Ron Paul, if elected, would first try and get the government to go back into a surplus by axing departments and programs. We'd still have a massive national dept, but it's challenging enough just to put the government back on a path of being in a minor surplus. He would do it in his 3rd year as president. That's WAY better than any other candidate, including Obama.
He would eventually get rid of the income tax after the government started running surpluses. He has no choice.
Here you got again Cenk - do you understand Ron's positions and WHY he has those positions? I don't think you do. Have you spent any time at all in understanding his positions?
The only reason you think 0% income tax is "absurd" is because you think all the government programs would still exist, and thus couldn't be paid for. Most of these programs are unconstitutional and shouldn't have even been put in place to begin with.
Nonetheless, he can't set it to 0% because we are so deep in shit now
Cenk is a socialist moron. He talks about taxes but he's completely ignoring the other half of the equation and that's SPENDING. The most prosperous times in American history included MASSIVE SPENDING cuts. Truman cut spending by 33 % in the 50's. We could have a zero percent income tax if the fed didn't have absurdly huge debt we had to pay off with taxes and an overseas Empire to maintain. Not to mention massive departments which are controlled by big corporations but financed by tax payers.
It just shows what crazy spending America was involved in even back then.Nixon ended the last ties to the Gold standard in 1971 so before that,the so called 'FED' couldn't print the money so it had to be stolen through taxation.After the murder of Gold the money could be borrowed and printed with impunity so obviously it is politically easier to tax people through destroying their purchasing power than through an income tax that they can see right in front of their noses.
Why are you not speaking out about the war in Iraq and Afghanistan like you were 3 years ago? Why don't you care that Obama has put us in Libya, Pakistan and Yemen. I wouldn't be motivated to make money when I realise once I hit a certain mark I will only get to keep 2 cents for each dollar I earn. You would think that we would have learned this with the collapse of the soviets but no we are Americans.... America is not able to be destroyed because we are just... us. BS
So let's get this straight cenk..The only argument you can come up with against what Ron Paul said is that "It was 100 years ago". Yeah so obviously it must be incorrect.
Oh and as the guy who ACTUALLY INTERVIEWED him you would know what's not even what he said when he was talking to you. He said, IF we didn't spend and borrow obsene amounts of money for welfarism and militarism that is only further bankrupting us we would have no need for an income tax. That's what he said.
"He said, IF we didn't spend and borrow obsene amounts of money for welfarism and militarism that is only further bankrupting us we would have no need for an income tax. That's what he said."
If Obama and the democrats really believe that raising taxes on the wealthy is a sound policy and will not hurt the economy why didn't they do it when they controlled the entire US government between 2008-2010? Because they know it will send us into a double dip depression!!! You people need to watch an old video by Milton Freidman called the "Great Depression Myth".
Cenk might want to have an economics/US history expert on to help him with facts about the economy and corresponding tax structure over the course of US history. Someone like Thomas Woods. I don't Cenk is afraid to be educated and Mr. Woods could certainly provide him with facts to counter the baseless conjecture Cenk employs here.
If you got rid of the income tax you'd still have about as much revenue as ten years ago. Ron Paul mentioned 1913 because that's the year the income tax was introduce and the Federal Reserve was created. 1913 was the year everything changed, for the worse.
the most prosperous and best economic time was in the late 1800s into the early 1900s during the second industrial age when there was no income tax or federal bank, the big economic crashes of today did not began until income tax and federal reserve was put in place
Why dont you look up the Panics of 1873, 1893, and the Crash of 1907. These were BIG ECONOMIC CRASHES that occured during the late 1800's and early 1900's. BEFORE there was an income tax and the federal reserve. Infact the reason we have the Federal Reserve today is because of the crash of 1907. Please get your facts straight before you post bullshit. Thanks in advance
Sheep - those events were orchestrated to justify the fed. Just like 911 was orchestrated to justify and gain support for our endless overseas wars to secure resources. Shock and awe, its post-trauma psychological manipulation of this countries under-educated citizens. Don't be sheep. Wake up.
Ron Paul tells this guy he wants 0% taxes and he thinks it won't work because it was "nearly 100 years ago"? ROFL! IDIOT! Government dependent liberals....tsk tsk tsk. If Ron Paul becomes president he's going to get rid of the CIA, and bring all our troops home. For those of you who only rely on TYT for your news, we have more troops than just Afghanistan...there are 140 countries with our troops. Also he is going to pull us out of the UN...THAT;s how you make 0% taxes work genius.
Lol I love how he stops short of Clinton when talking about the deficit....ya Carter, Clinton, Kerry....they all did GREAT things for our deficit.....anything to make Republicans look bad, even if its lies and propoganda. Thumbs up if this guy is a moron!
Ron Paul is "largely honest"? This show is ridiculous, my 12 year old nephew knows more about politics than these government ass wiping libtards. Ron Paul wants to get rid of the Fed, and ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS votes for the constitution...but this fat fuck can only think of 2 honest politicians. I partially agree with his assessment of honesty in bureaucracy, but everything else is just gibberish.
No, I am not for mob rule, I am not for oligarchy either. The Free market does not create monopolies and oligarchies, government does.
You cannot be for peices of freedom. Mob rule is not freedom. Neither is government monopolies. You have everything wrong. Markets and individuals are better off without buys bodies interventing in their lives. If a business is cheating someone, they should be charged.
Yes, regulation is what causes the down-points in the American economy, such as the Federal Reserve.
Exploits the workers? You mean how Unions monopolize the workplace? Thats bullshit, market anarchy is the only true free market in which companies prosper by making products and services, investing, and saving not government putting them there like the many examples in the US.
The problem is the lack of a free market, what we have now is a Keynesian corproratist society which likes to tout itself as capitalism, which it is not.
Unions monoplize the workplace, the whole cycle of Unions is inherently just about lining the pockets of the Union heads while being the most anti worker organization.
Of course working is important, don't strawman me.
The problem is the lack of a free market, what we have now is a Keynesian corproratist society which likes to tout itself as capitalism, which it is not.
Unions monoplize the workplace, the whole cycle of Unions is inherently just about lining the pockets of the Union heads while being the most anti worker organization.
Of course working is important, don't strawman me.
And where has this "true free market" shown to work?
"corporatist society"
Well, you have that part right. And the GOP helps them even further insuring tax breaks and big subsidies.
"Unions monoplize the workplace"
Again, where is this shown? Who gets paid first, even before the bankers? It's the bond holders. Who is the number one customer of big business? Bond holders.
Cenk, for the love of god study some economics. Austrian economics, read some Peter Schiff, Milton Friedman.
stop bringing up your 91% example it doesn't apply. Because we went through the industrial revolution in 1800's without income taxes. It's also easy to tax at 91% when there is no inflation and the prices of good are falling due to innovation.
@airbreather123 "Cenk, for the love of god study some economics. Austrian economics,"
Right. Because the only good economics is "Austrian" economics.
What a load of crap.
"Because we went through the industrial revolution in 1800's without income taxes."
Big business ruled the 1800s. This is the reason regulation came about, because of monopoly's and because of people like Rockefeller. It was a time of exploitation and prosperity of the few. Not unlike today.
@airbreather123 , during the industrial revolution during the mid 1800's we did have state taxes that provided for many services and there was still dollars derived from slavery that helped to boost profit from many states. The Northern states were heavy industry states and the south was more aggrarian so to make that comparison is hard today. Then it was more states rights driven than today, the Civil War saw to that.
in Canada each party gets 1.75$ for every vote they get. which helps support their campaigns. That way there is Less (there is still some) purchasing of politicians from companies. Think about it this way, by voting your not only supporting them politcally but if they lose you have still supported them financially.
Lmao! Cent suggests campaign finance reform again! It will NEVER happen. Why would politicians change a system that makes them rich?! The finance system will remain essentially the same as long as America exists!
@underbjorn It's the wealthy keeping a lot of them that way (uneducated). When we have educational problems, conservatives blame the teachers and not poverty rates, and it allows them to divert funds. When there's a financial mess, conservatives blame duh guberment and not the greedy assholes who have fucked with our policies for the past 30 years. The right somehow thinks it's largely the poor that put us in this mess when they don't have that kind of money. But Europe has their own problems.
Haha yes, I think the Eurozone has to reassess their position very thourogly.
But I am still amazed by the position the far-right has in America. The far-right in Europe ofc share the universal rightist values of anti-Muslim, anti-brown ppl, anti-immigration etc but they would never bash the poor people so recklessly.
Here in Sweden f.e, the far-right nationalists and neo-nazis hare strongly supportive of a welfare state as long as it is for ethnic Swedes only, but still.
You don't seem to understand how hardcore it would be with that Ron Paul as President. Bush is Mother Theresa in front of him. But just because he said he's for legalising Marijuana and separating State and Church you praise him. Do you realise what 0% taxes means?
@donthaveanameleft I don't agree. He's against not only taxation but generally speaking he's against people helping each other in an organised socialised way and promotes hardcore individualism. He said it in his interview: Education is not a right nor is Healthcare.
@minasgekos He is only against the income tax and he has always stated that local communities should take over many of the responsibilities of the federal government. He wants to protect the individual liberty by making individual more imp. than the state(opp. of facism).
With education and healthcare his philosophy is that government loans and forced insurances do more harm(increases costs) than good and people think that it is their right to have these instead of questioning their benefits.
@minasgekos "and separating State and Church you praise him"
Where do you get this idea that he's for separation of Church and state? He's largely anti-science and pro-creationism for the science class? He thinks God should remain in the pledge of allegiance. Just look at the state of Texas and realize what they're doing to their educational system and why he's okay with it. He's probably in love with the idea of churches never being taxed.
We can all admit at this point that Ron Paul would be better than Obama... unless you think several thousand dead people in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq is a good trade for that sorry excuse for health care. Maybe it's just me but I tend to think of the people I'm PAYING THE GOVERNMENT TO KILL before highways, textbooks, or Medicare. But maybe the posters here are right. Yeah, fuck that old kook Ron Paul! Give me my government cheese. Let's bomb Iran. Obama! 4 more years!!
Living in America in the 1910's was no picnic. If you were lucky you lived on a farm. If you weren't you worked in coal mine or a sweatshop. 1910 was the year Triangle Waist Company gave the factory workers Sundays off because of populist pressure, but they managed to fight off the union. A fire at Waistshirt Factory killed much of the staff a year later.
@dlhitch2007 none of that had to do with the income tax. The reason it was like that was because the economy was less efficient then it is now. As we become more advanced people have to work less hard and can earn more money. Ron Paul understands that. Simply giving your money to politicians so they can blow it doesn't make the situation better.
@19TEC85 "Simply giving your money to politicians so they can blow it doesn't make the situation better."
No, allowing the wealthy to control our lives doesn't make the situation better. Washington is a whore to corporations when it should be the whores of the vast majority of people. The wealthy need to be taxed because a few living in large quantities of excess means a vast majority of people barely meeting basic needs. Greed needs to be addressed.
@donnyforte2 I didn't say the wealthy should control our lives. Nobody should. The big corporations get their power through government, not from lack of it. That doesn't mean we all have a right to take their wealth. Their should be no special privileges to the rich or to anyone else by govt. Just think about the gigantic banker cartel the govt has created, none of which can exist on a free market.
geez cenk doesn't know crap about taxes or economics. Ron Paul would own him in a debate. Cenk you didn't mention that they used to tax people more back in those days because they couldn't inflate as much as they do now ! Ron Paul understands that inflation is a tax on the poor and middle class. Giving your money to government thugs does not create growth not to mention the income tax is immoral.
@Numbuh7 it was a brief interview..not a debate on the income tax or economics. Most of Ron Paul's positions on issues take much longer then 2 mins to explain. He's not a 10 sec sound bite politician. It takes time and lots of reading to understand where hes coming from.
@Zander73 Decentralizing does help in battling corruption. Imagine if those things which are now done on the federal level were done on the local level. Yes, there'd be some corruption, but it would be small, else it would be too obvious. And it's possible to mobilize the citizens against the govt if you've got a town with 100,000 citizens - not so on the fed level. Now the corruption in DC is brazen and unapologetic - and mass media can spin it for them. Bridge to nowhere? Who cares it's fed $.
@thundavolt In reference to pollution, its no coincidence that waterways tend to be polluted since its the Government that manages them and its the Government that prohibits private property rights in the vast majority of waterways (eg you generally cant buy a river). Private property owners have an incentive to not pollute their property since that would diminish the lands value whereas the Government doesn't care if waterways are polluted because they can always tax/print more money if needed
I think Ron Paul is talking more about his philosophy than the present day reality. In an ideal Ron Paul America, government programs would be nearly non-existent. You wouldn't have social security, you wouldn't have medicare, you wouldn't have welfare, you wouldn't have US military all over the world, and you wouldn't have people in jail for non-violent crimes. That literally eliminates nearly all of US spending. The income tax wouldn't be necessary with such a small government.
Well if you go to the TYT interviews channel you can hear Ron Paul's answer for yourself. Mostly what I remember was a huge decrease in wasteful spending, to the point where we can stay afloat by taxing exports ( Roughly ). Basically by shrinking down and limiting government's responsibility, it wouldn't need anywhere near the current amount in funding. Not sure if it would work, but Ron Paul certainly thinks it could.
@ViciousRangerYeah but all through history every time taxes are cut particularly for the wealthy we get stock market bubbles that later subsequently crash. We have had 4 of them in the last 30 years alone.under Reagan/Bush and under Bush jr.Why not roll back the Reagan Tax cuts which was a proven prosperous time period 50's and 60's The Libertarian party is worse because they believe in almost no government at all. Government didn't cause this economic crash, deregulation and bad banks did.
@junechris The banks had such incredible leverage ratios because the interest rates were non existent . Also they committed accounting fraud and that has nothing to do with deregulation that is illegal and if only Obama and Holder hadn't stifled attempts to prosecute these people ( notary act is case in sight)
The bubbles have always been caused when ever the Fed takes interest rates to an incredibly low level which is fiddling with the system.
@jackjillsean Oh you mean if Obama took action on the banking industry to prosecute the bankers we would not have 4 stock market collapses in the last 30 years? You make no sense, Did you know in the late 80's s&L crisis staring John Mccain we didn't prosecute the execs responsible for that till about 1994-1995? Yeah, almost a decade later. And NO if you look through history before Regan when we had high taxes on the wealthy we NEVER had complete stock market colapses. Even during Carter.
@junechris How do you relate low income taxes to these bubbles when the banks didn't have excess cash they were in debt(leverage ratios are case in point).
anyways thanks for reminding me that mccain and Obama are the same.
@jackjillsean Comanies that recieve tax cuts to "so called" create jobs their share prices increase temporarily due to saving money, same as lay off. Bush cut taxes, yet lost 1 million jobs.Every stock market crash we ever had has always had boom before a bust. Tax cuts have to be paid for, that's why we are in this mess to begin with, from cutting taxes. FDR taxed the wealthy 90% it's a proven to work. Ordinary millionares dont create jobs either, they just hoard the money.
@junechris Wise people or crafty companies( which is every company) don't hoard money they invest so that their money multiplies and through these investments the economy grows and jobs are created . But even if we assume that they hoard that isn't a bad thing as unless there are savings banks would have no cash to lend(as is the case now) and then they go to the central bank looking for debt money on artificially low interest rates which has caused so many bubbles(booms) .
@junechris I agree the tax cuts hurt our revenue if they were to happen they should have been for everyone but as unfair as it may sound
If we tax the rich now they won't just give in, they'll squeeze it out of their middle class employees and consumers. Or take their businesses to other countries or just evade by reducing their direct income and increasing dividends. This would be disastrous for the economy. We need to cut spending IMO
@junechris Government did cause the banking crisis by repealing only part of the Glass Stegall because they allowed merger of Banks(Deposit and investments) but then not taking away the insurance it provides on Deposits. So in effect the gambles the Bankers would do wouldn't matter to the deposits.
So it wasn't actually real deregulation but crony capitalism & gov. trying to control free market forces.
PS -- "Inside Job" just keeps harping on deregulation w/o delving deeper, Wonder why??
@jackjillsean And by the way, Gramm Leach Bliley act which mostly abolished Glass steagal was created by 3 republicans and was almost totaly voted for in unity by republicans almost 70 democrats voted against it.
Ron Paul voted against this act even though he is against regulation in principle he knew what it entails whereas democrats Tom Daschle, Diane Feinstein and John Kerry voted for it and Clinton passed it. Even worse these people are for the stimulus, the bailouts and QE2.
Any which way I don't think this government can take money to further its inefficient and unconscionable designs.
Thank you for agreeing government didn't actually fully deregulate.
@junechris I wasn't assuming that your knowledge of the banking crisis comes from inside job but Cenk's certainly does.
If you tell people we will pay you back, not throw you into jail and provide you with cash at 1% interest rates what did you expect would have happened.
If this isn't government interference in the free market I don't know what is??
@jackjillsean "If this isn't government interference in the free market I don't know what is??"
We've already done the big business thing in the 1800s and it fucked the majority of Americans then as it's doing now. Now big business is trying to play the underdog under government while stripping away the clothes of all Americans. Americans are now dogs again. This is corporate tyranny when big business controls government and it's what makes government 'big' government. Fuck your free market bs.
@donnyforte2 Big Business is crony capitalism not free markets. Ron Paul wants to help the small businesses with a level playing field by removing excess regulations that are invariably used to maintain monopoly by the big companies. Also he would have let these banks fail and suffer for what they have done unlike Obama who is not just bailing them out and employing their(Goldmann Sachs) execs to his gov. but even helping them evade accounting fraud prosecutions( notary act is case in point).
@jackjillsean "Ron Paul wants to help the small businesses"
You cannot help small business with no regulation on big business. Small business has been steamrolled just like it did in the 1800s. It's just this time, corporations have used the government to their benefit. But the wealthy don't need government to keep corporate tyranny.
@donnyforte2 Theirs a reason why wall street hates Ron Paul and loves Obama, McCain, Bush, Mitt Romney and every other establishment politician. But you ignorantly call him a shill. You have no reasoning, no logic, no critical thinking. Your just obsessed with how much wealth some people have without understanding the difference between honestly earning wealth and ruthlessly stealing it and using bribing govt thugs to give you the legal upper hand. fuck the govt.....
@19TEC85 "Theirs a reason why wall street hates Ron Paul"
That's a bunch of bullshit. Big business/Wall street don't need government. They've taken it over and Ron Paul helped them get there. There's one thing big business and Ron Paul don't care for: government regulation
"and every other establishment politician."
That's largely because of its voting population. They think their security stops at the voting booth.
"You have no reasoning, no logic, no critical thinking. "
@donnyforte2 Actually they need govt very much, that's why the big banks viciously attack Ron Paul all the time. How else will banks stay big without the help of the central bank? How else can they lend money they don't have? The govt legalized fraud for them, so without govt they're fucked.
"Blah blah blah"
Like a little kid putting his hands over his ears and saying "lalalalala I can't hear you" Keep sticking your head in the sand. Go vote for Obomber the real corporate shill.
Actually, no they don't... as we saw big business fuck over our country in the 1800s without regulation.
"so without govt they're fucked."
Decade after decade.. slowly but surely the wealthy weaseled their way back into power. Which goes to show: regulation or not, the wealthy will always try to fuck the vast majority over.
"Obomber the real corporate shill."
Tax breaks for conservatives and the wealthy just to keep unemployment benefits.. that was a sad day.
@donnyforte2 The 1800s big business did not fuck over the country, that is a shallow myth that's been debunked. In fact cartel like business did not start gaining strength until the late 1800s when they started to bribe govt into helping them create cartels. (like JP Morgan and the railroads, and then in the early 1900s with the banks). You and the liberals want to regulate a fraudulent system, while libertarians want to abolish the entire thing and prosecute fraud itself.
@19TEC85 "The 1800s big business did not fuck over the country"
Shallow myth? And debunked by who? Shills for Austrian economics? And you're right... big business did get stronger... the fucked us over in the early 20th century... and they're fucking us again now. They take power from government (from the people) and make it their own.
"You and the liberals want to regulate a fraudulent system"
I want to regulate.. a fraudulent system.. how is this a bad thing?
@donnyforte2 ''I want to regulate.. a fraudulent system.. how is this a bad thing?''
It's bad because instead of treating the illness you want to treat the synthomes. Instead of seeing the big picture that the entire system is rotten you want to patch things up with a few regulations. Instead we should have a free and open market where fraud is a crime, period. and what the hell is a shill for Austrian Economics? Lol.
@19TEC85 "Instead of seeing the big picture that the entire system is rotten you want to patch things up with a few regulations."
The bigger picture is excessive wealth never being addressed. We've already discussed this. You want to fall back on words like "regulation" because it's a dirty word for anyone in love with laissez-shitonomics.
@donnyforte2 In your logic, excessive wealth as in too much wealth some how hurts the economy and creates poverty? So your saying we need to extract wealth, destroy it...in order to fight poverty. That's basically what you're saying?? What backwards reasoning. Good luck with that. Me on the other hand, I'll fight for the right to create wealth, grow the economy so that we eliminate as much poverty as we can.
@donnyforte2 In your logic, excessive wealth as in too much wealth some how hurts the economy and creates poverty? So your saying we need to extract wealth, destroy it...in order to fight poverty. That's basically what you're saying?? What backwards reasoning. Good luck with that. Me on the other hand, I'll fight for the right to create wealth, grow the economy so that we eliminate as much poverty as we can.
@19TEC85 "I'll fight for the right to create wealth, grow the economy so that we eliminate as much poverty as we can."
By allowing greed to go unchecked. Did you know there are 400 people in this country with more wealth than the bottom 50% of Americans (400 vs 160,000,000 people)? This is suppose to "eliminate poverty", how exactly?
@donnyforte2 Well first you have to realize the system is set up for the top richest to stay at the top at the expense of the rest. It has nothing to do with taxes on the rich. It has to do with monetary policy. Inflation is a tax on the poor and middle class..When central banks inflate this is great for the big banks, they get the money first, as does the govt. But the poor and middle class are stuck with the higher food prices,energy costs and living costs overall.
@19TEC85 "he system is set up for the top richest to stay at the top"
No shit. Already addressed this.
"It has nothing to do with taxes on the rich. "
Yes it does. Even addressing the defense budget doesn't solve this problem of excessive wealth. The wealth is never recirculated. You support big business and big business can work with or without the big government they've set up. It's really hilarious how big business is sitting back and blaming big government for these problems.
@donnyforte2 The 1800s big business did not fuck over the country, that is a shallow myth that's been debunked. In fact cartel like business did not start gaining strength until the late 1800s when they started to bribe govt into helping them create cartels. (like JP Morgan and the railroads, and then in the early 1900s with the banks). You and the liberals want to regulate a fraudulent system, while libertarians want to abolish the entire thing and prosecute fraud itself.
@19TEC85 And I really should say "stronger". The same absurd amounts of money was hoarded at the top then as it was today. It just took them a while to gain back the power they once had. They took control over government and of Americans lives once again. Essentially, people have gotten ignorant again and this was a wake up call to corporate tyranny.
@junechris by cutting defense which really means cutting the funding for attacks on other sovereign nations. And of course other cuts so no he's not an idiot, you're just quick to jump to conclusions.
@sefrzan Cutting defense doesn't address poverty. His taxes still favor the wealthy and the money is never recirculated, and stays within a few hands.
@donnyforte2 Weath isn't created by ''recirculating'' dollars. It comes from an increase in productivity. When more goods and services are available and become cheaper everyone gains purchasing power. This can only happen through savings and investment. When the govt steals from one group to give to another it doesn't grow the pie, it only redistributes it.
@19TEC85 "Weath isn't created by ''recirculating'' dollars."
Never said that. I said the wealth at the top is never recirculated. It's never taxed, same with inheritance, and corporations (and subsidies) allow greed only within a few hands. It's the Reagan sham all over again.
"When more goods and services are available and become cheaper everyone gains purchasing power."
Bullshit. It comes when we recognize the value in labor and an honest living for a majority instead of a few.
@donnyforte2 It's not bullshit, it's a fact of life. Savings leads to investment, investment leads to an increase in capital. More capital leads to an increase in productivity. When more is produced, theirs more to go around, the standard of living rises. when you tax wealth and let the government spend it, they just spend it and most of the resources get squandered and wasted into unproductive areas.Govt is not a charity , and is very inefficient.
@donnyforte2 I wasn't defending the current system. I am against the entire system. The point was that simply taxing wealth so the govt can spend it doesn't make the average person more wealthy. You don't see the connection? People will become even poorer as long as the government banksters cartel keeps inflating and wiping out our middle class. Remember this-Inflation is a tax on the middle class and poor. it is a transfer of wealth from poor to rich.
@19TEC85 As you've already clearly stated, you support greed and all excessive living conditions. You're just creating the same circumstances that lead to failure.
" so the govt can spend it"
No, it's about the wealthy paying the majority of taxes. Not to create and more and more money for the government to spend.
All of our problems can be largely solved by three things: cutting our defense budget, returning taxes on the wealthy, and stop fucking with policies that benefit the wealthy.
@donnyforte2 I don't support greed, that is not what I said. I just acknowledge that it exist and it will come about in any system. Again. taxing does not grow the 'economic pie' it only redistributes it. I do not support the policies that led to the failure.
@donnyforte2 It's always redistributed, the question is to whom? From the middle class to financial elite. Not from rich to poor. And we should be looking for ways to GROW the economy so that everyone winds up having a higher standard of living. Not looking for ways to tax other groups.
@19TEC85 "It's always redistributed, the question is to whom?"
Everyone, including the wealthy. From bridges, roads, schooling, sciences, technology, etc.
" looking for ways to GROW the economy"
It won't come from the wealthy. They're just sitting on it and investing outside of the US (as they have for decades). This was never an overnight problem.
"Not looking for ways to tax other groups"
We're not taxing "other groups". We'd be taxing excessive wealth. There would still be wealthy people.
@donnyforte2" Investment? Why are you using terms that don't apply to the average american when dealing with capital?"
Because without investment our society would regress back into a primitive society economically. We would have no capital, and everyone would need to work all day with their bare hands just to provide enough food to live.
@donnyforte2 Nice refutation. Just spend no time studying economics and call anything you want a bunch of crap. So what's your brilliant plan? Hate people with wealth, tax the wealth, and encourage over consumption? You have no plan. You just have an emotionally based argument, no reason or logic will change it.
@donnyforte2 Not to mention, I've addressed the biggest issues here: excessive wealth needing to be taxed, and drastically cutting the defense budget. This is basically about giving a middle finger to excessive wealth and focusing on a majority of Americans, not the very few. We have to make it plain and clear that the wealthy cannot weasel their way into domestic and foreign policy for their individual greed.
@donnyforte2 I agree that we need to cut defense. At this point it isn't even defense, it's offense. It would help the economy if we didn't spend money on killing people in other countries and blowing things up in other countries. Excessive wealth is only a problem when it goes to the wrong people, especially rich people that rely on government.
@donnyforte2 I hate poverty that's why I don't support taxing wealth. Because the money will go to the government and get wasted in unproductive ventures. theirs is only a finite amount of resources in the world at any given time so we have to use things efficiently. The fact that we all need capital to have a higher standard of living just completely went over your head. You said it is "bullshit".
@19TEC85 "that's why I don't support taxing wealth."
Well, this is where you logic goes out the window. Allowing the wealthy to obtain any and all amounts of wealth means it has to drain from somewhere, including the poor. This is essentially welfare for the rich.
"so we have to use things efficiently."
Exactly why we need to tax excess wealth. It' about efficiency.
"need capital to have a higher standard of living"
Taxing excess wealth doesn't mean we won't have a higher standard of living.
@donnyforte2 you still don't get it. When you tax, you take money from the private economy and give it to govt that then spends money any ol way(maybe on some wars, bail outs, and a few crumbs to the poor) the wealth usually gets wasted. When you leave in to private individuals, the money gets invested into their business to invest in more capital, OR into some other business to increase capital, OR spent at another business. So you destroy wealth by taxing it. But you think capital is bullshit.
@donnyforte2 I didn't say they are suffering. I'm saying let's keep money away from this destructive govt that specializes in killing people(mostly brown people like me), stealing, invading countries, locking up people from non violent crimes(like smoking a plant they disapprove of). Let's keep money in private hands so we can accumulate capital so that we have a higher standard of living. The last place money should go is to the criminal government thugs and it's wall st cronies.
@19TEC85 "'let's keep money away from this destructive govt that specializes in killing people"
So, basically, the wealthy that are influencing actions for their own gain.
"Let's keep money in private hands so we can accumulate capital"
This all sounds great until you realize this capital never recirculates in your scenario. And these standards of living have only increased with the wealthy as long as we've seen government investing in the capital instead of valuing labor.
@donnyforte2 'so, basically, the wealthy that are influencing actions for their own gain.'
Yes. Exactly. Stop enriching people through government coercion.
Capital just needs to help increase productivity. If things become more efficient and cheaper, it means wages for every rises. Ex-Computers become more affordable, more people can own one. Saying capital accumulation is bullshit is out right crazy.
@donnyforte2 When you say general public you mean giving money to the military industrial complex, the wall st banks, the war on drugs and it's agencies? That's truly giving money to the few.
Capital has not been accumulating very much in the US. The corporate-state sponsored banks have destroyed much of the wealth already. yes, the very top % of the wealthy are doing great because of government, but not because of lack of taxation on all the rich. the mega rich don't care about taxes.
@19TEC85 "When you say general public you mean giving money to the military industrial complex"
We've already discussed this. No, it doesn't. This is about excessive wealth and greed is largely responsible for these things getting out of control.
"not because of lack of taxation on all the rich"
"mega rich don't care about taxes."
This is a bunch of bullshit. The big business of the 1800s is back and they've adjusted and manipulated our current system to their advantage in the past few decades.
@donnyforte2 Yes it does. when they tax people, they then use the money to murder people overseas. They then use the money to pay bankers. They then use the money to lock up people that commit non-violent crimes. Maybe when they stop this(they won't), it won't be so bad. The mega rich don't care about taxes because they're either so rich it doesn't matter or they're so rich they get easily find loopholes.
@19TEC85 "when they tax people, they then use the money to murder people overseas."
Okay, you've obviously missed the part about me not wanting the "military industrial complex" and that I want our defense budget drastically cut and money focused on US education.
"The mega rich don't care about taxes because they're either so rich it doesn't matter"
"so rich it doesn't matter"
Which is wasted capital. The very thing you're exclaiming.
@19TEC85 "It can only be truly wasted if it goes to the government."
If it benefits the wealthy instead of the vast majority of Americans, this would be true (as it is now). The money needs to be focused locally and investing largely in the health and education of its children.
"When you leave in to private individuals, the money gets invested into their business to invest in more capital, OR into some other business to increase capital, OR spent at another business."
Oh so that's why the USA is doing so well now. Oh wait! OWNED!
@mecher3k" Oh so that's why the USA is doing so well now. Oh wait! OWNED!"
What are you talking about? American is doing horrible right now because of too much corporatism, economic fascism, big spending, borrowing,central banking inflationary booms followed by busts, big government crony capitalism, the list goes on and on. Not of this has to do with free markets and real capital accumulation.
Isn't that funny that European countries such as Sweden where I live have a much higher average standard of living than America, and we tax the shit out of people compared to the failed American system.
If the U.S wants to stop wasting on unproductive shit it should cut true unproductive spending like overseas military bases and military operations worldwide, cut government intelligence spending, cut government subsidies to oil companies. That is wasting.
@underbjorn Not thee ol Sweden argumen again. Look, you just helped prove my point. Sweden has managed to stay out of lots of wars. While it may have a welfare state to run, it doesn't have a gigantic warfare state. That's great. I agree the US needs to drastically cut militarism and bring home the ridiculous empire. That would help very much. Also, Americans don't just get taxed directly, we get taxed through inflation and not just through direct taxes. Plus certain states tax more.
Well then there is no disagreement on that particular point. If inflation is seen as taxation somehow, then we all suffer from it, not just Americans.
@donnyforte2 Greed is irrelevant. You can outlaw greed. And it's pretty sad that you associate giving money to government as some kind of charitable giving. Just because somebody doesn't want to give money to govt doesn't mean they are ''greedy''. That line of thinking seems to assume govt is so smart they know exactly where they money should go. Why do I have to support wars and bank bail outs? I'm greedy for not liking these things?
You need to have this written on your tombstone. This is so pathetic.
"You can outlaw greed."
Never said I wanted to outlaw greed. I'm talking about excessive greed. There's a difference, bub.
"That line of thinking seems to assume govt is so smart"
No, this has largely nothing to do with religion. This has to do with making sure the vast majority of people in this country aren't living in poverty.
@donnyforte2 Greed is irrelevant here because greed exists no matter what system you propose. The best thing we can do is keep power out of the hands of the few. Your whole argument is based on the assumption that govt is all about helping the poor. when in fact they HURT THE POOR and create even more poor people. More money and wealth goes towards the big financial elite then to help the poor. Yes, they throw a few crumbs to the poor but over the system is set up for the politically connected.
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Big Government goes directly against the U.S. Constitution... Cenk, you are a joke- learn how economics works
wildermeister 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ron Paul, if elected, would first try and get the government to go back into a surplus by axing departments and programs. We'd still have a massive national dept, but it's challenging enough just to put the government back on a path of being in a minor surplus. He would do it in his 3rd year as president. That's WAY better than any other candidate, including Obama.
He would eventually get rid of the income tax after the government started running surpluses. He has no choice.
egervari 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Here you got again Cenk - do you understand Ron's positions and WHY he has those positions? I don't think you do. Have you spent any time at all in understanding his positions?
The only reason you think 0% income tax is "absurd" is because you think all the government programs would still exist, and thus couldn't be paid for. Most of these programs are unconstitutional and shouldn't have even been put in place to begin with.
Nonetheless, he can't set it to 0% because we are so deep in shit now
egervari 3 months ago
The top 10% of the wage earners pay 70% of the taxes.
KenMacMillan 3 months ago
@KenMacMillan what's your point?
Demarcoa 2 months ago
Interesting points on both sides
quinsedlethorpid 6 months ago 17
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Cenk, I guess you didn't study the boom and bust cycle. 1913 was a time of boom
mastapho 6 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I DARE Cenk to call Paul out on this to his face. He won't, because he'd get destroyed.
TheManiacalSatanist6 6 months ago
Cenk is a socialist moron. He talks about taxes but he's completely ignoring the other half of the equation and that's SPENDING. The most prosperous times in American history included MASSIVE SPENDING cuts. Truman cut spending by 33 % in the 50's. We could have a zero percent income tax if the fed didn't have absurdly huge debt we had to pay off with taxes and an overseas Empire to maintain. Not to mention massive departments which are controlled by big corporations but financed by tax payers.
bschou 6 months ago
Cenk continuing to show that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing
mrpetermjohnston 6 months ago
It just shows what crazy spending America was involved in even back then.Nixon ended the last ties to the Gold standard in 1971 so before that,the so called 'FED' couldn't print the money so it had to be stolen through taxation.After the murder of Gold the money could be borrowed and printed with impunity so obviously it is politically easier to tax people through destroying their purchasing power than through an income tax that they can see right in front of their noses.
jonnyy40 8 months ago
No one paid even close to 91% in the 1950's or at any time. Why don't you look up what the rates were and what rate was actually paid!!!!!!!!!!
WalkProp 8 months ago
Why are you not speaking out about the war in Iraq and Afghanistan like you were 3 years ago? Why don't you care that Obama has put us in Libya, Pakistan and Yemen. I wouldn't be motivated to make money when I realise once I hit a certain mark I will only get to keep 2 cents for each dollar I earn. You would think that we would have learned this with the collapse of the soviets but no we are Americans.... America is not able to be destroyed because we are just... us. BS
withtheoldbreed 8 months ago
What about some moderate republicans?
oodlesofosz 8 months ago 13
So let's get this straight cenk..The only argument you can come up with against what Ron Paul said is that "It was 100 years ago". Yeah so obviously it must be incorrect.
Oh and as the guy who ACTUALLY INTERVIEWED him you would know what's not even what he said when he was talking to you. He said, IF we didn't spend and borrow obsene amounts of money for welfarism and militarism that is only further bankrupting us we would have no need for an income tax. That's what he said.
1985nyg 8 months ago
@1985nyg
"He said, IF we didn't spend and borrow obsene amounts of money for welfarism and militarism that is only further bankrupting us we would have no need for an income tax. That's what he said."
Well said.
Ron Paul 2012
lomocan 8 months ago
If Obama and the democrats really believe that raising taxes on the wealthy is a sound policy and will not hurt the economy why didn't they do it when they controlled the entire US government between 2008-2010? Because they know it will send us into a double dip depression!!! You people need to watch an old video by Milton Freidman called the "Great Depression Myth".
09geauxtigers 9 months ago
Cenk might want to have an economics/US history expert on to help him with facts about the economy and corresponding tax structure over the course of US history. Someone like Thomas Woods. I don't Cenk is afraid to be educated and Mr. Woods could certainly provide him with facts to counter the baseless conjecture Cenk employs here.
j1a2r34 9 months ago
Ron Paul 2012
akxeel 10 months ago
If you got rid of the income tax you'd still have about as much revenue as ten years ago. Ron Paul mentioned 1913 because that's the year the income tax was introduce and the Federal Reserve was created. 1913 was the year everything changed, for the worse.
BobGeorgeAU 10 months ago
tytuniversity!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
moe6145 10 months ago
the most prosperous and best economic time was in the late 1800s into the early 1900s during the second industrial age when there was no income tax or federal bank, the big economic crashes of today did not began until income tax and federal reserve was put in place
thevansleaving 10 months ago
Why dont you look up the Panics of 1873, 1893, and the Crash of 1907. These were BIG ECONOMIC CRASHES that occured during the late 1800's and early 1900's. BEFORE there was an income tax and the federal reserve. Infact the reason we have the Federal Reserve today is because of the crash of 1907. Please get your facts straight before you post bullshit. Thanks in advance
soulja7071986 10 months ago
@soulja7071986
I did a paper a while back on America's Economic History
I'd vote the best economic period to be 1791-1811 when Hamilton well structured National Bank (not central bank)
Their was no income tax. Unnessarry things such as tea would have a small sales tax to raise money.
Those sales taxes, tariffs, and the National Bank where the primary funds of the federal government.
the treasury should have control of ALL of the Feds profits.
Salvysahagun 10 months ago
@soulja7071986
Sheep - those events were orchestrated to justify the fed. Just like 911 was orchestrated to justify and gain support for our endless overseas wars to secure resources. Shock and awe, its post-trauma psychological manipulation of this countries under-educated citizens. Don't be sheep. Wake up.
ericsclips 9 months ago
I refuse to listen to a turkish guy who named his show after a bunch of murdering thugs who killed Greeks and Armenians in world war one.
wijse 11 months ago
Ron Paul tells this guy he wants 0% taxes and he thinks it won't work because it was "nearly 100 years ago"? ROFL! IDIOT! Government dependent liberals....tsk tsk tsk. If Ron Paul becomes president he's going to get rid of the CIA, and bring all our troops home. For those of you who only rely on TYT for your news, we have more troops than just Afghanistan...there are 140 countries with our troops. Also he is going to pull us out of the UN...THAT;s how you make 0% taxes work genius.
delanogaston 11 months ago
Lol I love how he stops short of Clinton when talking about the deficit....ya Carter, Clinton, Kerry....they all did GREAT things for our deficit.....anything to make Republicans look bad, even if its lies and propoganda. Thumbs up if this guy is a moron!
delanogaston 11 months ago
Ron Paul is "largely honest"? This show is ridiculous, my 12 year old nephew knows more about politics than these government ass wiping libtards. Ron Paul wants to get rid of the Fed, and ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS votes for the constitution...but this fat fuck can only think of 2 honest politicians. I partially agree with his assessment of honesty in bureaucracy, but everything else is just gibberish.
delanogaston 11 months ago
Before 1913 there was no debt. The Federal Reserve facilitates War and welfare with the income tax.
iwillspyonyou 11 months ago 4
@iwillspyonyou One of the few voices of reason! Thanks for your post.
ggadguy 8 months ago
@iwillspyonyou So don't tax the top 3 percent?
COATEStoCOATES 4 months ago 9
@iwillspyonyou Actually, that's a lie. There was debt before, Andrew Jackson was the only president that was in office when the US has no debt.
th3sp0rk 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Be careful, Cenk... if you correct Ron Paul in any way... the Ronbots will take over the comment section. You can't slander their Great White Hope.
donnyforte2 11 months ago
@donnyforte2
Your the one with the fascist group thinking.
RyanR3volution 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RyanR3volution I'm for people power. You're for big business.
donnyforte2 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@donnyforte2
No, I am not for mob rule, I am not for oligarchy either. The Free market does not create monopolies and oligarchies, government does.
You cannot be for peices of freedom. Mob rule is not freedom. Neither is government monopolies. You have everything wrong. Markets and individuals are better off without buys bodies interventing in their lives. If a business is cheating someone, they should be charged.
RyanR3volution 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RyanR3volution "The Free market does not create monopolies and oligarchies"
You must've skipped over big business in the 1800's. They've weaseled their way into government and taken it from the people.
"Markets and individuals"
Haha. Two things that don't exist in this world. Free markets and "individuals". You mean exploitation and shared experiences.
donnyforte2 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@donnyforte2
Your unaware that corporations always favor regulation because they have lawyers and can fight it while the little guys cannot.
Its very simple, freedom cannot come in pieces. You either have a free market or you have the foundation for totalitarianism.
RyanR3volution 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RyanR3volution "Your unaware that corporations always favor regulation"
You think we're in this mess because of "regulation"? AIG got as big as it did because of DEregulation.
"You either have a free market or you have the foundation for totalitarianism"
An unregulated free market is totalitarianism. It takes advantage of bad situations and exploits the worker.
donnyforte2 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@donnyforte2
Yes, regulation is what causes the down-points in the American economy, such as the Federal Reserve.
Exploits the workers? You mean how Unions monopolize the workplace? Thats bullshit, market anarchy is the only true free market in which companies prosper by making products and services, investing, and saving not government putting them there like the many examples in the US.
RyanR3volution 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RyanR3volution "Yes, regulation is what causes the down-points in the American economy"
No, the wealthy filling Washington's pockets to favor big business is what causes the down turns in our economy.
"You mean how Unions monopolize the workplace?"
Show me where this exists?
"true free market in which companies prosper by making products and services, investing, and saving"
See how this doesn't mention the worker and, basically, only the bond holders? You think capital is superior to labor.
donnyforte2 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@donnyforte2
The problem is the lack of a free market, what we have now is a Keynesian corproratist society which likes to tout itself as capitalism, which it is not.
Unions monoplize the workplace, the whole cycle of Unions is inherently just about lining the pockets of the Union heads while being the most anti worker organization.
Of course working is important, don't strawman me.
RyanR3volution 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@donnyforte2
The problem is the lack of a free market, what we have now is a Keynesian corproratist society which likes to tout itself as capitalism, which it is not.
Unions monoplize the workplace, the whole cycle of Unions is inherently just about lining the pockets of the Union heads while being the most anti worker organization.
Of course working is important, don't strawman me.
RyanR3volution 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RyanR3volution "The problem is the lack of a free market"
And where has this "true free market" shown to work?
"corporatist society"
Well, you have that part right. And the GOP helps them even further insuring tax breaks and big subsidies.
"Unions monoplize the workplace"
Again, where is this shown? Who gets paid first, even before the bankers? It's the bond holders. Who is the number one customer of big business? Bond holders.
donnyforte2 11 months ago 9
This clip should be called honesty
benympls 11 months ago
"So, basically, the wealthy that are influencing actions for their own gain."
Yes, exactly. Let's not use government to enrich people.
19TEC85 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Cenk, for the love of god study some economics. Austrian economics, read some Peter Schiff, Milton Friedman.
stop bringing up your 91% example it doesn't apply. Because we went through the industrial revolution in 1800's without income taxes. It's also easy to tax at 91% when there is no inflation and the prices of good are falling due to innovation.
.
airbreather123 11 months ago 8
@airbreather123 "Cenk, for the love of god study some economics. Austrian economics,"
Right. Because the only good economics is "Austrian" economics.
What a load of crap.
"Because we went through the industrial revolution in 1800's without income taxes."
Big business ruled the 1800s. This is the reason regulation came about, because of monopoly's and because of people like Rockefeller. It was a time of exploitation and prosperity of the few. Not unlike today.
donnyforte2 11 months ago
@airbreather123 , during the industrial revolution during the mid 1800's we did have state taxes that provided for many services and there was still dollars derived from slavery that helped to boost profit from many states. The Northern states were heavy industry states and the south was more aggrarian so to make that comparison is hard today. Then it was more states rights driven than today, the Civil War saw to that.
nagone11 11 months ago
So many libtards now and days, but so few know what it actually means.
thesparitan 11 months ago
Comment removed
David12King 11 months ago 3
they should make a group
"liberal dem's"
slim5782 11 months ago
Lets see since 1913 the Federal Reserve has destroyed 98% of the dollars value the income tax perpetuates this system so
iamsean90 11 months ago 6
@iamsean90 those are separate issues, you're falling for spin.
benympls 11 months ago
Hilarious that he said Bernie Sanders b/c I've been saying that for years, he's like the ONLY guy who is REALLY not beholden to anyone.
Biswalt 11 months ago
in Canada each party gets 1.75$ for every vote they get. which helps support their campaigns. That way there is Less (there is still some) purchasing of politicians from companies. Think about it this way, by voting your not only supporting them politcally but if they lose you have still supported them financially.
Greginda11 11 months ago
Lmao! Cent suggests campaign finance reform again! It will NEVER happen. Why would politicians change a system that makes them rich?! The finance system will remain essentially the same as long as America exists!
halette20001 11 months ago
Lmao! Public fo
halette20001 11 months ago
A flat tax is one of the most stupid proposals ever. People who earn more should give more.
GigaBoost 11 months ago
@GigaBoost Agreed.
donnyforte2 11 months ago
@GigaBoost They do, by being more productive and specialized than people who earn less.
airbreather123 11 months ago
Seriously, you Americans in general must be the most uneducated people in the west.
You think high tax rates for ridiculously wealthy companies and billionaires in your country are effectively upheld?
There are loopholes and exemptions, capital breaks and dividend relief, that I have never seen anything like here in Europe.
For a European like me, it's hard to see why you are still thinking non-existing taxes could possibly be a problem, the taxes aren't even there.
underbjorn 11 months ago
@underbjorn It's the wealthy keeping a lot of them that way (uneducated). When we have educational problems, conservatives blame the teachers and not poverty rates, and it allows them to divert funds. When there's a financial mess, conservatives blame duh guberment and not the greedy assholes who have fucked with our policies for the past 30 years. The right somehow thinks it's largely the poor that put us in this mess when they don't have that kind of money. But Europe has their own problems.
donnyforte2 11 months ago
@donnyforte2 And outside of US problems, that is.
donnyforte2 11 months ago
@donnyforte2 ---
Haha yes, I think the Eurozone has to reassess their position very thourogly.
But I am still amazed by the position the far-right has in America. The far-right in Europe ofc share the universal rightist values of anti-Muslim, anti-brown ppl, anti-immigration etc but they would never bash the poor people so recklessly.
Here in Sweden f.e, the far-right nationalists and neo-nazis hare strongly supportive of a welfare state as long as it is for ethnic Swedes only, but still.
underbjorn 11 months ago
You don't seem to understand how hardcore it would be with that Ron Paul as President. Bush is Mother Theresa in front of him. But just because he said he's for legalising Marijuana and separating State and Church you praise him. Do you realise what 0% taxes means?
minasgekos 11 months ago
@minasgekos With due respect if you legalize all drugs( just one of his numerous proposals) you wouldn't need an income tax.
Because you'll raise immense revenue and all you enemies( Taliban, FARC, Hezbollah) will go out of business so no more war on terror.
But then who will buy illegal weapons from companies(incl. banks) that fund both the Dems and Reps.
He knows what hes talking about when he proposes a 10% flat tax( not zero that is what he thinks would be ideal) ..
donthaveanameleft 11 months ago 12
@donthaveanameleft I don't agree. He's against not only taxation but generally speaking he's against people helping each other in an organised socialised way and promotes hardcore individualism. He said it in his interview: Education is not a right nor is Healthcare.
minasgekos 11 months ago
@minasgekos He is only against the income tax and he has always stated that local communities should take over many of the responsibilities of the federal government. He wants to protect the individual liberty by making individual more imp. than the state(opp. of facism).
With education and healthcare his philosophy is that government loans and forced insurances do more harm(increases costs) than good and people think that it is their right to have these instead of questioning their benefits.
donthaveanameleft 11 months ago
@minasgekos "and separating State and Church you praise him"
Where do you get this idea that he's for separation of Church and state? He's largely anti-science and pro-creationism for the science class? He thinks God should remain in the pledge of allegiance. Just look at the state of Texas and realize what they're doing to their educational system and why he's okay with it. He's probably in love with the idea of churches never being taxed.
donnyforte2 11 months ago
We can all admit at this point that Ron Paul would be better than Obama... unless you think several thousand dead people in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq is a good trade for that sorry excuse for health care. Maybe it's just me but I tend to think of the people I'm PAYING THE GOVERNMENT TO KILL before highways, textbooks, or Medicare. But maybe the posters here are right. Yeah, fuck that old kook Ron Paul! Give me my government cheese. Let's bomb Iran. Obama! 4 more years!!
earthsbullsh 11 months ago 6
Living in America in the 1910's was no picnic. If you were lucky you lived on a farm. If you weren't you worked in coal mine or a sweatshop. 1910 was the year Triangle Waist Company gave the factory workers Sundays off because of populist pressure, but they managed to fight off the union. A fire at Waistshirt Factory killed much of the staff a year later.
Ron wants take us back to the good 'ole days.
dlhitch2007 11 months ago 3
@dlhitch2007 none of that had to do with the income tax. The reason it was like that was because the economy was less efficient then it is now. As we become more advanced people have to work less hard and can earn more money. Ron Paul understands that. Simply giving your money to politicians so they can blow it doesn't make the situation better.
19TEC85 11 months ago
@19TEC85 "Simply giving your money to politicians so they can blow it doesn't make the situation better."
No, allowing the wealthy to control our lives doesn't make the situation better. Washington is a whore to corporations when it should be the whores of the vast majority of people. The wealthy need to be taxed because a few living in large quantities of excess means a vast majority of people barely meeting basic needs. Greed needs to be addressed.
donnyforte2 11 months ago 2
@donnyforte2 I didn't say the wealthy should control our lives. Nobody should. The big corporations get their power through government, not from lack of it. That doesn't mean we all have a right to take their wealth. Their should be no special privileges to the rich or to anyone else by govt. Just think about the gigantic banker cartel the govt has created, none of which can exist on a free market.
19TEC85 11 months ago
@19TEC85 "The big corporations get their power through government, not from lack of it."
You're right. It should be the average American with the power of their government, not the wealthy.
"That doesn't mean we all have a right to take their wealth."
Not all of it. Just the excess. There is a breaking point for the wealthy and we're seeing the cost of it now.
donnyforte2 11 months ago
geez cenk doesn't know crap about taxes or economics. Ron Paul would own him in a debate. Cenk you didn't mention that they used to tax people more back in those days because they couldn't inflate as much as they do now ! Ron Paul understands that inflation is a tax on the poor and middle class. Giving your money to government thugs does not create growth not to mention the income tax is immoral.
19TEC85 11 months ago 9
@19TEC85 He already had this talk with Ron Paul. Sad to say Cenk didn't get owned, sorry.
Numbuh7 11 months ago
@Numbuh7 it was a brief interview..not a debate on the income tax or economics. Most of Ron Paul's positions on issues take much longer then 2 mins to explain. He's not a 10 sec sound bite politician. It takes time and lots of reading to understand where hes coming from.
19TEC85 11 months ago
@Zander73 Decentralizing does help in battling corruption. Imagine if those things which are now done on the federal level were done on the local level. Yes, there'd be some corruption, but it would be small, else it would be too obvious. And it's possible to mobilize the citizens against the govt if you've got a town with 100,000 citizens - not so on the fed level. Now the corruption in DC is brazen and unapologetic - and mass media can spin it for them. Bridge to nowhere? Who cares it's fed $.
megagagnon1 11 months ago
@thundavolt In reference to pollution, its no coincidence that waterways tend to be polluted since its the Government that manages them and its the Government that prohibits private property rights in the vast majority of waterways (eg you generally cant buy a river). Private property owners have an incentive to not pollute their property since that would diminish the lands value whereas the Government doesn't care if waterways are polluted because they can always tax/print more money if needed
elfornse 11 months ago
I think Ron Paul is talking more about his philosophy than the present day reality. In an ideal Ron Paul America, government programs would be nearly non-existent. You wouldn't have social security, you wouldn't have medicare, you wouldn't have welfare, you wouldn't have US military all over the world, and you wouldn't have people in jail for non-violent crimes. That literally eliminates nearly all of US spending. The income tax wouldn't be necessary with such a small government.
0TheBestMan 11 months ago 3
Ron Paul's an idiot, how does he expect to pay for a 0% tax?
junechris 11 months ago
@junechris
Well if you go to the TYT interviews channel you can hear Ron Paul's answer for yourself. Mostly what I remember was a huge decrease in wasteful spending, to the point where we can stay afloat by taxing exports ( Roughly ). Basically by shrinking down and limiting government's responsibility, it wouldn't need anywhere near the current amount in funding. Not sure if it would work, but Ron Paul certainly thinks it could.
ViciousRanger 11 months ago
@ViciousRangerYeah but all through history every time taxes are cut particularly for the wealthy we get stock market bubbles that later subsequently crash. We have had 4 of them in the last 30 years alone.under Reagan/Bush and under Bush jr.Why not roll back the Reagan Tax cuts which was a proven prosperous time period 50's and 60's The Libertarian party is worse because they believe in almost no government at all. Government didn't cause this economic crash, deregulation and bad banks did.
junechris 11 months ago
@junechris The banks had such incredible leverage ratios because the interest rates were non existent . Also they committed accounting fraud and that has nothing to do with deregulation that is illegal and if only Obama and Holder hadn't stifled attempts to prosecute these people ( notary act is case in sight)
The bubbles have always been caused when ever the Fed takes interest rates to an incredibly low level which is fiddling with the system.
jackjillsean 11 months ago
@jackjillsean Oh you mean if Obama took action on the banking industry to prosecute the bankers we would not have 4 stock market collapses in the last 30 years? You make no sense, Did you know in the late 80's s&L crisis staring John Mccain we didn't prosecute the execs responsible for that till about 1994-1995? Yeah, almost a decade later. And NO if you look through history before Regan when we had high taxes on the wealthy we NEVER had complete stock market colapses. Even during Carter.
junechris 11 months ago
@junechris How do you relate low income taxes to these bubbles when the banks didn't have excess cash they were in debt(leverage ratios are case in point).
anyways thanks for reminding me that mccain and Obama are the same.
jackjillsean 11 months ago
@jackjillsean Comanies that recieve tax cuts to "so called" create jobs their share prices increase temporarily due to saving money, same as lay off. Bush cut taxes, yet lost 1 million jobs.Every stock market crash we ever had has always had boom before a bust. Tax cuts have to be paid for, that's why we are in this mess to begin with, from cutting taxes. FDR taxed the wealthy 90% it's a proven to work. Ordinary millionares dont create jobs either, they just hoard the money.
junechris 11 months ago
@junechris Wise people or crafty companies( which is every company) don't hoard money they invest so that their money multiplies and through these investments the economy grows and jobs are created . But even if we assume that they hoard that isn't a bad thing as unless there are savings banks would have no cash to lend(as is the case now) and then they go to the central bank looking for debt money on artificially low interest rates which has caused so many bubbles(booms) .
jackjillsean 11 months ago
@jackjillsean Lets just say we agree to disagree.
junechris 11 months ago
@junechris I agree the tax cuts hurt our revenue if they were to happen they should have been for everyone but as unfair as it may sound
If we tax the rich now they won't just give in, they'll squeeze it out of their middle class employees and consumers. Or take their businesses to other countries or just evade by reducing their direct income and increasing dividends. This would be disastrous for the economy. We need to cut spending IMO
jackjillsean 11 months ago
@junechris Government did cause the banking crisis by repealing only part of the Glass Stegall because they allowed merger of Banks(Deposit and investments) but then not taking away the insurance it provides on Deposits. So in effect the gambles the Bankers would do wouldn't matter to the deposits.
So it wasn't actually real deregulation but crony capitalism & gov. trying to control free market forces.
PS -- "Inside Job" just keeps harping on deregulation w/o delving deeper, Wonder why??
jackjillsean 11 months ago
@jackjillsean And by the way, Gramm Leach Bliley act which mostly abolished Glass steagal was created by 3 republicans and was almost totaly voted for in unity by republicans almost 70 democrats voted against it.
junechris 11 months ago
@junechris
Ron Paul voted against this act even though he is against regulation in principle he knew what it entails whereas democrats Tom Daschle, Diane Feinstein and John Kerry voted for it and Clinton passed it. Even worse these people are for the stimulus, the bailouts and QE2.
Any which way I don't think this government can take money to further its inefficient and unconscionable designs.
Thank you for agreeing government didn't actually fully deregulate.
jackjillsean 11 months ago
@junechris I wasn't assuming that your knowledge of the banking crisis comes from inside job but Cenk's certainly does.
If you tell people we will pay you back, not throw you into jail and provide you with cash at 1% interest rates what did you expect would have happened.
If this isn't government interference in the free market I don't know what is??
jackjillsean 11 months ago
@jackjillsean "If this isn't government interference in the free market I don't know what is??"
We've already done the big business thing in the 1800s and it fucked the majority of Americans then as it's doing now. Now big business is trying to play the underdog under government while stripping away the clothes of all Americans. Americans are now dogs again. This is corporate tyranny when big business controls government and it's what makes government 'big' government. Fuck your free market bs.
donnyforte2 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@donnyforte2 Big Business is crony capitalism not free markets. Ron Paul wants to help the small businesses with a level playing field by removing excess regulations that are invariably used to maintain monopoly by the big companies. Also he would have let these banks fail and suffer for what they have done unlike Obama who is not just bailing them out and employing their(Goldmann Sachs) execs to his gov. but even helping them evade accounting fraud prosecutions( notary act is case in point).
jackjillsean 11 months ago 13
@jackjillsean "Ron Paul wants to help the small businesses"
You cannot help small business with no regulation on big business. Small business has been steamrolled just like it did in the 1800s. It's just this time, corporations have used the government to their benefit. But the wealthy don't need government to keep corporate tyranny.
"suffer for what they have done unlike"
You realize this started with Bush right?
"Also he would have let these banks fail"
He's still a corporate/wealthy shill.
donnyforte2 11 months ago
@donnyforte2 Theirs a reason why wall street hates Ron Paul and loves Obama, McCain, Bush, Mitt Romney and every other establishment politician. But you ignorantly call him a shill. You have no reasoning, no logic, no critical thinking. Your just obsessed with how much wealth some people have without understanding the difference between honestly earning wealth and ruthlessly stealing it and using bribing govt thugs to give you the legal upper hand. fuck the govt.....
19TEC85 11 months ago
@19TEC85 "Theirs a reason why wall street hates Ron Paul"
That's a bunch of bullshit. Big business/Wall street don't need government. They've taken it over and Ron Paul helped them get there. There's one thing big business and Ron Paul don't care for: government regulation
"and every other establishment politician."
That's largely because of its voting population. They think their security stops at the voting booth.
"You have no reasoning, no logic, no critical thinking. "
Blah blah blah.
donnyforte2 11 months ago
@donnyforte2 Actually they need govt very much, that's why the big banks viciously attack Ron Paul all the time. How else will banks stay big without the help of the central bank? How else can they lend money they don't have? The govt legalized fraud for them, so without govt they're fucked.
"Blah blah blah"
Like a little kid putting his hands over his ears and saying "lalalalala I can't hear you" Keep sticking your head in the sand. Go vote for Obomber the real corporate shill.
19TEC85 11 months ago
@19TEC85 " they need govt very much"
Actually, no they don't... as we saw big business fuck over our country in the 1800s without regulation.
"so without govt they're fucked."
Decade after decade.. slowly but surely the wealthy weaseled their way back into power. Which goes to show: regulation or not, the wealthy will always try to fuck the vast majority over.
"Obomber the real corporate shill."
Tax breaks for conservatives and the wealthy just to keep unemployment benefits.. that was a sad day.
donnyforte2 11 months ago
@donnyforte2 The 1800s big business did not fuck over the country, that is a shallow myth that's been debunked. In fact cartel like business did not start gaining strength until the late 1800s when they started to bribe govt into helping them create cartels. (like JP Morgan and the railroads, and then in the early 1900s with the banks). You and the liberals want to regulate a fraudulent system, while libertarians want to abolish the entire thing and prosecute fraud itself.
19TEC85 11 months ago
@19TEC85 "The 1800s big business did not fuck over the country"
Shallow myth? And debunked by who? Shills for Austrian economics? And you're right... big business did get stronger... the fucked us over in the early 20th century... and they're fucking us again now. They take power from government (from the people) and make it their own.
"You and the liberals want to regulate a fraudulent system"
I want to regulate.. a fraudulent system.. how is this a bad thing?
donnyforte2 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@donnyforte2 ''I want to regulate.. a fraudulent system.. how is this a bad thing?''
It's bad because instead of treating the illness you want to treat the synthomes. Instead of seeing the big picture that the entire system is rotten you want to patch things up with a few regulations. Instead we should have a free and open market where fraud is a crime, period. and what the hell is a shill for Austrian Economics? Lol.
19TEC85 11 months ago 12
This has been flagged as spam show
@19TEC85 "Instead of seeing the big picture that the entire system is rotten you want to patch things up with a few regulations."
The bigger picture is excessive wealth never being addressed. We've already discussed this. You want to fall back on words like "regulation" because it's a dirty word for anyone in love with laissez-shitonomics.
donnyforte2 11 months ago 6
This has been flagged as spam show
@donnyforte2 I love how my comment was marked as spam but you sock accounts, lol.
donnyforte2 11 months ago
@donnyforte2 In your logic, excessive wealth as in too much wealth some how hurts the economy and creates poverty? So your saying we need to extract wealth, destroy it...in order to fight poverty. That's basically what you're saying?? What backwards reasoning. Good luck with that. Me on the other hand, I'll fight for the right to create wealth, grow the economy so that we eliminate as much poverty as we can.
19TEC85 11 months ago
@donnyforte2 In your logic, excessive wealth as in too much wealth some how hurts the economy and creates poverty? So your saying we need to extract wealth, destroy it...in order to fight poverty. That's basically what you're saying?? What backwards reasoning. Good luck with that. Me on the other hand, I'll fight for the right to create wealth, grow the economy so that we eliminate as much poverty as we can.
19TEC85 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@19TEC85 "I'll fight for the right to create wealth, grow the economy so that we eliminate as much poverty as we can."
By allowing greed to go unchecked. Did you know there are 400 people in this country with more wealth than the bottom 50% of Americans (400 vs 160,000,000 people)? This is suppose to "eliminate poverty", how exactly?
donnyforte2 11 months ago
@donnyforte2 Well first you have to realize the system is set up for the top richest to stay at the top at the expense of the rest. It has nothing to do with taxes on the rich. It has to do with monetary policy. Inflation is a tax on the poor and middle class..When central banks inflate this is great for the big banks, they get the money first, as does the govt. But the poor and middle class are stuck with the higher food prices,energy costs and living costs overall.
19TEC85 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@19TEC85 "he system is set up for the top richest to stay at the top"
No shit. Already addressed this.
"It has nothing to do with taxes on the rich. "
Yes it does. Even addressing the defense budget doesn't solve this problem of excessive wealth. The wealth is never recirculated. You support big business and big business can work with or without the big government they've set up. It's really hilarious how big business is sitting back and blaming big government for these problems.
donnyforte2 11 months ago
@donnyforte2 The 1800s big business did not fuck over the country, that is a shallow myth that's been debunked. In fact cartel like business did not start gaining strength until the late 1800s when they started to bribe govt into helping them create cartels. (like JP Morgan and the railroads, and then in the early 1900s with the banks). You and the liberals want to regulate a fraudulent system, while libertarians want to abolish the entire thing and prosecute fraud itself.
19TEC85 11 months ago
@19TEC85 And I really should say "stronger". The same absurd amounts of money was hoarded at the top then as it was today. It just took them a while to gain back the power they once had. They took control over government and of Americans lives once again. Essentially, people have gotten ignorant again and this was a wake up call to corporate tyranny.
donnyforte2 11 months ago
@junechris by cutting defense which really means cutting the funding for attacks on other sovereign nations. And of course other cuts so no he's not an idiot, you're just quick to jump to conclusions.
sefrzan 11 months ago
@sefrzan Cutting defense doesn't address poverty. His taxes still favor the wealthy and the money is never recirculated, and stays within a few hands.
donnyforte2 11 months ago
@donnyforte2 Weath isn't created by ''recirculating'' dollars. It comes from an increase in productivity. When more goods and services are available and become cheaper everyone gains purchasing power. This can only happen through savings and investment. When the govt steals from one group to give to another it doesn't grow the pie, it only redistributes it.
19TEC85 11 months ago
@19TEC85 "Weath isn't created by ''recirculating'' dollars."
Never said that. I said the wealth at the top is never recirculated. It's never taxed, same with inheritance, and corporations (and subsidies) allow greed only within a few hands. It's the Reagan sham all over again.
"When more goods and services are available and become cheaper everyone gains purchasing power."
Bullshit. It comes when we recognize the value in labor and an honest living for a majority instead of a few.
donnyforte2 11 months ago
@donnyforte2 It's not bullshit, it's a fact of life. Savings leads to investment, investment leads to an increase in capital. More capital leads to an increase in productivity. When more is produced, theirs more to go around, the standard of living rises. when you tax wealth and let the government spend it, they just spend it and most of the resources get squandered and wasted into unproductive areas.Govt is not a charity , and is very inefficient.
19TEC85 11 months ago
@19TEC85 "It's not bullshit, it's a fact of life."
Tell me, how does a poor man living paycheck to paycheck save?
"Savings leads to investment,"
Investment? Why are you using terms that don't apply to the average american when dealing with capital?
"the standard of living rises"
Bullshit. Standards of living have largely remained steady for the past decades and the wealthy have only profited.
"Govt is not a charity"
It is for the wealthy.
donnyforte2 11 months ago
@donnyforte2 I wasn't defending the current system. I am against the entire system. The point was that simply taxing wealth so the govt can spend it doesn't make the average person more wealthy. You don't see the connection? People will become even poorer as long as the government banksters cartel keeps inflating and wiping out our middle class. Remember this-Inflation is a tax on the middle class and poor. it is a transfer of wealth from poor to rich.
19TEC85 11 months ago
@19TEC85 As you've already clearly stated, you support greed and all excessive living conditions. You're just creating the same circumstances that lead to failure.
" so the govt can spend it"
No, it's about the wealthy paying the majority of taxes. Not to create and more and more money for the government to spend.
All of our problems can be largely solved by three things: cutting our defense budget, returning taxes on the wealthy, and stop fucking with policies that benefit the wealthy.
donnyforte2 11 months ago
@donnyforte2 I don't support greed, that is not what I said. I just acknowledge that it exist and it will come about in any system. Again. taxing does not grow the 'economic pie' it only redistributes it. I do not support the policies that led to the failure.
19TEC85 11 months ago
@19TEC85 " just acknowledge that it exist and it will come about in any system."
I acknowledge that greed will still exist. The excess of it will be taxed.
"Again. taxing does not grow the 'economic pie' "
This isn't about growing, it's about maintaining.
"it only redistributes it."
It's never redistributed when the wealthy are in charge of their money.
"I do not support the policies that led to the failure."
But you do support the wealthy and they'll find another way to destroy it.
donnyforte2 11 months ago
@donnyforte2 It's always redistributed, the question is to whom? From the middle class to financial elite. Not from rich to poor. And we should be looking for ways to GROW the economy so that everyone winds up having a higher standard of living. Not looking for ways to tax other groups.
19TEC85 11 months ago
@19TEC85 "It's always redistributed, the question is to whom?"
Everyone, including the wealthy. From bridges, roads, schooling, sciences, technology, etc.
" looking for ways to GROW the economy"
It won't come from the wealthy. They're just sitting on it and investing outside of the US (as they have for decades). This was never an overnight problem.
"Not looking for ways to tax other groups"
We're not taxing "other groups". We'd be taxing excessive wealth. There would still be wealthy people.
donnyforte2 11 months ago
@donnyforte2" Investment? Why are you using terms that don't apply to the average american when dealing with capital?"
Because without investment our society would regress back into a primitive society economically. We would have no capital, and everyone would need to work all day with their bare hands just to provide enough food to live.
19TEC85 11 months ago
@19TEC85 "Because without investment our society"
Oh, so the wealthy can only provide that investment?
"everyone would need to work all day with their bare hands just to provide enough food to live."
What a bunch of crap.
donnyforte2 11 months ago
@donnyforte2 Nice refutation. Just spend no time studying economics and call anything you want a bunch of crap. So what's your brilliant plan? Hate people with wealth, tax the wealth, and encourage over consumption? You have no plan. You just have an emotionally based argument, no reason or logic will change it.
19TEC85 11 months ago
@19TEC85 "Hate people with wealth, tax the wealth, and encourage over consumption?"
Hate poverty and hate basic needs not being met for a majority of the population. Tax excessive wealth.
"no reason or logic will change it."
So, basically, you couldn't defend the wealthy and now it's all on me to fix it. Gotcha. What a boring conversation this turned out to be.
donnyforte2 11 months ago
@donnyforte2 Not to mention, I've addressed the biggest issues here: excessive wealth needing to be taxed, and drastically cutting the defense budget. This is basically about giving a middle finger to excessive wealth and focusing on a majority of Americans, not the very few. We have to make it plain and clear that the wealthy cannot weasel their way into domestic and foreign policy for their individual greed.
donnyforte2 11 months ago
@donnyforte2 I agree that we need to cut defense. At this point it isn't even defense, it's offense. It would help the economy if we didn't spend money on killing people in other countries and blowing things up in other countries. Excessive wealth is only a problem when it goes to the wrong people, especially rich people that rely on government.
19TEC85 11 months ago
@donnyforte2 I hate poverty that's why I don't support taxing wealth. Because the money will go to the government and get wasted in unproductive ventures. theirs is only a finite amount of resources in the world at any given time so we have to use things efficiently. The fact that we all need capital to have a higher standard of living just completely went over your head. You said it is "bullshit".
19TEC85 11 months ago
@19TEC85 "that's why I don't support taxing wealth."
Well, this is where you logic goes out the window. Allowing the wealthy to obtain any and all amounts of wealth means it has to drain from somewhere, including the poor. This is essentially welfare for the rich.
"so we have to use things efficiently."
Exactly why we need to tax excess wealth. It' about efficiency.
"need capital to have a higher standard of living"
Taxing excess wealth doesn't mean we won't have a higher standard of living.
donnyforte2 11 months ago
@donnyforte2 you still don't get it. When you tax, you take money from the private economy and give it to govt that then spends money any ol way(maybe on some wars, bail outs, and a few crumbs to the poor) the wealth usually gets wasted. When you leave in to private individuals, the money gets invested into their business to invest in more capital, OR into some other business to increase capital, OR spent at another business. So you destroy wealth by taxing it. But you think capital is bullshit.
19TEC85 11 months ago
@19TEC85 "When you tax, you take money from the private economy"
Taxing excessive wealth, mind you, and putting it to work for the general public, not the very few.
"the money gets invested into their business to invest in more capital"
We've only seen capital grow with the wealthy, not the vast majority.
"So you destroy wealth by taxing it."
No, we tax excessive wealth (not wealth in general) that is never redistributed and is largely sat upon.
donnyforte2 11 months ago
@donnyforte2 "the wealth usually gets wasted. "
Are you saying the wealthy are suffering right now? Please. No.
donnyforte2 11 months ago
@donnyforte2 I didn't say they are suffering. I'm saying let's keep money away from this destructive govt that specializes in killing people(mostly brown people like me), stealing, invading countries, locking up people from non violent crimes(like smoking a plant they disapprove of). Let's keep money in private hands so we can accumulate capital so that we have a higher standard of living. The last place money should go is to the criminal government thugs and it's wall st cronies.
19TEC85 11 months ago
@19TEC85 "'let's keep money away from this destructive govt that specializes in killing people"
So, basically, the wealthy that are influencing actions for their own gain.
"Let's keep money in private hands so we can accumulate capital"
This all sounds great until you realize this capital never recirculates in your scenario. And these standards of living have only increased with the wealthy as long as we've seen government investing in the capital instead of valuing labor.
donnyforte2 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@donnyforte2 'so, basically, the wealthy that are influencing actions for their own gain.'
Yes. Exactly. Stop enriching people through government coercion.
Capital just needs to help increase productivity. If things become more efficient and cheaper, it means wages for every rises. Ex-Computers become more affordable, more people can own one. Saying capital accumulation is bullshit is out right crazy.
19TEC85 11 months ago
@donnyforte2 When you say general public you mean giving money to the military industrial complex, the wall st banks, the war on drugs and it's agencies? That's truly giving money to the few.
Capital has not been accumulating very much in the US. The corporate-state sponsored banks have destroyed much of the wealth already. yes, the very top % of the wealthy are doing great because of government, but not because of lack of taxation on all the rich. the mega rich don't care about taxes.
19TEC85 11 months ago
@19TEC85 "When you say general public you mean giving money to the military industrial complex"
We've already discussed this. No, it doesn't. This is about excessive wealth and greed is largely responsible for these things getting out of control.
"not because of lack of taxation on all the rich"
"mega rich don't care about taxes."
This is a bunch of bullshit. The big business of the 1800s is back and they've adjusted and manipulated our current system to their advantage in the past few decades.
donnyforte2 11 months ago
@donnyforte2 Yes it does. when they tax people, they then use the money to murder people overseas. They then use the money to pay bankers. They then use the money to lock up people that commit non-violent crimes. Maybe when they stop this(they won't), it won't be so bad. The mega rich don't care about taxes because they're either so rich it doesn't matter or they're so rich they get easily find loopholes.
19TEC85 11 months ago
@19TEC85 "when they tax people, they then use the money to murder people overseas."
Okay, you've obviously missed the part about me not wanting the "military industrial complex" and that I want our defense budget drastically cut and money focused on US education.
"The mega rich don't care about taxes because they're either so rich it doesn't matter"
"so rich it doesn't matter"
Which is wasted capital. The very thing you're exclaiming.
donnyforte2 11 months ago
@donnyforte2 It's not wasted capital. How is it "wasted"??? It can only be truly wasted if it goes to the government.
19TEC85 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@19TEC85 "It can only be truly wasted if it goes to the government."
If it benefits the wealthy instead of the vast majority of Americans, this would be true (as it is now). The money needs to be focused locally and investing largely in the health and education of its children.
donnyforte2 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@19TEC85
"When you leave in to private individuals, the money gets invested into their business to invest in more capital, OR into some other business to increase capital, OR spent at another business."
Oh so that's why the USA is doing so well now. Oh wait! OWNED!
mecher3k 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mecher3k" Oh so that's why the USA is doing so well now. Oh wait! OWNED!"
What are you talking about? American is doing horrible right now because of too much corporatism, economic fascism, big spending, borrowing,central banking inflationary booms followed by busts, big government crony capitalism, the list goes on and on. Not of this has to do with free markets and real capital accumulation.
19TEC85 11 months ago
@19TEC85 ---
Isn't that funny that European countries such as Sweden where I live have a much higher average standard of living than America, and we tax the shit out of people compared to the failed American system.
If the U.S wants to stop wasting on unproductive shit it should cut true unproductive spending like overseas military bases and military operations worldwide, cut government intelligence spending, cut government subsidies to oil companies. That is wasting.
underbjorn 11 months ago
@underbjorn Not thee ol Sweden argumen again. Look, you just helped prove my point. Sweden has managed to stay out of lots of wars. While it may have a welfare state to run, it doesn't have a gigantic warfare state. That's great. I agree the US needs to drastically cut militarism and bring home the ridiculous empire. That would help very much. Also, Americans don't just get taxed directly, we get taxed through inflation and not just through direct taxes. Plus certain states tax more.
19TEC85 11 months ago
@19TEC85 ---
Well then there is no disagreement on that particular point. If inflation is seen as taxation somehow, then we all suffer from it, not just Americans.
underbjorn 11 months ago
@donnyforte2 Greed is irrelevant. You can outlaw greed. And it's pretty sad that you associate giving money to government as some kind of charitable giving. Just because somebody doesn't want to give money to govt doesn't mean they are ''greedy''. That line of thinking seems to assume govt is so smart they know exactly where they money should go. Why do I have to support wars and bank bail outs? I'm greedy for not liking these things?
19TEC85 11 months ago
@19TEC85 "Greed is irrelevant."
You need to have this written on your tombstone. This is so pathetic.
"You can outlaw greed."
Never said I wanted to outlaw greed. I'm talking about excessive greed. There's a difference, bub.
"That line of thinking seems to assume govt is so smart"
No, this has largely nothing to do with religion. This has to do with making sure the vast majority of people in this country aren't living in poverty.
donnyforte2 11 months ago
@donnyforte2 Greed is irrelevant here because greed exists no matter what system you propose. The best thing we can do is keep power out of the hands of the few. Your whole argument is based on the assumption that govt is all about helping the poor. when in fact they HURT THE POOR and create even more poor people. More money and wealth goes towards the big financial elite then to help the poor. Yes, they throw a few crumbs to the poor but over the system is set up for the politically connected.
19TEC85 11 months ago
@19TEC85 "Greed is irrelevant"
You keep saying this like it matters.
"Your whole argument is based on the assumption that govt is all about helping the poor."
Excuse me? I'm saying the government is largely controlled by the wealthy, sir.
"but over the system is set up for the politically connected."
No shit. That's what I'm talking about. We let greed get out of control.
donnyforte2 11 months ago