploy to any corner of the Earth, if need be.
Not to mention the dozens of bases we have in nations we have never fought in.
We have been fighting a war in Germany for 70 years? Leaving a military presence is not fighting a war, also it wouldn't be the first time England and France fought a 107 year war, which they called the hundred years year (guess at that point your round down)
@ViCe1986 McCain said he'd be willing to stay in Iraq for 100 years. He didn't say the war would be over and we'd simply have a base there. He was implying that there would be ongoing conflict for 100 years and he'd still stay there. You brought up Germany, not me. Having a base is different. We aren't losing soldiers in Germany or Japan. We ended our occupation of Japan after 6 years. Why should it take over a decade in Afghanistan and nearly a decade in Iraq?
@ViCe1986 "Libertarians love to see Americans die in terrorist attacks"
That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. I'm a registered republican but I am a Libertarian, the two are not enemies...I support the war on terror and the ultimate solution to it: drill for our own oil. If we would drill we wouldn't be funding these people. Some Libertarians don't believe we should fight these wars and I completely understand that. The fact is we are there and we cant just pull out now.
This is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Where is all that Iraqi Oil I fought for? Last time I checked my Gas was 3.60 a gallon? Gas prices rose during OIF even after the pipelines started pumping Iraqi crude again.
The United States purchases it's crude oil imports from Canada, Mexico, venezuela, and Saudi Arabia (in order or amount purchased with Canada being the Most and Saudi being the Least). You Libertarians and your oil argument shows you ignorance.
@ViCe1986 Yeah you are right, we do get most of our oil from Canada. Last year we still bought 394,280 thousand barrels from Saudi Arabia alone and 1,654,277 thousand barrels from OPEC countries total. That is just short of what we buy from non-OPEC countries. Roughly half our crude oil spending goes directly to countries in which these terrorist organizations sprout up, we are funding them indirectly. We drill here reduce our dependence on OPEC and defund terrorist groups.
No you are right we are not enemies but we are nemesi, Libertarians take votes away FTP viable conservative candidates, fortunately my misguided time with the Libertarian Party before I found out it's platform of no defense and isolationism, showed me that the Libertarian party has a valid purpose it's the halfway house for recovering liberals who realize that being a conservative is the right way. It allows them to slowly make the transition from Liberal to Conservative.
@ViCe1986 I went from Conservative to Libertarian. That means I was right then I moved further right. Conservatives want government intervention in morality and more defense spending, meaning larger government. Libertarians want morality to be an individual decision not law and the smallest amount defense spending necessary, meaning smaller government. Liberals don't give a shit about morality, and want government to do everything, meaning HUGE government.
We have a 14 trillion dollar debt (not deficit, a deficit is the amount we overspend in 1 year) because independent idiots elected a socialist that borrowed 5 trillion dollars in 3 years, before Obama our national debt was 9 trillion dollars now it is almost $14.5 trillion.
It's not the Army's fault that America elected a socialist with no experience to the office of president and allowed him to bankrupt our nation. Don't murder innocent children by weakening our defenses.
If you have trouble agreeing with yourself I would suggest that you seek professional mental help. You are right people are changing there view to the truth that every conservative has been advocating from the beginning. Your prospective only changes when your ignorant and narrow minded. The liberals are the ones who's perspectives are or need changing conservatives have been correct all along.
I agree that entitlements, military and other government spending need to be cut, but saying that SLIGHT tax increases on millionaires is off the table is absolutely insane. Taxes are lower than they've ever been since WWII. Taxes on the top used to be 70% and when they were cut drastically in 80's as spending also inceased, the budget deficit began to grow tremendously and continues to this day.
The majority of money they save in tax cuts goes into investments overseas and their bank accounts
Why is it insane to say that tax increases on the job creators is off the table during the sluggish recovery from the worst economic depression since the 1930's?
I agree taxes might rise some day (though I think that is a dumb idea) but today is not that day unless you like to see unemployment over 10%, go ahead and suck another $500 Billion out of the job creators and see what happens. The same thing when Carter did the same thing in the 70's, STAGFLATION!
We've tried that for years and years and years though. They haven't been creating jobs here, they've been creating them overseas. I don't understand why people cling to that argument when historically it has proven ineffective.
It's insane because when you have a 14 trillion dollar deficit with the lowest taxes on the wealthy in over half a century, losing that crucial revenue at a time like this will greatly slow down the payment of that debt. Spending MUST be cut as well, I agree
Yeah and it worked for years and years and years. Reagan created 17 million jobs with the largest tax cut in US history, 25% across the board, combines with spending cuts. Obama spends 5 trillion in 3 years and loses the United States 1 million net jobs, which strategy worked, Spending? or Cutting Taxes and Spending?
WE DO NOT HAVE A 14 TRILLION DOLLAR DEFICIT! It is a 1.5 Trillion dollar deficit and a 14 trillion dollar debt. Also the Government had record revenue under Bush!
Here we go again with the myth of Saint Reagan. He cut taxes in 1981, that's true. After that, unemployment went up from 7.1% to 9.7%. He then RAISED corporate taxes, payroll taxes and energy taxes and that's when unemployment began to go down to 5.3% by the end of his presidency.
Revenues actually declined for the 1st few Bush years, and they then rebounded to their 40 year historic average as a percentage of GDP. NOT record levels
Taking capital from businesses destroys our ability to pay off the debt since that capital reinvested in business creates jobs which then lowers spending (less unemployment) as well as increases revenue (more incomes to tax) this is why the Government had the highest revenue stream in US history under the Bush Tax Cuts.
Taking money from industry does not increase revenues it decreases it, every time. The best way in increase revenue is to create more taxable entities by tax cuts.
@yeebuddeh1 Here's why raising taxes on the rich is a stupid idea: According to the CBO from 03 to 06 federal tax revenue increased by $625 billion or 35%. Corporate Income tax revenue increased from $132 billion to $354 billion because corporations kept more of their money to expand and increase profits, as profits increased so did taxes paid despite lower tax rates. Business expansion lead to job creation and individual tax revenue went from $794 billion to $1044 billion.
Yes you are correct we needed a Jobs bill, which means tax cuts and spending cuts! The best jobs bill is to put money back in the hands of those people who create jobs.
I fail to see how you think that you didn't get a liberal in the white house, Obama is as Liberal as one can get, he whole heartedly believes in redistribution and socialism. You got what you wanted, the real problem is it is hard to see your false ideology become an
He gave us Obamacare instead of the public option (despite the fact that 70% of the population wanted it), he continued the Bush tax cuts, and continued the patriot act.
I'd ask you to name 3 truly liberal things he done. (By truly Liberal, I mean to the left of the past 4 presidents).
And if you want to cut spending, start with the failed war on drugs.
Is that the new math they teach liberals? If 65% were against Obamacare in any form (including public option) nationwide how is another 70% for it nationwide?
What do you mean the Patriot Act is the change that progressives want, Governement with more power to micromanage the populous and redistribute there property. If you can't wire tape them without a search warrant how do you find where they stash there cash in overseas accounts?
The war on drugs is a failure, go after the cartel
The reason for 65% were against Obamacare, is because many of them wanted the public option. Obamacare doesn't contain the public option, but instead of a bunch of crap. Remember, Obamacare was the type of thing Newt thought was GREAT back in 93, so it's not a "liberal" idea, unless you now believe Newt was a Liberal during his time as speaker of the house.
In terms of the war on drugs, simple solution, LEGALIZE IT ALL, I'm always shocked by the number of Republcans who jump to the defense of the nanny state when it comes to the war on drugs.
Amen to that brother. Legalizing drugs is literally ALL you have to do to end the mexican drug cartels going on. If they can't sell us drugs, they lose their market and funding they go under. It would also cut wasteful billions from government spending on polices and prisons and instead generate billions of dollars for the economy every year and create millions of jobs.
Any conservative that isn't in favor of this DOES NOT actually give a rats ass about the deficit, plain and simple.
I find it funny that people talk about cutting spending they go first for the services that help the poor a middle class. They want to cut medicare, medicaid, social security FIRST.
Why can't the republicans open with "We'll end the failed war on drugs, we'll trim the military budget, and close some tax loop holes, " before asking the least among us to sacrifice?
@ViCe1986 See the problem is you spout "epic fail" but please name a policy that redistributes wealth or supports "socialism." Please, before your say health care look at the the counter proposal the republicans pushed against the Clintons. It is very similar to the bill passed under Obama.
You have the failed stimulus, the failed TARP, and the failed healthcare bill (I don't care if Newt offered a virgin sacrifice as a counter to Hillary's healthcare bill, it wasn't there to be passed it was there to kill there single payer communism ideal. Also they didn't offer to double the medicare roles so there is no similarity at all)
In all cases Obama gobbles up more and more of the economy and the US economy sinks even deeper.
@ViCe1986 Obama didn't pass TARP.......... I understand your point you dislike Obama but the massive miss-statments hurt your cause. It is also a bit of a shaky argument to call one side a monster for putting forth a package and then justifying it with a bit of shaky reasoning when your side did it first.
@harvellt Bush did pass TARP, but as you remember, at the end of Bush's second term Obama asked Bush to pass it in order to save the economy. TARP did some good, but it was far too huge and wasn't targeted well. The harm to our long term economy will, in my opinion, be worse than allowing failed companies fail.
@intrepidorator I can very much agree with you on some of the failings of TARP but it was crafted by a Republican administration and championed by a Democrat President Elect (To some extent they both own it). I was responding to the argument put to me that it is a "socialist" policy put forth by the current President to further his "socialism agenda." It quite obviously is not.
@ViCe1986 Tarp didn't fail. Banks repaid it within the 1st year with a large interest. In fact dollar for dollar, it was the best investment US government made in recent history. It was revenue which actually produced a profit. The only part of it which failed was the loans to GM. Those will be repaid. But the loans made to banks paid so much back that TARP was profitable overall even after you discount the losses from lending to GM.
@ViCe1986 Also, how did TARP fail? It prevented massive banks from going out of business and defaulting on all their debt. That is exactly what it did.
@ViCe1986 u put too much money in the hands of people who create jobs and half the time they either hoard it or find ways to make more money while reducing spending.
The other half of the time they are making jobs, meanwhile when you put too much money in the hands of the government they makes jobs 0% of time. I'll take the private sector making jobs half of the time over the state making jobs none of the time!
and those jobs are mostly government jobs that dont add anything useful to the economy. The only jobs really created by these programs are the government workers that were hired to administrate the programs.
Obama is a populist. And these assholes simply steal from all the non-EU countries of the world, where people primarily hold reserves in $.
IBMua 1 month ago in playlist Більше відео від користувача HowTheWorldWorks
I think most of the jobs that have been created by this administration are "would you like fries with that?". Not impressed. I think Van Jones's point was that wealth has been re-distributed to the top dogs, and that is what he means by we are not broke. This can be easily demonstrated if you do the math. Guess what? CEO's that make millions of dollars do not work any harder than I do, nor are they any smarter. When I make my millions I will help the country before I buy a private jet.
Mree4u 7 months ago
Comment removed
Altimadark 7 months ago
they would have created 50 time the number of jobs if they had given that money to small businesses. and Obama not waking up his asking for more of the same!
ABGAN100 7 months ago
You want me pay you for your propaganda thru payapl??? The stimulus package may be a load of crap, but remember the far larger amount of money that went to the financial industry - how much did that work out per job, I wonder - put a video up on that and I may consider contributing....
nowthatsinteresting1 7 months ago
That was a razor nick on your lip? I thought it was a pimple gone rogue.
CampH 7 months ago
Aren't america in debt also??....
clovelywindheaven 7 months ago
Politifact Rating:False.
Try again, dipshit.
youtbeguy 7 months ago
@youtbeguy WTF Does that mean?
dynamitemike65 7 months ago
@youtbeguy Check out what politifact says: "Had it instead gone with the 3.6 million job figure at the top end of the range, it would have come up with a smaller $185,000 per job figure." rofl
I encourage everyone to actually read the politfact article. It's telling. He took the low estimate of jobs, and politifact points out that there were supplies and such assosiated with programs, but YES! As far as job creation goes, it WOULD'VE been cheeper to cut those affected a check for 100k.
fizzingwhizbeee 7 months ago 5
i can do a lot of stimulating with 278k!
perdedor3571 7 months ago
Where is my fucking money, OBAMA?!
Orion1232 7 months ago 3
Congressional Budget Office report: The results of the ARRA has been in between 600,000 to 1.6 million jobs that would not exist if the Stimulus package did not subsist. It is very disingenuous to say the least, to say that the private sector would find better use for the stimulus funds. Considering that private entities have there own interests that take priority over our economic stability. Either way, these spent resources will be detrimental to us in the future with out increased revenue.
edeal86 7 months ago
Anybody that supports obungles are people that enjoy getting buttfucked therefor any man that supports Obungles is a fag and women are whores... Must be terrible to be a liberal,
AmericanMega2 7 months ago
You miss the point. The problem is primarily the FED and the way money is created. There is an inherent fraud in the fractional reserve banking system. Where there is an asymmetryin the money creation process. Cause the demand for money can create credit (bank notes) equivalent to money at no cost. The only risk is not being repaid which is taken care by the government with bank bailouts. This monetary system is a gaint ponzi scheme which requires a perpetual increase in money supply to keep
shanxutube 7 months ago
Hey, so does this prove tax cuts don't work, since 1\3rd of the stimulus was tax cuts?
Muahaha
SPQRomantic 7 months ago
Yeah short term tax cuts are Keynesian stimulus stuff as well. 1/3rd tax cuts would be similar to the Keynesian ideas (cut taxes in a recession but more important is to boost government spending). Small government types, people who don't think Kaynes was correct should be against short term tax stimulus as well.
lavedon 7 months ago
The only thing ObombA's stimulus package did for me. Is make my ass hurt! OUCH.
grassburner 7 months ago
Ummm, how did this guy get a herpes on his lip? Love what he says, but, er, just a little disconcerting, ya know?
scharleslaw 7 months ago
I am not trying to be argumentive, but sometimes job creation costs the private sector 1 million dollar per job. Let me give you an example. A manufacturer wants to expand production so he he buys a new 5 million dollar machine which will need 5 workers to run to produce widgets. So, each one of those new jobs costed 1M to create, but over time, that 5million dollar investment is generating revenue that far exceeds the capital and labor cost.
tarstarkusz 7 months ago
I'm sorry buti couldnt concentrate. There's something on ur face.
SupremeAmerican 7 months ago
I work in mortgages--namely examining peoples' assets and income. its ridiculous to see the foreigners who aren't descendants of those who fought for our liberty or freedom and are making 6 figures in the government. whenever i have to contact these borrowers directly they're acting busy yet always seem to be sitting back munching on some kind of snack. WTF AMERICA?
smithwh 7 months ago
if u drink enough vitamin c et al in fruits and namely cranberry apple juice ull never have a break out
smithwh 7 months ago
I've always wondered Lee, are you an anti-statist?
CosmicThinking 7 months ago
@CosmicThinking i feel safe to say that hes more of a liessez-faire kinda guy =)
smithwh 7 months ago
@CosmicThinking
I've asked him that several times, he refuses to comment on the subject. He is likely not an anti-statist though, his stance is simply for minimalist government.
Ilikemustard 7 months ago
@Ilikemustard Ah, so he's cool but not REALLY cool.
CosmicThinking 7 months ago
Remember that a job "saved or created" is a statistic entirely pulled out of thin air and that there's no actual way to quantify a job "saved or created." It's utter bogus to begin with.
NinjaHydra 7 months ago 17
@NinjaHydra That's true, but also nothing new with regards to liberals. It's typical delusional perfunctory acclamation of every thing they dream up or do. HC, stimulus, regulation. etc.
carlindelco 7 months ago
$278,000 per job created or saved? ahh typical liberalism A.K.A. incompetence incarnate. liberals in politics are no different from their spoiled child counterparts. When the language of accountability and spending come up, they reply with "it's ok my MOM will pay for it!" only instead of Mom, it's, us the Tax Paying responsible parents of this country.
carlindelco 7 months ago
@NinjaHydra I understand created, but not jobs saved being bogus. Can you explain this? or if you don't have the time can you send me a link to an article?
mana2432 7 months ago
@NinjaHydra the point of this video still stands
emarsc 7 months ago
Our stimulus goes to other countries? Yes. The U.S. Department of Energy revealed $60 million of the $1.2 billion given to the agency in economic stimulus funds to study climate change. While some might consider the expenditure frivolous, especially given the nation’s financial woes, it should be noted that some of the equipment was not even intended for use in the U.S. but rather was deployed to facilities in the Maldives, India and Australia.
vechorik 6 months ago
im not seeing what your complaining about. We spend over 70 grand a year on each prisoner in prison every year(not including the cost of actually putting them to trial, getting a jury, a lawyer, judge etc). So if saving a job costs a little under 300grand , then im all for it. Its an attempt to help out the middle class and you can't hate Obama for it. Saving the middle class should come before saving the government's pockets. In my opinion.
drums4woodstock 7 months ago
htww is a disingenuous, manipulative pundit. and $278K per job is an obvious lie. but here's the explanation anyway:
the gop message machine came up with $278K per job by taking $666Bn, the cost of the recovery act, and dividing it by the low side estimate of jobs created or saved, 2.4M.
so, what's wrong with this?
1) half of the $666Bn "stimulus" was middle class tax cuts. are you railing against the economic wisdom of tax cuts? i mean, obama agrees that more jobs would ...
ExUnoPlures 7 months ago
... have been saved by direct government spending, but come on. shit, let's look at jobs saved or created by the GOP tax cuts for millionaires. no, no, who cares about that?
2) you got a lot more for your money than just jobs. like billions in infrastructure, billions in health care, billions in education, etc. it is wrong to value these things at $0.00, as htww has done.
3) they of course used the low side est. of jobs saved or created. high side was 3.6M, average 3M.
ExUnoPlures 7 months ago
4) you also got whatever you bought with your $300Bn in tax cuts. don't value that at $0.00 like the gop message machine does.
ExUnoPlures 7 months ago
I presume you read the economist.
read the recent article: "America's debt Shame on them
The Republicans are playing a cynical political game with hugely high economic stakes"
then comment, please.
MaBuSt 7 months ago
this guys been busy fucking crack whores look at that herpe on his upper lip ewww homeboy needs some valtrex.
richdanks 7 months ago
LEE DOREN WHAT THE FUCK IS UP WITH YOUR LIP LOLOLOL!!!111!!!1!
KagarBeardtooth 7 months ago
The Obama Admin. did post a weak critique of data showing they spent an exorbitant amount of $ to have higher unemployment. The funny thing about the ARRA, many of the jobs it saved were gov't jobs, such as teachers. Pupils per teacher have gone down significantly since the 50s (federal ed spending has increased markedly) and test scores are flat. They threw money down a hole. We need 10 or 15 more Federal Departments of and we might see full employment.
UTubekookdetector 7 months ago
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are 1,900,000 FEWER Jobs now since Obama signed the so-called "Stimulus" spending bill in 2009.
The only thing "saved or created" by it was Obama's bullshit. It's no wonder Liberals are so obsessed with carbon residue.
Obama-nomics are spite-based economics, and they are as shovel ready as dog poo.
TylerNull 7 months ago
Comment removed
TylerNull 7 months ago
@USAGymnast I didn't say leftists didn't want to legislate it, I said they don't care about morality. They support hate crime laws because if they marginalize people and divide our population into different groups (gay vs straight, black vs white, women vs men) they effectively gain a base of support bigger than those we stand for something. Why do you think they waited until 1964 to support Civil Rights? Dem President. Leftists feign compassion as they try to force you to be dependent on them.
MrCBRIDD 7 months ago
Obungles will godown in history as the worse president ever even the libtards are defending him will not be able to defend hin.. I lamost feel bad for himm... what am I talking about!!!! I dont feel anything for this fool!
AmericanMega2 7 months ago
If nobodys say it, nobody will believe it. $278,000 Per Job in the Stimulus Packag its an unbelieble number ! You are right. Troughing the money from an helicopter, will be more stimulating, and better for people.
SuperPais 7 months ago 14
"Or compared to the comments on this video discussing the razor nick on my lip"
I actually didn't even notice until you said something. XD I guess I was too interested in what you were saying.
metalshadowoverlord 7 months ago
Thank you for taking the time to do these videos. I really enjoy and learn from them.
ejfurniture 7 months ago
I miss the violin at the end
timmcbride00 7 months ago
But Lee, doesn't this beg the question about the right wing trickle down theory which says provide for the job creators, cut their taxes and the jobs will come? This is why the right wing is off their rocker. Boosting the wealth of the rich does nothing but make them richer. But... we already knew that. Didn't we? What it proves is that the "Job Creators" stole money out of the American public's pockets. Google "The House Wives of Wall Street". That's where our tax dollars went.
BikerBry 7 months ago
Sure this is a good video on par with the rest of yours, but I clicked the like button on the bottom because of your scrolling comment at the end about your razor nick on your lip. It's good that you can make fun of yourself. Thanks, Lee!
CassieleighL 7 months ago
Future liabilities? Technically, we don't have enough money to pay our current liabilities. If we did, we wouldn't have to increase the debt ceiling
drd105 7 months ago
BOYCOTT NEWS INTERNATIONAL - Ruperts Murdochs groups has been caught hacking into the phones of terrorist victims and dead molested kids.
JustB3NJI 7 months ago
Look at Japan's economy, their debt to GDP is 200%. They are not in a depression. Their currency is gaining strength and interest rates are low. I dont think that massively cutting government spending with do anything but take wealth out of the hands of the people. If you decrease the money supply, you make it harder to come by. Businesses tighten budgets, jobs lost.
phillipseric 7 months ago
Lee, you have to understand, the liberals are mathematically challenged. They went to public school, after all.
633562 7 months ago
Obummer's ideas belong in a classroom just like Goolsbee figured his belonged back in a Chicago University.
Liberal ideas should never be used in actual practice.
*WARNING* Don't try this at home.
bsharker 7 months ago 16
278k per job? isnt that the conservative opinion for good jobs? As in anyone earning less than 250k isnt worth rights.
LiekABaus 7 months ago
The government's wasteful spending destroyed jobs. It created zero jobs. So however much was spent should be divided by zero.
In computer programming, an attempt to divide by zero may, depending on the programming language and the type of number being divided by zero, generate an exception, generate an error message, crash the program being executed, generate either positive or negative infinity, or could result in a special not-a-number value
carcabe 7 months ago
Is something wrong with your lip, Lee? It looks like you've got some sort of mark on it.
nick012000 7 months ago
@swidhelm
That's good but we need to end the wars and legalize lots of stuff and lessen regulations because that would create industry to help the economy and we can't cut the defense until we end the wars.
thatkamikid 7 months ago
Cut offense spending, raise taxes on the upper class, kill oil subsidies, kill the tax incentives for corporations outsourcing jobs, give tax incentives for job creation in the US. Would still be a long road, but one that works as opposed to no revenue, and the upper class raping the middle class.
Swidhelm 7 months ago
@Swidhelm Sounds great. . . . never works. There's a big difference between right-sounding and actually 'sound'. Revenue increases with lowering of taxes. The upper class isn't raping the middle class, the government is raping the country.
82compoundw 7 months ago
@Swidhelm
Your Plan = No jobs!
ViCe1986 7 months ago
@ViCe1986 How you figure? Seems to me you give tax incentives to big corporations to create jobs here rather than over seas there would be job creation. The current plan, yeah there are lots of jobs created--in China, Thailand, Taiwan, India, Pakistan, etc. Not in America. Why? Because these big companies get tax breaks specifically to outsource. Then they keep their money overseas so it doesn't get taxed here. Your government is against you. The middle class is vanishing.
Swidhelm 7 months ago
@Swidhelm Yes that is what happens when the number of people making 100,000 + a year increases 25% they move out of the middle class and into the upper class
ViCe1986 7 months ago
@Swidhelm And why do you think they do business overseas? Its because its cheaper to do it there. Overseas doesnt have as many regulations and high taxes that we do in America, you reduce their taxes to something they can deal with, and get rid of the regulations, and let them have some certainty in their businesses, then they would all stay here
superlucci 7 months ago
@superlucci You're kidding right. Yeah they do business over there because it's cheaper. Get rid of regulations? Are you crazy? Do you know what companies do when there's no regulations? Those regulations are there to protect the consumer, protect the environment, protect the workers. Get rid of all those in America you'd be working in a factory making $8 a day, working 16 hour shifts, and have no safety regulations to reduce things like work place injuries or accidents.
Swidhelm 7 months ago
@Swidhelm You obviously have no idea how the Free Markets work.
If a company did do something that accidently hurt somebody, they would get sued millions. Then what would happen? The company would then basically regulate themselves and make sure it never happens again.
The regulations prevent economic growth, they only hinder business's.
The Free Market would purge itself of any evil because a company is going to try and make the most money, and they cant do it by harming other people
superlucci 7 months ago
@superlucci Some of those US mining companies I don't think got that memo. They tend to ignore safetey, and intimidate workers who bring up safety concerns, and then shrug off 29 deaths, and continue to threaten employees if they talk to the media about it, or refuse to work, etc.
Companies now skirt regulations by paying the right people, and it usually results in work place deaths or environmental disasters. They don't care. BP is a prime example.
Swidhelm 7 months ago
@superlucci If companies can get away with screwing people to make money, they will. My company in Canada does it with their warehouse racking. They don't meet the legislation for racking as it pertains to material handling, and have been fined more than once. As a result of their not carin (there have been meetings with union and safetey reps, and still company refuses) there are lots of injuries. My back is fucked because of that racking and I can't keep up to standards now.
Swidhelm 7 months ago
@superlucci Why do you think the countries those companies open factories in are in such poor shape? It's because the governments don't give two shits about the people, and those companies pay those governments to keep wages freaky low. As a result, the people that work in those places, though it's considered a good wage compared to many other places to work, make fuck all and barely scrape by. Hey, if you want America to emulate countries like Thailand, or Indonesia . . .
Swidhelm 7 months ago
@Swidhelm Its called a voluntary choice. If you choose to work at a factory, you chose to do it. They obviously want to work at the factory because it was better than whatever they were doing previously.
Also, if you dont like a specific job, find another job, or get more skills to get a higher paying job.
Minimum wage keeps unemployment numbers up. Also, minimum wage is not supposed to be a living wage.
We already have laws like Child Labor laws that would prevent kids from working
superlucci 7 months ago
@superlucci
You're completely missing his point. If we got rid of the government regulations on business that seperate us from countries like Indonesia and Thailand, we WOULDN'T have child labor laws, the ability to sue a corporation or minimum wage. Our standard of living would be reduced to that of the shit hole slums of countries like India and the Philippines.
yeebuddeh1 7 months ago
@yeebuddeh1 You are assuming that Child Labor Laws are what got rid of children working in the first place. I agree that it put the final nail in the coffin.However that wasnt the main cause. The main cause was that business owners realized that hiring kids to do the work was not profitable. They had to be taken care of profusely and ended up being too much of a liability.
I support getting rid of child labor laws. But that doesnt automatically mean children will be working. its voluntary
superlucci 7 months ago
@yeebuddeh1 A minimum wage is BAD for us. It prevents people with less skills from getting hired. You are discriminating against people who dont have the education for higher paying jobs by telling companies they cant hire anybody below X amount of dollars. Therefore the amount of people they can hire is limited.
Minimum wage is not supposed to be a living wage. Its supposed to be for disposable income.
No our standard of living would not be reduced to a shithole
superlucci 7 months ago
@superlucci Disposable income? What minimum wage job pays enough to allow someone to have disposable income? That is money above bills and food. None that I know of. So, a company pays it's employees in America $5 a day because there aren't any laws to tell them they have to pay more, no regulations for work place safety, or environmental protection, etc. Where are you going to live? Going to pile in buses overcrowded to get to work? You won't be able to afford a car.
Swidhelm 7 months ago
@Swidhelm Dont assume that there is not any disposable income for people who earn minimum wage.
If an employer does not like what they are getting paid, they can leave and work at another company. Also, if you get on the job experience, you can go ahead and get a promotion or get a raise due to your skills. Its all about personal responsibility.
Its in a companys interest to make sure nobody outside of the workplace dies from their services, otherwise they get sued for millions of dollars
superlucci 7 months ago
@superlucci
Companies get sued millions of dollars all the time for hurting and sometimes even killing people and the environment in the US and all over the globe. Do you know why they keep doing it? If the money they save by skimping on safety for the workers, the consumers and the neighbouring communities is more than the legal fines they had to pay, they'll do it. Because at the end of the day, many bussinesses have only one concern. Increasing short term profits for the stockholders
yeebuddeh1 7 months ago
@yeebuddeh1 There is no way in hell that the legal fines they would have to pay would somehow be lower than the amount of money they get from skimping out on safety.
You have to pay out ridiculous amounts in the US.
superlucci 7 months ago
@superlucci
"It better than what they were doing previously"
You mean starving to death with no employment whatsoever? Ofcourse they choose the job in the sweatshops. It might be 16 hour shifts 7 days a week for about 10 cents an hour, but it will pay for the rice they need to feed their families. They still have to live in unsanitary conditions in some of the worst places to live on the planet, but atleast they won't starve and that's a big improvement for them.
yeebuddeh1 7 months ago
@yeebuddeh1 EXACTLY! They were simply scavenging for food and metals to maybe be able to continue living, but that was horrible to factories came along and gave them a job. AND THEY VOLUNTARILY took those jobs.
Why? Why would they take those jobs if they were so bad? Because it was better than what they had before.
Now that isnt to say we shouldnt expect them to be able to do any better. But that is why we want Free Trade in all countries, so companies can compete, and so people can choose
superlucci 7 months ago
@yeebuddeh1 The point isnt whether its a big improvement or not. The point is that it IS an improvement in their lives. Why would you be against improvement regardless of the size of it?
Free Trade allows for people to voluntarily choose which company to work for. If they dont like the wage they are getting paid, they can leave, if they dont like a job, they can leave.
Its all based around a voluntarily transaction in goods and services. Thats the marvel of Free Trade. Everybody can benefit
superlucci 7 months ago
@superlucci Those countries are marginally better than they were. However when those governments want to up wages to better the lives of their people, like to say $14 a day instead of $8, those companies pressure the governments, threatening to leave if wages increase--like the companies can't afford to pay those poor bastards in those countries a little more. I get it, you want America to be like the old west, every man for themselves, with sweat shops being the only available jobs. That's cool
Swidhelm 7 months ago
@Swidhelm You do know that Unions want their minimum wage rates to increase right? Why is that?
Take South Africa for example. They want the minimum wage rate to increase because they dont want to have to fire black people. It gives them an excuse to not hire blacks because why hire a black for such an increased wage when you can hire a white for such an increased wage?
The minimum wage discriminates against people who have no skills and dont have an education.
superlucci 7 months ago
@Swidhelm When your talking about other countries. You have to look at what they were doing BEFORE they were working in factories. You will find out that their working conditions were WORSE than working in factories and the reason they chose to work in factories is because it was less hazardous and had better pay.
They make the CHOICE to work there. If they dont want to work there, they dont have to.
superlucci 7 months ago
@Swidhelm Completely agree.
orangeblood307 7 months ago
If you're looking for the politically incorrect truth about the Casey Anthony......trial, click over to Pinegrove33 & watch the video called "Casey Anthony Freed!".
Razlo5000 7 months ago
I still can't make sense of this unending debate. If he statistic show that Obama has "saved or created" more than 2 million jobs with the stimulus, then how the hell is the national unemployment rate still so high? I can't make sense of this mathematically. We added millions of jobs but the jobless rate has increased?! Seriously, wtf?
regelemihai 7 months ago
Bailout were for the Banks not for the general population.
edmondov 7 months ago
Stimulus, or Depressant?
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are 1,900,000 FEWER Jobs now since Obama signed the so-called "Stimulus" spending bill in 2009.
Evidently, the only thing "saved or created" by it was Obama's bullshit; Obama's spite-based economic policies.
TylerNull 7 months ago
"Socialism is force. Capitalism is voluntary." - As a Canadian, I couldn't have said it better myself.
Good luck on your book!
Unkn0wnGuy 7 months ago
I know how we can pay off the debt, tax Canadian and Mexican citizens, problem solved.
smrtsTV 7 months ago
And keep in mind "jobs saved/created" is a meaningless term. Economic reports do not include a category called "Saved Jobs." It is virtually impossible to prove a job has been "saved." Any time the term "jobs saved" is used, it's to hide the fact that the stimulus is even more of a dismal failure than what liberals are willing to admit.
callmebakes 7 months ago
All I know about the trial your talking about.
The mother was a harlot, and acted incredibly weird/suspicious for a woman whose child is dead.
Beyond that, the media seems to want this trial to be the OJ trial all over again. Well as I remember OJ before the murders was a respected athlete and maybe even pillar of his community. This lady wasn't as famous, and seemed like a bad Mother.
But being a bad Mother isn't a crime...legally.
StuffedAnimalAdvisor 7 months ago
★★★★★
MadBadVoodo 7 months ago
We would've been better off if we'd just paid out-of-work construction workers $60,000 a year to build our southern border. That would've been more helpful.
ForeignPolicyWonk 7 months ago
Ok but make sure we're using ethanol to power the helicopter. Dont want to piss off any envirnmentalists
GermanConquistador08 7 months ago
At least we now know why Van Jones is not an economist LMAO
tubaboy71 7 months ago
Gov't doesn't need to perform successfully for our money.
220+BILLION dollars a MONTH flows in regardless of the waste, fraud, corruption, graft & the purchasing of votes, loyalty & dependance.
DEMAND an account for EVERY dime spent, & ONLY elect those who sign a legal contract that they will outlaw all acts of bribery like lobbyists, public unions, endless welfare etc... & AGGRESSIVELY PROSECUTE all crime, directly overseen by NON-appointed citizen committees on the threat of recall.
ilovenh1 7 months ago
Jobs in Scott Walker's Wisconsin are increasing. How do I know? I live in Madison, WI and am searching for a job. Its interesting that the jobs are increasing in Republican governed states while it sucks for you if your in a Democrap governed state. Conservatism: works every time its tried because it is not the government that creates jobs but the government merely making a business friendly environment that makes the difference! Socialism: never worked in all of world history!!!
MrConservative608 7 months ago
@MrConservative608
Is it true that jobs are increasing more in Republican states? Do you have stats on that?
cartoeratos 7 months ago
@cartoeratos "he final totals show 22 states considered "red", adding the private-sector jobs increased, subtracting the private-sector jobs decreased, left the red states with a plus 451,600 private-sector job increase over the last decade.
The 21 states considered "blue", and DC (making 22)adding the private-sector jobs increased, subtracting the private-sector jobs decreased, left the blue states with a minus 2,041,300 decrease in private-sector jobs." -Business Journal Article
robm425 7 months ago
@robm425
Thanks
Do you have a better citation than that? I like to go to the source.
cartoeratos 7 months ago
@cartoeratos PM'd you the direct link
robm425 7 months ago
@cartoeratos Check this out. These guys got employment statistics numbers for Wisconsin, as well as many other states, from the official employment statistics data. Take out the spaces and/or punch it into Google. The numbers show job growth has boomed under Scott Walker so far.
h t t p : / / w w w . d e p t o f n u m b e r s . c o m / e m p l o y m en t/ w i s c o n s i n /
xtreme1002003 7 months ago
@xtreme1002003 They get them from the Current Employment Survey (CES) and the Current Population Survey (CPS) from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
xtreme1002003 7 months ago
Comment removed
MrConservative608 7 months ago
I have been watching your videos off and on Lee. I really think I am learning alot from you. I am more right wing then i used to be even though I don't agree with you on everything 100%. I think I would be more libertarian since I want drugs to be legal and i am pro-choice which is kind of a big no no if your an actual republican. Anyways i look forward to learning more from you. Thx.
skeptictom818 7 months ago 14
@skeptictom818 I'm glad to hear that. Stay tuned for my book in the next few months.
HowTheWorldWorks 7 months ago 2
@HowTheWorldWorks What is your book about? Economics?
MartyrofCake 7 months ago
@skeptictom818 And thank you.
HowTheWorldWorks 7 months ago 2
@skeptictom818 Well there are plenty of Republicans in the libertarian camp, including Ron Paul. Just because you're not a full-out conservative does not mean you can't call yourself a Republican.
xtreme1002003 7 months ago
@skeptictom818
Both Libertarians and Republicans are split on Abortion (Republicans not so much with drugs since it has detrimental effects on the economy). The real thing that separates a Libertarian from a Republican is foreign policy, if you support a strong military the protects America from her enemies your Republican, if you support withdrawing the United States military from the dozens of nations we are stationed in around the world so we can be an easy target, then your a Libertarian.
ViCe1986 7 months ago
@ViCe1986 Well I just don't think we should be nation building when we have a 14 trillion dollar defeict. I don't mind the idea of a strong army but right now we just can't afford it.
skeptictom818 7 months ago
@skeptictom818
Clinton was nation building, Bush wasn't. It isn't nation building when the people in power are material supporters of an organization that has attacked the United States. In legal terms they are a co-conspirator or accomplice. The funding to Al-Queda from Afghanistan and Iraq made them legitimate targets to American security and freedom.
Libertarians love to see Americans die in terrorist attacks, Republicans don't, if the Libs figured out foreign policy I would return.
ViCe1986 7 months ago
@ViCe1986 Well i seriously doubt that they love to see people die. It just seems the more we get involved with other nations. The more enemy we make that want to kill us.
skeptictom818 7 months ago
@skeptictom818
Wow, do you actually belief that?
The more we get involved with other nations, the more enemies we make that want to kill us?!?!?
What did you think that when we stop evil people from killing, raping, and repressing other people that the rest of the evil people in the world would stop being evil and start loving everyone else?
Get a grip on reality for a second, Freedom isn't Free.
ViCe1986 7 months ago
@ViCe1986 "stop evil people from killing, raping, and repressing other people" This is when people who think of themselves (I presume?) as right-wing begin to sound like leftists. The path to hell is paved with good intentions, that goes for Obama as well as Bush, and it goes for health care as well as for overthrowing autocracies. The "arabian spring" is as leftist a movement as the "democracy" movements in Germany had been back when America intervened in WW1. Look where that got the world.
john42t 7 months ago
@ViCe1986 Do you also agree with McCain that it would be justified to stay in Iraq 100 years?
Thorbie 7 months ago
@Thorbie
Well, we have been in Germany and Japan for almost 70 years, Korea for almost 60, and Kuwait for 20 years.
Why would you expect the US to not have a permanent presence in Iraq and Afghanistan?
The United States has always left a military presence behind in every nation that it has fought in to ensure stability and increase the military's ability to rapidly deploy to any corner of the Earth, if need be.
Not to mention the dozens of bases we have in nations we have never fought in.
ViCe1986 7 months ago
@ViCe1986 You don't think fighting a war for 100 years is a tad unreasonable?
Thorbie 7 months ago
@Thorbie
We have been fighting a war in Germany for 70 years? Leaving a military presence is not fighting a war, also it wouldn't be the first time England and France fought a 107 year war, which they called the hundred years year (guess at that point your round down)
ViCe1986 7 months ago
@ViCe1986 McCain said he'd be willing to stay in Iraq for 100 years. He didn't say the war would be over and we'd simply have a base there. He was implying that there would be ongoing conflict for 100 years and he'd still stay there. You brought up Germany, not me. Having a base is different. We aren't losing soldiers in Germany or Japan. We ended our occupation of Japan after 6 years. Why should it take over a decade in Afghanistan and nearly a decade in Iraq?
Thorbie 7 months ago
@ViCe1986 "Libertarians love to see Americans die in terrorist attacks"
That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. I'm a registered republican but I am a Libertarian, the two are not enemies...I support the war on terror and the ultimate solution to it: drill for our own oil. If we would drill we wouldn't be funding these people. Some Libertarians don't believe we should fight these wars and I completely understand that. The fact is we are there and we cant just pull out now.
MrCBRIDD 7 months ago
@MrCBRIDD
"Drill for our oil"
This is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Where is all that Iraqi Oil I fought for? Last time I checked my Gas was 3.60 a gallon? Gas prices rose during OIF even after the pipelines started pumping Iraqi crude again.
The United States purchases it's crude oil imports from Canada, Mexico, venezuela, and Saudi Arabia (in order or amount purchased with Canada being the Most and Saudi being the Least). You Libertarians and your oil argument shows you ignorance.
ViCe1986 7 months ago
@ViCe1986 Yeah you are right, we do get most of our oil from Canada. Last year we still bought 394,280 thousand barrels from Saudi Arabia alone and 1,654,277 thousand barrels from OPEC countries total. That is just short of what we buy from non-OPEC countries. Roughly half our crude oil spending goes directly to countries in which these terrorist organizations sprout up, we are funding them indirectly. We drill here reduce our dependence on OPEC and defund terrorist groups.
MrCBRIDD 7 months ago
@MrCBRIDD
No you are right we are not enemies but we are nemesi, Libertarians take votes away FTP viable conservative candidates, fortunately my misguided time with the Libertarian Party before I found out it's platform of no defense and isolationism, showed me that the Libertarian party has a valid purpose it's the halfway house for recovering liberals who realize that being a conservative is the right way. It allows them to slowly make the transition from Liberal to Conservative.
ViCe1986 7 months ago
@ViCe1986 I went from Conservative to Libertarian. That means I was right then I moved further right. Conservatives want government intervention in morality and more defense spending, meaning larger government. Libertarians want morality to be an individual decision not law and the smallest amount defense spending necessary, meaning smaller government. Liberals don't give a shit about morality, and want government to do everything, meaning HUGE government.
MrCBRIDD 7 months ago
@skeptictom818
We have a 14 trillion dollar debt (not deficit, a deficit is the amount we overspend in 1 year) because independent idiots elected a socialist that borrowed 5 trillion dollars in 3 years, before Obama our national debt was 9 trillion dollars now it is almost $14.5 trillion.
It's not the Army's fault that America elected a socialist with no experience to the office of president and allowed him to bankrupt our nation. Don't murder innocent children by weakening our defenses.
ViCe1986 7 months ago
@skeptictom818
nobody can agree 100% with anybody including oneself. We keep changing views as we progress forward (i.e. if we are progressing forward LOL)
ZankDigiTrash 7 months ago
@ZankDigiTrash
If you have trouble agreeing with yourself I would suggest that you seek professional mental help. You are right people are changing there view to the truth that every conservative has been advocating from the beginning. Your prospective only changes when your ignorant and narrow minded. The liberals are the ones who's perspectives are or need changing conservatives have been correct all along.
ViCe1986 7 months ago
@ViCe1986
"If you have trouble agreeing with yourself I would suggest that you seek professional mental help"
was that supposed to be a joke? if not you should think about more carefully. if you still didn't get it here is a hint... timeline
ZankDigiTrash 7 months ago
It is not the governments job to create jobs.
RON PAUL 2012 !
WONDOCTORJ 7 months ago
could you make a review/critique on Inside Job?
joaoluizsn 7 months ago
This was rushed and ho-hum.
Paulsur 7 months ago
LEE, YOU ARE AWESOME!! KEEP IT UP!
RonaldReaganRocks1 7 months ago
I agree that entitlements, military and other government spending need to be cut, but saying that SLIGHT tax increases on millionaires is off the table is absolutely insane. Taxes are lower than they've ever been since WWII. Taxes on the top used to be 70% and when they were cut drastically in 80's as spending also inceased, the budget deficit began to grow tremendously and continues to this day.
The majority of money they save in tax cuts goes into investments overseas and their bank accounts
yeebuddeh1 7 months ago
@yeebuddeh1
Why is it insane to say that tax increases on the job creators is off the table during the sluggish recovery from the worst economic depression since the 1930's?
I agree taxes might rise some day (though I think that is a dumb idea) but today is not that day unless you like to see unemployment over 10%, go ahead and suck another $500 Billion out of the job creators and see what happens. The same thing when Carter did the same thing in the 70's, STAGFLATION!
ViCe1986 7 months ago 2
@ViCe1986
We've tried that for years and years and years though. They haven't been creating jobs here, they've been creating them overseas. I don't understand why people cling to that argument when historically it has proven ineffective.
It's insane because when you have a 14 trillion dollar deficit with the lowest taxes on the wealthy in over half a century, losing that crucial revenue at a time like this will greatly slow down the payment of that debt. Spending MUST be cut as well, I agree
yeebuddeh1 7 months ago
@yeebuddeh1
Yeah and it worked for years and years and years. Reagan created 17 million jobs with the largest tax cut in US history, 25% across the board, combines with spending cuts. Obama spends 5 trillion in 3 years and loses the United States 1 million net jobs, which strategy worked, Spending? or Cutting Taxes and Spending?
WE DO NOT HAVE A 14 TRILLION DOLLAR DEFICIT! It is a 1.5 Trillion dollar deficit and a 14 trillion dollar debt. Also the Government had record revenue under Bush!
ViCe1986 7 months ago
@ViCe1986
Here we go again with the myth of Saint Reagan. He cut taxes in 1981, that's true. After that, unemployment went up from 7.1% to 9.7%. He then RAISED corporate taxes, payroll taxes and energy taxes and that's when unemployment began to go down to 5.3% by the end of his presidency.
Revenues actually declined for the 1st few Bush years, and they then rebounded to their 40 year historic average as a percentage of GDP. NOT record levels
So basically, everything you just said isn't true
yeebuddeh1 7 months ago
@yeebuddeh1
Taking capital from businesses destroys our ability to pay off the debt since that capital reinvested in business creates jobs which then lowers spending (less unemployment) as well as increases revenue (more incomes to tax) this is why the Government had the highest revenue stream in US history under the Bush Tax Cuts.
Taking money from industry does not increase revenues it decreases it, every time. The best way in increase revenue is to create more taxable entities by tax cuts.
ViCe1986 7 months ago
@yeebuddeh1 Here's why raising taxes on the rich is a stupid idea: According to the CBO from 03 to 06 federal tax revenue increased by $625 billion or 35%. Corporate Income tax revenue increased from $132 billion to $354 billion because corporations kept more of their money to expand and increase profits, as profits increased so did taxes paid despite lower tax rates. Business expansion lead to job creation and individual tax revenue went from $794 billion to $1044 billion.
MrCBRIDD 7 months ago
Problem with the stimulus was only a portion of it went to jobs.
We needed a jobs bill, but we didn't get one.
We needed a liberal president, but we didn't get one.
17R3W 7 months ago
@17R3W
Yes you are correct we needed a Jobs bill, which means tax cuts and spending cuts! The best jobs bill is to put money back in the hands of those people who create jobs.
I fail to see how you think that you didn't get a liberal in the white house, Obama is as Liberal as one can get, he whole heartedly believes in redistribution and socialism. You got what you wanted, the real problem is it is hard to see your false ideology become an
epic fail.
ViCe1986 7 months ago 13
@ViCe1986
Obama is "Republican lite".
He gave us Obamacare instead of the public option (despite the fact that 70% of the population wanted it), he continued the Bush tax cuts, and continued the patriot act.
I'd ask you to name 3 truly liberal things he done. (By truly Liberal, I mean to the left of the past 4 presidents).
And if you want to cut spending, start with the failed war on drugs.
17R3W 7 months ago
@17R3W
Is that the new math they teach liberals? If 65% were against Obamacare in any form (including public option) nationwide how is another 70% for it nationwide?
What do you mean the Patriot Act is the change that progressives want, Governement with more power to micromanage the populous and redistribute there property. If you can't wire tape them without a search warrant how do you find where they stash there cash in overseas accounts?
The war on drugs is a failure, go after the cartel
ViCe1986 7 months ago
@ViCe1986
The reason for 65% were against Obamacare, is because many of them wanted the public option. Obamacare doesn't contain the public option, but instead of a bunch of crap. Remember, Obamacare was the type of thing Newt thought was GREAT back in 93, so it's not a "liberal" idea, unless you now believe Newt was a Liberal during his time as speaker of the house.
17R3W 7 months ago
In terms of the war on drugs, simple solution, LEGALIZE IT ALL, I'm always shocked by the number of Republcans who jump to the defense of the nanny state when it comes to the war on drugs.
17R3W 7 months ago
@17R3W
Amen to that brother. Legalizing drugs is literally ALL you have to do to end the mexican drug cartels going on. If they can't sell us drugs, they lose their market and funding they go under. It would also cut wasteful billions from government spending on polices and prisons and instead generate billions of dollars for the economy every year and create millions of jobs.
Any conservative that isn't in favor of this DOES NOT actually give a rats ass about the deficit, plain and simple.
yeebuddeh1 7 months ago
@yeebuddeh1
I find it funny that people talk about cutting spending they go first for the services that help the poor a middle class. They want to cut medicare, medicaid, social security FIRST.
Why can't the republicans open with "We'll end the failed war on drugs, we'll trim the military budget, and close some tax loop holes, " before asking the least among us to sacrifice?
17R3W 7 months ago
@ViCe1986 See the problem is you spout "epic fail" but please name a policy that redistributes wealth or supports "socialism." Please, before your say health care look at the the counter proposal the republicans pushed against the Clintons. It is very similar to the bill passed under Obama.
harvellt 7 months ago
@harvellt
You have the failed stimulus, the failed TARP, and the failed healthcare bill (I don't care if Newt offered a virgin sacrifice as a counter to Hillary's healthcare bill, it wasn't there to be passed it was there to kill there single payer communism ideal. Also they didn't offer to double the medicare roles so there is no similarity at all)
In all cases Obama gobbles up more and more of the economy and the US economy sinks even deeper.
ViCe1986 7 months ago
@ViCe1986 Obama didn't pass TARP.......... I understand your point you dislike Obama but the massive miss-statments hurt your cause. It is also a bit of a shaky argument to call one side a monster for putting forth a package and then justifying it with a bit of shaky reasoning when your side did it first.
harvellt 7 months ago
@harvellt Bush did pass TARP, but as you remember, at the end of Bush's second term Obama asked Bush to pass it in order to save the economy. TARP did some good, but it was far too huge and wasn't targeted well. The harm to our long term economy will, in my opinion, be worse than allowing failed companies fail.
intrepidorator 7 months ago
@intrepidorator I can very much agree with you on some of the failings of TARP but it was crafted by a Republican administration and championed by a Democrat President Elect (To some extent they both own it). I was responding to the argument put to me that it is a "socialist" policy put forth by the current President to further his "socialism agenda." It quite obviously is not.
harvellt 7 months ago
@harvellt Correct, it is a socialist program put forth by our previous president.
intrepidorator 7 months ago
@ViCe1986 Tarp didn't fail. Banks repaid it within the 1st year with a large interest. In fact dollar for dollar, it was the best investment US government made in recent history. It was revenue which actually produced a profit. The only part of it which failed was the loans to GM. Those will be repaid. But the loans made to banks paid so much back that TARP was profitable overall even after you discount the losses from lending to GM.
drd105 7 months ago
@ViCe1986 Also, how did TARP fail? It prevented massive banks from going out of business and defaulting on all their debt. That is exactly what it did.
harvellt 7 months ago
@ViCe1986 u put too much money in the hands of people who create jobs and half the time they either hoard it or find ways to make more money while reducing spending.
rex1yujie 7 months ago
@rex1yujie
The other half of the time they are making jobs, meanwhile when you put too much money in the hands of the government they makes jobs 0% of time. I'll take the private sector making jobs half of the time over the state making jobs none of the time!
ViCe1986 7 months ago
and those jobs are mostly government jobs that dont add anything useful to the economy. The only jobs really created by these programs are the government workers that were hired to administrate the programs.
rustyscrapper 7 months ago
I think someone is just figuring out how the world works
P3coTrain 7 months ago