Most conservatives think the Democratic Congress caused Reagan's debt. But (1) the congress was only half Dem, (2) they passed almost exactly the budgets Reagan asked for, (3) most Congressional Republicans voted for every budget, and (4) On the most crucial budget, Reagan got the conservative Southern Dems to switch sides. And the Dems were soundly trounce. That budget did the most damage. The same basic story holds for the other two Presidents.
I believe this video is VALID! It's frustrating with so much political division & misrepresentations hitting the airwaves, it's virtually impossible for most Americans to find truth. Yes, the video did explain how the debt got crazy. I see the point of wealthy folks pay more in taxes overall because they spend more (LESS WE FORGET DEDUCTIONS claimed). Maybe all higher earners & investors can accept lower earnings/dividends, hire people & be part of the solution? Love of $ is root to all evil.
The national debt was going down annually ever since the end of WWII. It spiked when Reagan cut taxes on the wealthy in half. It spiked again when Bush cut taxes and capped the capital gains rates on dividends to just 15% which is a primary source of wealth for the rich and highest tax payers. At the same time entitlement programs were kept in place and grew. It is simple math. You can't spend more than the tax revenue. Either tax more or cut entitlement spending.
the % of gdp timeline is almost identical. I dont think that its just the democrats are responsible for the debt but the difference is the GOP didnt raise taxes to pay for things like the war and welfare programs. if you are going to cut revenues you have to cut spending. Now the Fed shouldnt have a big budget anyways so i do blame the idea of a welfare state and gov agencies. Congress is who spends the money and are both responsible for rise/decline in dept and indirectly of the % of gdp.
Since the death of Mao Tse-Tung China has been competing with the US in exporting manufactured products. If you face strong competition, you have to lower your living standards (work harder and earn less), otherwise you'll go bankrupt. To me, since Reagan, the US have been postponing with debt what they'll sonner or later have to do: stop consuming and start producing.
The chart was a little misleading. Technically government debt has been going up constantly from the beginning of world war I to present. You are however comparing debt to GDP size. So in reality the economy grew faster than debt. You must also realize though they printed their way out of some debt to ensure that the debt didn't grow to fast along with starting up temporary revenue generating schemes such as social security and medicare.
@SuperZed21 . You're pretty close. But printing money is counted in the gross national debt (the big one that I report and that R's focus on). And social security is one of the least temporary things in government.
The privately owned central banks, (fed, world bank, IMF etc), are the source of our debt money system. We need to bring back Lincoln's greenbacks, the creation of money without inital debt attached to it. Instead of banks creating money out of debt, the gov't can create money in the public interest, schools hospitals roads power generation etc. we really need to end fossil fuel electrical generation. the technology is already here the resources need to be made available
is he saying we need another war? We can have another war, just not the shooting kind. A war on infrastructure. Spend money on making our electrical grid big enough for the next century. replacing fossil fuel electrical generation with the eternal sources of energy, think about it, everyone always says, we get our most technological progress in times of war. Why? Because war is the only time the big banksters make money that plentiful.
The national debt is interest free money. All money starts as government debt. The the Fed buys it to produce the first dollar. This ten ends up as a deposit. This deposit then can be lent out less the reserve requirement. When it comes back as a deposit it can be reused until most of the money is bank created loans. Thus the national debt is the only interest free money there is. The FED is required by law to return profit to the treasury. Its not debt, its the money supply.
Remember the 2010 campaign mantra from republicans, JOBS, JOBS, JOBS. Twelve bills passed this republican congress; Half of them naming bridges, and not one bill for jobs.
I think this is one of the most ridiculous things BOTH parties do, say that an incredibly complex problem has a simple explaination, and that one man is responsible. Let me just say, if the country were to have a the same attitude as most people in her borders . . . oh wait it does, Out of control debt. HMMMMMMMM fair representation, I think so.
Even use the real cause, “class warfare”; but misdirect it as the unemployed/retired/ poor/disabled/etc. VS. the middle; but it is really the eg-greed-iously wealthy against everybody else. Fu__ you ALL very much !
It will probably take another full-scale - 2nd Repub. Depression for people to wise up. Some of the same family elite and same corporations, causing and funding the divisiveness, again !
How many times do we have to go through this – “to really learn from it” ?
Supply-siders in Congress during the Clinton Administration were the reason why debt was reduced, not Clinton. Congress holds the purse, not the President.
Ronald Reagan : Although the Gipper mouthed libertarian rhetoric, the facts are that he imposed one of the greatest tax increases in U.S. history (taking away many tax deductions and raising the payroll tax), ramped up the disastrous War on Drugs, and accumulated more debt than all of the previous 39 presidents combined. His fiscal policies, along with his appointment of Alan Greenspan to chair the Fed, sowed the seeds of America’s monetary ruin.
@MarketMaven2010 In less than 500 chars: Supply-side economics is a set of policies that favor the supply side -- companies producing products. Demand-side economics favors the demand side -- consumers. Supply-side, sometime referred to as "trickle-down", effectively pushes money towards the rich (lower taxes on rich, higher taxes on middle class, deregulation). Demand-side effectively pushes it towards the middle class and poor (entitlements, low taxes on middle class, higher on rich).
@athmpsn242 Yeah, you are right. Reagan's policies worked rather well, except that he ignored the spending. The vastly expanding debt at the time was still a very manageable number but he should have seen that it was absolutely wrong and quite evil and what it was leading to. The real travesty now is that the media portrays Bush as if he were anything remotely similar to a conservative. He was no better than FDR or LBJ. And Obama puts them all to shame as an incompetent Marxist crook.
@athmpsn242 It was the bailout packages and not Obama, packages meant to prevent another Great Depression, which ballooned the debt another 24%. Republicans and Hoover did the exact same thing after the stock markets collapsed on October 29, 1929. Wall Street wasn't regulated then, just as the SEC wasn't regulating Wall Street during W. Bush's tenure as President. You do know that Bush preached that Wall Street could regulate itself? He implicitly gave Wall Street the green light for fraud.
@SpeakerEnderWiggin Bush's crime in all that was to not press on an investigation and fix it, and then to use taxpayers to bail out those who used the scam to line their own pockets. Bush just proved he was no better than Barney Frank and the other crooks in the two paced socialist republicrat party.
@wrjamescom There was no investigation to begin with, since Bush's mantra was that Wall Street could regulate itself. Bush was anti-regulation of any kind, believing that regulations inhibited big business and Wall Street. SEC agents didn't investigate since doing so would have meant losing their jobs so quickly that their heads would spin. But they did have fun spending their time viewing porn since they sure as hell were prevented by the White House from performing their actual jobs.
@SpeakerEnderWiggin Regulation isn't the issue, that's a smoke screen , a regular load of paoort lines from the laft who wants an entirely government controlled economy. It wasn't a lack of regulations that created the mess, it was too much regulation and politicians lining their pockets with them. It was regulations that forced banks to create the sub-prime mortgage. It was regulations which rewarded the scamming crooks and then bailed them out.
@1morphdude A typical response from the right that anything that counters their tightly held worldview, no matter how fact-based, must be wrong because... well, it contradicts their tightly held worldview. How about some data that shows that this assessment is wrong?
You should learn what you are talking about before attempting to teach people about it. The idea of supply side isn't that super rich people will work harder and pay more taxes at a lower rate as you claimed, but rather people will open and expand businesses if they are allowed to profit more from that than other investments. And it has proven to be true throughout history. It's not voodoo. What is voodoo is the idea than borrowing and wasting and punishing success leads to prosperity.
@wrjamescom History proves you to be incorrect. Voodoo economics lead to big corporations getting even bigger, resulting in smaller businesses closing their doors because they simply could not compete. Then those big corporations, not giving a damn about their employees, moved manufacturing operations overseas in order to realize even greater profits. In case you haven't look around America during the past 20 years, America now is mostly a service economy.
@SpeakerEnderWiggin I see you've been educated by the pop media. The only voodoo is the belief that the socialist scams promoted by those who parrot such nonsense will work next time even with it's very long track record of 100% failure. Subverting the constitution to enrich Walmart and transferring tax dollars to Wall Street and Barney Frank's boyfriends hardy resembles the concept of free people being allowed to keep what they earn.
This video is filled with lies. Clinton didn't lower the national debt. He lowered the deficits but not the debt. It's true the debt has been going up during the Bush and Reagan years. It's because when in power politicians with always expand their power. Also, Obama is going along with supply-side economics since he's extending the Bush tax cuts and is spending like Bush. So there are a few things that need to be corrected.
@ggadguy obama has drawn a line in the sand on tax cuts for the rich. they will not be renewed despite the pressure from republicans and tea partiers.
@Odysseus087 Obama and Congress already voted on extending the Bush Tax cuts. Most of the Republicans voted for it and a minority of Democrats voted for it. Go to Wikipedia a search "Bush tax cuts" and you'll learn all about it.
@ggadguy yeah they got renewed the first time. obama did that as a way of trying to find middle ground with the tea party and repubs. it was a bad idea though because it didn't make them any less partisan and it made our deficit problem worse. understand though that the tax cuts would have never even existed in the first place if not for the right wing. for the next budget however, obama has made it clear the tax cuts will not be renewed again. this time we will not stand for it.
@Odysseus087 I believe that the corporate/government masters will never give power back to the people. They will instead do favors for each other until we are completely a fascist/socialist paradise.
@ggadguy yeah well it sounds like you are a full blown conspiracy theorist. ppl like you want to basically fight the civil war all over again. i'm not saying you are a racist who wants slavery, but you obviously buy into the alex jones libertarian/secessionist line that the federal govt is evil no matter what. luckily most of this country will never ally themselves with your cause to overthrow the govt...we'd rather use the system that exists to vote in pols that want real progress
@ggadguy by the way its ironic that you speak in "orwellian" language. did you know that george orwell was in fact a devout democratic socialist? 1984 and animal farm were about totalitarianism, not socialism...unfortunately his writing has been misrepresented by ppl like alex jones.
@Odysseus087 The dirty little "secret" (if something so obvious can be considered secret) is that socialism cannot exist without totalitarianism as it's base. If the means or production, which includes one's own labor, is owned by the state, then there are no rights, it is absolute rule. Under any supposed socialist utopia where everything is shared, what happens when one member of the society decides he owns his own body and claims the product of his labor for himself?
@wrjamescom no one is advocating full on socialism. that's not what democratic socialism is. germany and the other leading countries in the EU like France, Norway, Sweden, etc are carrying on the democratic socialistic tradition and they are thriving with extremely healthy economies and extremely high standards of living for their citizens. they have effectively balanced socialism and capitalism. the US needs to wake up and start thinking outside the box.
@Odysseus087 LOTS of people are advocating full socialism, including the president. Partial socialism is like only being raped a little bit, like that's ok. But you missed the point that all those socialist countries could not exist without US taxpayers (free people) propping them up. And even with US taxpayers proving their defense, the R&D for their medical scams, etc, they are still going broke.
@wrjamescom saying socialism has a 100% failure rate is just pure ignorance. every country in the world has elements of socialism. it's a matter of finding the right balance between capitalism and socialism.
@Odysseus087 You fail to recognize your own ignorance. Like I said, socialism has a 100% failure rate. It cannot exist without free people outside propping it up artificially. Sure, it works to a limited degree as long as someone else is paying for it. But has never and can never stand on it's own.
@wrjamescom So you must be completely against taxes then. Here's a reality check. A critical measure of the health of a modern democracy is its ability to legitimately extract taxes from its own elites. The most dysfunctional societies in the developing world are those whose elites succeed either in legally exempting
themselves from taxation, or in taking advantage of lax enforcement to evade them, thereby shifting the burden of public expenditure onto the rest of society.
@Odysseus087 You assume a lot before speaking, don't you? I agree taxes are a necessary evil. But the fatal flaw of socialism is that people living off of others run out of resources as there's no incentive to produce if you can't keep it and no incentive to work i someone else if robbed for your needs. And I wouldn't want to live in a democracy. I prefer a constitutional republic where officials are obligated to the constitution and not the people, where not just the majority has rights.
@Odysseus087 You assume a lot before speaking, don't you? I agree taxes are a necessary evil. But the fatal flaw of socialism is that people living off of others run out of resources as there's no incentive to produce if you can't keep it and no incentive to work i someone else if robbed for your needs. And I wouldn't want to live in a democracy. I prefer a constitutional republic where officials are obligated to the constitution and not the people, where not just the majority has rights.
@Odysseus087 When over half the population relies on government to use force to extract handouts from the rest, and those people are allowed to vote, the that's the end of the road for a free nation. No one on the public dole should ever be allowed to vote.
@wrjamescom I've heard all that nonsense before. You're using that teabagger talking point that complains about 50% of Americans not paying federal income tax. The reason why we don't collect federal income tax on that group is because income inequality in America is the worst of any developed nation in the entire world . They don't make enough money to pay taxes and support their families. The real problem is that the upper 1% owns something like 40% of America's wealth
@Odysseus087 Eat your cracker, Polly. Instead of parroting that line of BS, why not see if you can get those at the bottom to pay their fair share instead of ZERO.
@Odysseus087 Poor Americans have cars, phone, cell phones, internet, AC, cable TV, and so much food they are the fattest people in the country. Yeah, they have it so bad, huh?
@wrjamescom Been drinking the Kool-Aid, haven't you.
Norway may be the only developed nation with a surplus. It also has full employment and provides free medical care for its citizens. A socialist success. When it comes to taking care of its people, let's talk about the 100% failure rate of capitalism.
@ChuloSkylark Are you serious? Are you really that uneducated? Norway has among the most oppressive taxation on the planet, and they couldn't collect half of that if they allowed free trade. And still they can't pay their own bills without the US subsidizing their defense, drug costs, etc. They only reason they aren't flat broke is oil, and when that runs out, they'll be lucky if they do as well as Greece or Cuba.
@wrjamescom What is it with you obnoxious goose steppers? Why do you feel the need to call anyone stupid if they disagree with you? And more importantly, what twisted spin can you use to explain why Norway is considered to contain some of the happiest people in any developed country? Highest taxes; lowest unemployment rate. Messes with your 'cut taxes for the rich and they will hire people' philosophy, doesn't it?
@ChuloSkylark Your parrot lines don't seem to fit reality. Contrary to your trainer's instructions, very few, if any, believe in "cutting taxes for the rich". Many people, myself included, believe in cutting taxes for tax payers. Government is already vastly overfunded, which is pretty evident in their vast waste. People who aren't robbed of their hard earned can and do participate in trade. Government doesn't create jobs. But don't let reality ruin your delusions.
@ChuloSkylark A non-reading parrot! How quaint! Your parrot lines don't seem to fit, do they? Contrary to your trainer's instructions, very few, if any, believe in "cutting taxes for the rich". Many people, myself included, believe in cutting taxes for tax payers. Government is already vastly overfunded, which is pretty evident in their vast waste. People who aren't robbed of their hard earned can and do participate in trade. Government doesn't create jobs.
@wrjamescom While taxes are at historic lows, you continue ranting about the vast government with its vast waste and all your other half-vast ideas but do it with someone else. Your delusions bore me and you can't think for yourself; you simply regurgitate the same stale right wing bs.
It is nice that you have something to do with your time; but this isn't a children's site. Plus, you're an obnoxious brat.
@ggadguy So buy stock and ride to riches with them? Always cracks me up how people bitch about "rich people" that are only rich because they own a lot of stock, but then don't get in on the deal WITH the rich.
@spazoq You can certainly buy stock if you'd like. I never said you can't or I can't. What I'm opposed to is corporate bailouts, corporate special privileges from the government, etc. This isn't capitalism, but crony capitalism.
@ggadguy also your criticisms of the video are false. the graph in the video is not a graph of natiional debt in $, it's a graph of national debt as a % of gdp. do you understand the distinction here? it's a way of adjusting for inflation so it's actually the most accurate way of depicting debt. when you say obama is a supply sider you are also mostly wrong. he is using mostly keynesian economics, minus the bush tax cuts which will not be renewed again. we learned once from fdr
@Odysseus087 Yes, I understand the distinction. But the real debt numbers went up. I just want people to be aware of this fact. As far as Obama he extended the Bush tax cuts which is supply-side economics, at the same time he's a Keynesian by creating government stimulus projects. So I would say he has parts of both, even though I agree Obama is more Keynesian. I do believe he will extend them again, especially in an election year.
@ggadguy i think the fact its an election yr means they wont be extended. ppl finally seem to be wising up to the whole tax cuts issue. i think by next yr public support for higher taxes on top earners will be very popular. actually, polls show it already is a very popular idea. i truly believe the republican supply side economic theory is in its last throes. the american public is pretty ignorant, but in this case i think most citizens see through the bullshit from guys like paul ryan
@Odysseus087 Tax increases on corporations certainly can have populist support. But I just don't think either party will raise taxes on their favorite corporate contributors. One thing that hasn't been tried yet is cutting government. In fact, both parties support bigger government, even Ryan and Republicans as seen in the Bush years. Both parties are going to bankrupt the country sending the value of our currency lower and lower in value.
@ggadguy cutting govt will lead to a second great depression if we cut in the wrong places. it might lower the debt, but unemployment will skyrocket and millions will suffer. if you want to cut military spending then fine, but cutting social programs is a recipe for disaster. we already know that from the great depression. if you want a good example of what we should be doing, look at the german economy. also the 'people's budget' is out there but it's bein suppressed by repubs and baggers
@ggadguy It's nice to see someone noting that fact. The government and the debt continued to grow under Clinton. There was never any surplus, only "projected surplus" which presumed the several bubbles would go on forever and never burst, that the economy would keep growing under artificial pressure forever. But even that false projections would never have existed without the republican congress butting the brakes on Hillary's socialist scams. Clinton gets no credit for it.
@ggadguy It's noce to see someone noting that fact. The government and the debt continued to grow under Clinton. There was never any surplus, only "projected surplus" which presumed the several bubbles would go on forever and never burst, that the economy would keep growing under artificial pressure forever. But even that false projections would never have existed without the republican congress butting the brakes on Hillary's socialist scams. Clinton gets no credit for it.
Didnt Clinton raid SS and Medicare to reduce the debt? Didnt he also redefine what was considered to be unemployed?(go to shadowstats to see the real unemployment). Also what about going off the gold standard? That allowed massive borrowing/inflation, plus keeping interest rates artificially low to increase borrowing even more(interest rates are really negative). Also wasnt all the borrowing used to expand government? Thats not conservative at all.
@MrStaticrocker hey look timmy, its another racist xenophob who just finished with his tea party protests and has now watched himself some Glenn Beck and feels like being a a tad ignorant in the face of overwhelming ACTUAL FACTS! not lies and propaganda the republicans spew. YES! yes lets go call obama a socialist and a fascist even though he is neither. Its genius i tells, ya. GENIUS!
You are being less than honest - good political campaign video ! Since WWII did anything take place on an industrial level in this country? Could the Gov't be the befeciary of that growth? How did Carter perform ?? Clinton benfit of anything like the birth of the internet and the end of the cold war ?? If you are going to do something like this a PRETEND to be telling the truth - include all facets of the truth....
A corporate tax is a tax on the poor. You probably don't understand anything based on this video.
If you increase taxes on McDonalds. They are not going to go "Oh well that's a pickle" They are simply going to pass on the tax to the consumer. Are they going to take a hit on their net profits each year? Or are they going to raise the cost of a Big Mac to pay for the tax?
If you tax them it costs consumers billions, or it drives them out of business. No other option.
We had the cold war with the soviets so i don't blame regan Bush is a absolute moran and the dumbest man we ever elected. I think a 18 yr old college student could run our country better than bush.
I just love to see people defend their stupid republican politicians. The truth can smack them in the face over and over but they will still regurgitate the right wing talking points. Not their fault there is nothing but none sense on the air waves not one bit of truth or reason.
@selfmadeboys88 How does what I posted even begging to give you that impression? I'm talking about the idiocy of bipartisan politics. Which is fake... there is only one party in the U.S. the capitalist pig party... and about the t.v. and radio. I like to keep up with their latest methods of deception. Is actually quite amusing.
@N0g0dzN0masterz Oh well shit sorry man, Im right there with you. Only i dont really keep up with any of it, cause we all know its bullshit.
I hate both parties, but its so trendy to bash on republicans, so i though thats what you were doing. I in no way shape or form support any republican at all, nor any democrat at all, but i do hate trends.
Nice try... BUT OBAMA INCREASED OUR NATIONAL DEBT BY $2 TRILLION IN HIS FIRST YEAR IN OFFICE. And a total of $3 trillion since he took office. Obama has increased our debt by more than all the presidents did in our first 220 years of history.
@LameBrainMcCain Are you astonishingly bad at math? Debt as a raw number is meaningless. The Debt only makes sense when adjusted for GDP. If you don't take inflation and population growth into account the numbers make no sense... and tend to make people who are bad at math use ALL CAPS.
Also... your last sentence is mind numbingly wrong. You are saying that $3T (how much Obama raised the debt) is more than $11T (the debt raised over the first 220 years). Why are you so stupid?
Our debt is $14 trillion. That is $100K per worker. $50K per citizen. Big numbers!
We could double our population to halve the debt per person, but the cost of our social services would rise too. Inflation could be used to reduce our debt, but it would also reduce the value of your savings, although I suspect you are too stupid to have any.
The first 220 years of our history ended in 1997, not 2009. You are ASTONISHINGLY BAD AT MATH AND READING (the caps help emphasize my point)
@LameBrainMcCain True, I didn't do the math from 1776 forward 220 years. So you meant 1997. The debt was $5.3T in '97 which you think is still larger than $3T. Wrong again.
If you want to emphasize a point then you should use convincing dialog rather than all caps. Using all caps makes you look like the snot nosed 4th grader yelling at the school lunch lady because you want more pudding.
Don't make assumptions about others' wealth. It makes you look more and more foolish.
@LameBrainMcCain You are such a moron and a liar, Obama has increased the debt but not more then Reagan did at least not yet. Also Obama did put the both wars on the budget something Bush did not do. He use the back door by spending the money as "emergency founding" So You need to do some more research and or stop listening to your boy Glenn or Rush or any of the other carbon copies of the right wing spin machine.
According to National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms on wikipedia, Reagan incurred a debt increase of $1.730 Trillion. So far Obama has incurred a debt increase of 13.954 - 10.413 Trillion = $3.541 Trillion! Even in inflation adjusted $'s Reagan is still only $1.849 Trillion. Obama is near 2X!
YOU should do some research (check my source). It would appear YOU are the moron and liar. It would appear that YOU should check some sources. It would appear YOU are a spin machine.
@LameBrainMcCain Look You ... I am a moron so why do you even bother saying anything to me? I give a shit about Obama I know he will spend more the Reagan did. All I said is that he has not yet. Your wikipedia crap is very "reliable" though.... My point I made b4 was that republicans like to talk a big game about been fiscal conservatives but they are a bunch of liberal little bitches. If you defend that idiotic excuse of a party you are insane, the dems are no better they both suck.
@LameBrainMcCain In Jan. 2009, the CBO released "The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2009-2019." They projected the deficit for fiscal '09 would total $1.2T, or 8.3% of GDP. (Fed. fiscal year '09 was 10/1/08 to 9/30/09). The CBO cautioned that its projection didn't include future legislation e.g., the stimulus. In fact, the actual '09 deficit turned out to be $1.4T. In brief, the '09 deficit was $1.2T BEFORE OBAMA SET FOOT IN OFFICE, and he added 14% ($200B) w/the stimulus.
And bear in mind that Reagan was in office for 8 years while Obama has only been in office a little more than 2!!! In 2 years Obama incurred more than TWICE the debt Reagan did in 8!!! Your messiah is DESTROYING our nation, and people like you are too ignorant (and self righteous) to even do a minor amount of research and see it! LMAO!!
By the way the debt between 1945 and 1980 went from $250 billion to $1 trillion. Going off the GDP isn't a good idea. in 1860 $100 would buy you $101 in 1910. in 1960 $100 would buy you $725 in 2010.. is there something wrong with this picture? You make a good valid point in your video and and are pretty right about Reagan etc. But between 1945 and 1980 even tho our debt to GDP was dropping the value of the dollar lost 77% of its value in just 35 years
This video needs to be updated. Obama is now a supply-sider. Tax-cuts for the rich will continue. The upper 2% run the show and they won't allow voodoo economics to go away. Scary part is that many of the lower 98%, even those struggling and unemployed, also support this BS theory. How can you believe that this a failed experiment rather than an intentional ploy to make the rich richer?
Very interesting presentation. Still, I think it's worth remembering that only congress can spend money, and within congress only the House can create taxes. The president's sole power is the veto, which congress can override.
Phil gramm, my senator, changed parties in 1982. Richard Shelby of Alabama, Trent lot of Mississippi. All of em' jumped ship on the Democrats, went over to the supply siders. I want to hear one reaganitte tell me how much money these mutherfuckers have made in the last 30 years? Phil gramm works for UBS, you think he doesn't have a few 100 million is a swiss bank? Wendy gramm was the godmother of enron. Trent lot's wife raked in millions with the lobby. Robber barons.
There's lots of talk that "Congress did it" and not the presidents. This is politically motivated. I checked the numbers before I made the video. If you are going to talk about them you should first see them here: zfacts.com/p/57.html
Congress passed almost exactly the budgets Regan and Bush-I asked for. On average Congress appropriated about $2B less per year (less debt, not more) out of about $600B, and Reagan and Bush increased the debt by $3,414 B.
The specifics are important. It went up under Reagan because the defense had to be rebuilt after Carter. It went down under Clinton due to the defense dividend that Reagan created by bringing down the wall and ending the cold war. This trickle up poverty we have now is the worst yet. The deficit is higher than ever and going there didn't keep unemployment below 8% as promised.
People are misunderstanding my point. My point is that this video's explanation is both biased and way oversimplified. It's far more complex than he's making it sound.
@immikeurnot. Of course it's more complex than a 4 min video. But it's packed with info--far more than the Republican videos. Do you complain about them?
It was not Congress and Budgets it was R tax cuts, mainly for the rich & corporations. Every Republican in Congress voted for the tax cut and budget that made the budget U-turn shown in the graph. 20 out of 20 years, is not "complexities."
Supply siders like the huge debt to pressure to cut social security and Medicare.
@sstoft I always complain about inaccuracies and outright lies. I'm not a Republican by any means.
What I am is opposed to intellectual dishonesty.
Tax cuts for example. I'm tired of hearing how evil they are. Only a moron would think that LESS theft is evil, no matter who we're stealing less from. What's evil is the over-spending going on. That is the problem, not tax cuts.
By freezing the minimum wage for ten years Reagan took a major chunk of the population out participation in the economy and stagnated middle-class incomes in the process. US manufacturing markets plummeted with the loss of minimum wage workers (and those with wage increases linked to the minimum wage) when they were no longer able to buy the goods being manufactured. After 10 years min. wage workers were below or near the poverty line. You can't grow markets by killing them.
@leapswithoutlooking You're joking right? Every time minimum wage goes up, so do prices. We'd be better off eliminating it entirely because it will never be a "living wage". Why? Because it *can* never be a living wage. It's the bottom rung on the scale, and that rung is never going to be a viable career choice.
No offense to you, @immikeurnot and @navyandorange, but you're both wearing blinders and still fail to see how this video's bell charts and other data from across the web incontrovertibly point to massive deficit-spending patterns during the Reagan, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. administrations -- much of being traced to massive defense buildup and war spending. This doesn't take a rocket scientist.
It all comes from both Republicans and Democratic politicians selling this country on becoming a "DEBTOR-BASED SOCIETY," pure and simple. And the notion of "Fiscal Conservatism" from the Right/Republicans has been an utter and complete fallacy -- it is the worst type of "Voodoo Economics" that the GOP heaped upon the public for the last 30-plus-years (only adding to the deficits by extending tax cuts for the wealthy). It was a recipe for disaster...the worst of yet might still be to come.
A quick note: From 1940-1981, the top U.S. marginal income tax rate averaged 81.4%. (From 1950-1963, the top rate exceeded 90%). Not many billionaires running around, but we paid down the nat'l debt.
Then starting with Reagan the top marginal tax rate has averaged 38.2% and now sits at 35%, off the historic low of 28% in 1988-1989. (Clinton raised it to 39.6% and balanced the budget, then GW Bush dropped it back to 35%, didn't pay for it, and grew the debt once again).
Factor in the fact that dying gasps of the Bush administration led to massive $800-billion-plus TARP bailouts of the banks, Wall Street investment firms, insurance companies ($183 billion alone to AIG) and other corporations, the G.W. Bush era was the biggest corporate welfare giveaway in history. This is also a by-product of massive deregulation...
...where this money has largely only benefited the likes of Halliburton, Northrop-Grumman, Boeing, Lockheed Martin and a few other mega-large defense contractors. This did not create many new jobs because the defense industry is already consolidated corporate contractors and the money was largely pocketed to boost the value of their stock and Wall Street investment.
What happened with the defense buildup of the Reagan administration (to combat the Soviet buildup) and then the Iraq I war under Bush Sr. and second Iraq war and Afghanistan war under Bush Jr. created exponentially higher deficit going to the benefit of a CONSOLIDATED defense industry, where...
But the war spending and direct federal recovery programs instituted by FDR (like the Works Progress Administration) translated to direct job creation and the rebuilding in all sectors of American industry -- leading to the most prosperous post-war period (1946 to 1960 or so) in our nation's history, which also allowed our government to pay down some of the war debt.
Just as @sstoft so aptly pointed out in his fact-based, unbiased video here, World War II, through no fault of America's own being dragged into the war, left the equivalent of $10.5 trillion in debt (in today's dollars).
....massive deficit-spending patterns during the Reagan, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. administrations -- much of being traced to massive defense buildup and war spending. This doesn't take a rocket scientist.
No offense to you, @immikeurnot and @navyandorange, but you're both wearing blinders and still fail to see how this video's bell charts and other data from across the web incontrovertibly point to...
That still doesn't tell us anything meaningful about the national debt, or why it was a good idea to take it significantly higher to get out of it. Crazy.
@BigHarry76. Actually, it tells who reversed it from going down to going up -- Reagan and his supply siders. It tells you Congress actually held Reagan back a bit from running it up. You can see the proof of that (From Congress and Time Mag.) here: zfacts.com/p/57.html
And of course it does not say to take it higher to get out of it. You made that up. It says fix unemployment like we did in WWII and then pay it down like after the war. You forgot that amazing story. Maybe you wanted to?
A couple of facts you seem to be ignoring. The budget originates in the House, not the Oval office or the Senate. The House in the Reagan years was controlled by the.... I'll let you guess which party wrote the budget.
The debt under Clinton fell after the _____ party took control of the House in the 1994 elections. Plus, Clinton was in office during boom years.
You do not "buy" tax cuts, no matter who they are for. That was a cheap appeal to emotion, and a play on class envy. Very cheap.
@immikeurnot Not your fault--the Rep. story. But the budget originates with the Pres. Then both the House & Senate pass bills. Then to conference, like any bill.
Reagan's 1st budget--The Senate was R, the House D. But Reagan coaxed the Dixie D's to go with the Rs. The Budget that passed was pure R. And $2B higher than the $542B Reagan requested.
The Time Mag. story of July 6, 1981 "He Got What He Wanted." It's free on line. In Reagan's 8 years Congress reduced his budgets by $16B. Etc. etc.
@sstoft He usually suggests a budget, but budget bills originate in the House. They usually don't follow his budget, except in cases like we have currently.
@immikeurnot true, but that doesn't imply that the house has the ultimate control over the budget. rather it implies that we have a corporatocracy. the latter I agree with.
@KAMERBURO Now that I'll agree with to a point. Corporatocracy ignores all the power and money funneled to vote-buying "social programs" that are destructive to our nation and the people caught in them. It also ignores the power and payoffs that unions regularly get.
Politics are dirty and the vast majority of politicians are crooks. They belong in prison, not in office. Party affiliation doesn't matter. Integrity does.
@immikeurnot Surely it's no coincidence that the GDP expands at double the rate on average when a Democrat is president, as compared to a Republican. I recall calculating this myself using the GDP data per year from the back of an Econ book.
@LNMagic I can't comment on that because it's not something I've seen. I'll look into it though.
But again, the President isn't the end-all be-all of government or the direction it takes. We do have a government made up of three parts of equal power. The president is just the easiest to focus on, while Congress gets away with tons of bullshit because it's harder to focus on 535 cocksucking liars than it is to focus on one motherfucking crook.
@malkooth Wow, what a well-thought out, articulated and helpful post. Thank you for informing me that I'm a fascist. Oddly enough, I'd always thought that my love of minimum government and broad personal liberties in areas like legalization of drugs, gay marriage, etc. put me firmly into the libertarian camp as far away from a fascist as could be. But apparently that was just my plaid shirt fucking with me.
Thanks for clearing that up, buddy. At least you're right that I'm Germanic...
@immikeurnot Your taglines are pretty much Republican, plain and simple. Alan Greenspan is a "Libertarian" another word for in effect a trust fund baby on a tear. I don't like taxes anymore than you do but without some type of controls the thugs take control, look around brother.
@immikeurnot You are obviously a black sheep or just too slow on the uptake to be included in the family. I'm sure at holidays they laugh at what a sucker you are.
@johnnyu3 You might want to double check that, dude. Because Congress is responsible for writing and passing the budget. The president typically suggests one, but it's really Congress.
You're confusing reality of the law of the land with a fairly recent tradition. More education is in order for you.
Congress didn't change in 1981. If anything congress took a right turn in the early 80s. They were called reagan democrats. It was a crazy time. Everyone saw the debt running out of control, even reagan's budget chief. When he spoke up, he was taken to the wood shed. It's just the truth, I was there.
@mcarbus Good question. In fact, nothing will happen. The Japanese are at about 200% and nothing is happening to them. Many people have mortgages that are 200% or more of their income. And Uncle Sam is much stronger than any home buyer.
So having 8-10 million unemployed right now, is far worse. End the recession -- that by itself, will reduce the deficit enormously. It's like before -- first win the war, then pay off the debt.
The super rich don't want equality nor stability, because they believe they earned the right to be above the rest of us. They want to bankrupt the nation, so they can own parts of it and do as they please. You can see it in every luxury car driver's eyes when they drive like the road belongs to them alone and the rest of us are an anno
Most conservatives think the Democratic Congress caused Reagan's debt. But (1) the congress was only half Dem, (2) they passed almost exactly the budgets Reagan asked for, (3) most Congressional Republicans voted for every budget, and (4) On the most crucial budget, Reagan got the conservative Southern Dems to switch sides. And the Dems were soundly trounce. That budget did the most damage. The same basic story holds for the other two Presidents.
sstoft 2 months ago
I believe this video is VALID! It's frustrating with so much political division & misrepresentations hitting the airwaves, it's virtually impossible for most Americans to find truth. Yes, the video did explain how the debt got crazy. I see the point of wealthy folks pay more in taxes overall because they spend more (LESS WE FORGET DEDUCTIONS claimed). Maybe all higher earners & investors can accept lower earnings/dividends, hire people & be part of the solution? Love of $ is root to all evil.
Preluding99 2 months ago
The national debt was going down annually ever since the end of WWII. It spiked when Reagan cut taxes on the wealthy in half. It spiked again when Bush cut taxes and capped the capital gains rates on dividends to just 15% which is a primary source of wealth for the rich and highest tax payers. At the same time entitlement programs were kept in place and grew. It is simple math. You can't spend more than the tax revenue. Either tax more or cut entitlement spending.
como651 2 months ago
the % of gdp timeline is almost identical. I dont think that its just the democrats are responsible for the debt but the difference is the GOP didnt raise taxes to pay for things like the war and welfare programs. if you are going to cut revenues you have to cut spending. Now the Fed shouldnt have a big budget anyways so i do blame the idea of a welfare state and gov agencies. Congress is who spends the money and are both responsible for rise/decline in dept and indirectly of the % of gdp.
DrunkenGodMode 3 months ago
great vid!
dogfight156 3 months ago
Great video!
Since the death of Mao Tse-Tung China has been competing with the US in exporting manufactured products. If you face strong competition, you have to lower your living standards (work harder and earn less), otherwise you'll go bankrupt. To me, since Reagan, the US have been postponing with debt what they'll sonner or later have to do: stop consuming and start producing.
luizcadu 3 months ago
The chart was a little misleading. Technically government debt has been going up constantly from the beginning of world war I to present. You are however comparing debt to GDP size. So in reality the economy grew faster than debt. You must also realize though they printed their way out of some debt to ensure that the debt didn't grow to fast along with starting up temporary revenue generating schemes such as social security and medicare.
SuperZed21 3 months ago
@SuperZed21 . You're pretty close. But printing money is counted in the gross national debt (the big one that I report and that R's focus on). And social security is one of the least temporary things in government.
sstoft 3 months ago
The privately owned central banks, (fed, world bank, IMF etc), are the source of our debt money system. We need to bring back Lincoln's greenbacks, the creation of money without inital debt attached to it. Instead of banks creating money out of debt, the gov't can create money in the public interest, schools hospitals roads power generation etc. we really need to end fossil fuel electrical generation. the technology is already here the resources need to be made available
MrDANNYUNDERWOODky 4 months ago
@MrDANNYUNDERWOODky . Not saying we need a war. Agree with you on infrastructure.
The Fed is not really private and does not create greenbacks from debt.
Most money is created by the fractional-reserve banking system and by credit cards etc.
Money is not the problem. A bunch of nuts make up the anti-Fed stuff.
Get a basic econ book if you want to learn how it works, and forget the right-wing (and some left-wing) kooks.
sstoft 4 months ago
is he saying we need another war? We can have another war, just not the shooting kind. A war on infrastructure. Spend money on making our electrical grid big enough for the next century. replacing fossil fuel electrical generation with the eternal sources of energy, think about it, everyone always says, we get our most technological progress in times of war. Why? Because war is the only time the big banksters make money that plentiful.
MrDANNYUNDERWOODky 4 months ago
The national debt is interest free money. All money starts as government debt. The the Fed buys it to produce the first dollar. This ten ends up as a deposit. This deposit then can be lent out less the reserve requirement. When it comes back as a deposit it can be reused until most of the money is bank created loans. Thus the national debt is the only interest free money there is. The FED is required by law to return profit to the treasury. Its not debt, its the money supply.
gwynedd1 4 months ago
Remember the 2010 campaign mantra from republicans, JOBS, JOBS, JOBS. Twelve bills passed this republican congress; Half of them naming bridges, and not one bill for jobs.
chadmw45 4 months ago
The sad thing about all this is that you can show people the facts and it simply won't change their minds.
Children say: "my daddy is the bestest daddy in the WHOLE WORLD"
Consrvatives say: "my candidate is the bestest canditate in the WHOLE WORLD"
And like children, nothing can change their minds.
psusac 5 months ago
I think this is one of the most ridiculous things BOTH parties do, say that an incredibly complex problem has a simple explaination, and that one man is responsible. Let me just say, if the country were to have a the same attitude as most people in her borders . . . oh wait it does, Out of control debt. HMMMMMMMM fair representation, I think so.
lazenbyt101 5 months ago
@kilox10001 "..what happened?.."
-
Reagan tripled the debt, Bush I doubled it, Clinton reduced it, Bush II doubled ALL of that again.
Bush's last budget -1.8 T$, Obama's -1.1 T$ and -1.4 T$;
including 1/2 T$ interest from 30 YEARS OF REPUB. Debt and Compounding Interest ...
treasurydirect [dot] gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm
treasurydirect [dot] gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm
.-
MaLineOne 5 months ago
Comment removed
1somaz 5 months ago
Comment removed
1somaz 5 months ago
Supply-side -"voodoo"- economics is an immoral, manufactured trick of theft, designed by the rich at the expense of the future [47k per citizen].
It con-ned many by offering the middle class a small amount of the bounty - the rich get the big tax cuts.
80% of all the wealth has gone to 10% in the past 25 years.
Cont
1somaz 5 months ago
Comment removed
1somaz 5 months ago
The result of falling it, is a 25+ year compounding debt, planned to destroy the “safety net”.
Because the architects of the plan do not need it; and manipulate the unsuspecting with it [to rob themselves]
Thru the usual pseudo-patriotic slogans and theocratic misinterpretations - targeting their fellow citizens [the others].
Even falsely brought abortion, into the "Debt Ceiling - political circus” ... but ignored REDUCING the DEBT – one penny !
Cont
1somaz 5 months ago
Even use the real cause, “class warfare”; but misdirect it as the unemployed/retired/ poor/disabled/etc. VS. the middle; but it is really the eg-greed-iously wealthy against everybody else. Fu__ you ALL very much !
It will probably take another full-scale - 2nd Repub. Depression for people to wise up. Some of the same family elite and same corporations, causing and funding the divisiveness, again !
How many times do we have to go through this – “to really learn from it” ?
1somaz 5 months ago
Supply-siders in Congress during the Clinton Administration were the reason why debt was reduced, not Clinton. Congress holds the purse, not the President.
jbvillarante 6 months ago
@jbvillarante "..Supply-siders in Congress.."
-
Clinton signed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, in August of that year,
which passed Congress WITHOUT A REPUBLICAN VOTE.
It cut taxes for fifteen million low-income families, made tax cuts available to 90% of
small businesses, and raised taxes on the wealthiest 1.2% of taxpayers, by approx. 7 %.
Congress/House was Dem. 1993-95.
-
You can make shit up – but it will never be true.
Zeeeeebrable 5 months ago
Comment removed
yahanwiwi 6 months ago
Ronald Reagan : Although the Gipper mouthed libertarian rhetoric, the facts are that he imposed one of the greatest tax increases in U.S. history (taking away many tax deductions and raising the payroll tax), ramped up the disastrous War on Drugs, and accumulated more debt than all of the previous 39 presidents combined. His fiscal policies, along with his appointment of Alan Greenspan to chair the Fed, sowed the seeds of America’s monetary ruin.
flynn2008 7 months ago
Only thing that I don't like about this video is that they don't explain supply-side economics
MarketMaven2010 7 months ago
@MarketMaven2010 In less than 500 chars: Supply-side economics is a set of policies that favor the supply side -- companies producing products. Demand-side economics favors the demand side -- consumers. Supply-side, sometime referred to as "trickle-down", effectively pushes money towards the rich (lower taxes on rich, higher taxes on middle class, deregulation). Demand-side effectively pushes it towards the middle class and poor (entitlements, low taxes on middle class, higher on rich).
tgrigsby7 6 months ago
we gotta increase revenue, like Reagan did
youtube.com/watch?v=8NwKpz5C8-8&feature=related
TheMidnightdrunk 7 months ago
@athmpsn242 Yeah, you are right. Reagan's policies worked rather well, except that he ignored the spending. The vastly expanding debt at the time was still a very manageable number but he should have seen that it was absolutely wrong and quite evil and what it was leading to. The real travesty now is that the media portrays Bush as if he were anything remotely similar to a conservative. He was no better than FDR or LBJ. And Obama puts them all to shame as an incompetent Marxist crook.
wrjamescom 7 months ago
@athmpsn242 It was the bailout packages and not Obama, packages meant to prevent another Great Depression, which ballooned the debt another 24%. Republicans and Hoover did the exact same thing after the stock markets collapsed on October 29, 1929. Wall Street wasn't regulated then, just as the SEC wasn't regulating Wall Street during W. Bush's tenure as President. You do know that Bush preached that Wall Street could regulate itself? He implicitly gave Wall Street the green light for fraud.
SpeakerEnderWiggin 7 months ago
@SpeakerEnderWiggin Bush's crime in all that was to not press on an investigation and fix it, and then to use taxpayers to bail out those who used the scam to line their own pockets. Bush just proved he was no better than Barney Frank and the other crooks in the two paced socialist republicrat party.
wrjamescom 7 months ago
@wrjamescom There was no investigation to begin with, since Bush's mantra was that Wall Street could regulate itself. Bush was anti-regulation of any kind, believing that regulations inhibited big business and Wall Street. SEC agents didn't investigate since doing so would have meant losing their jobs so quickly that their heads would spin. But they did have fun spending their time viewing porn since they sure as hell were prevented by the White House from performing their actual jobs.
SpeakerEnderWiggin 7 months ago
@SpeakerEnderWiggin Regulation isn't the issue, that's a smoke screen , a regular load of paoort lines from the laft who wants an entirely government controlled economy. It wasn't a lack of regulations that created the mess, it was too much regulation and politicians lining their pockets with them. It was regulations that forced banks to create the sub-prime mortgage. It was regulations which rewarded the scamming crooks and then bailed them out.
wrjamescom 7 months ago
Is this a Pro Obama flick?
1morphdude 7 months ago
@1morphdude No. It's a lesson in basic econ.
sstoft 7 months ago
@1morphdude A typical response from the right that anything that counters their tightly held worldview, no matter how fact-based, must be wrong because... well, it contradicts their tightly held worldview. How about some data that shows that this assessment is wrong?
blurvis 6 months ago
@1morphdude
Na... It's an Anti Ignorance flick.
leesagrrl 4 months ago
@leesagrrl
...Except for the silly Libertarian/Objectivist sociopath part. Read Ravi Batra.
leesagrrl 4 months ago
@1morphdude Nope, just the facts of why supply side economics (a.k.a. Reaganomics) was and is a dismal failure.
bigtexansfan 4 months ago
You should learn what you are talking about before attempting to teach people about it. The idea of supply side isn't that super rich people will work harder and pay more taxes at a lower rate as you claimed, but rather people will open and expand businesses if they are allowed to profit more from that than other investments. And it has proven to be true throughout history. It's not voodoo. What is voodoo is the idea than borrowing and wasting and punishing success leads to prosperity.
wrjamescom 7 months ago
@wrjamescom History proves you to be incorrect. Voodoo economics lead to big corporations getting even bigger, resulting in smaller businesses closing their doors because they simply could not compete. Then those big corporations, not giving a damn about their employees, moved manufacturing operations overseas in order to realize even greater profits. In case you haven't look around America during the past 20 years, America now is mostly a service economy.
SpeakerEnderWiggin 7 months ago
@SpeakerEnderWiggin I see you've been educated by the pop media. The only voodoo is the belief that the socialist scams promoted by those who parrot such nonsense will work next time even with it's very long track record of 100% failure. Subverting the constitution to enrich Walmart and transferring tax dollars to Wall Street and Barney Frank's boyfriends hardy resembles the concept of free people being allowed to keep what they earn.
wrjamescom 7 months ago
That was the best 1/2 truth video ever!
TerrierToughGuy 8 months ago
Thank you for recognizing that the Bush boys are not conservatives. They are progressives as other big spenders are.
kenroar 9 months ago
This video is filled with lies. Clinton didn't lower the national debt. He lowered the deficits but not the debt. It's true the debt has been going up during the Bush and Reagan years. It's because when in power politicians with always expand their power. Also, Obama is going along with supply-side economics since he's extending the Bush tax cuts and is spending like Bush. So there are a few things that need to be corrected.
ggadguy 9 months ago
@ggadguy obama has drawn a line in the sand on tax cuts for the rich. they will not be renewed despite the pressure from republicans and tea partiers.
Odysseus087 9 months ago
@Odysseus087 Obama and Congress already voted on extending the Bush Tax cuts. Most of the Republicans voted for it and a minority of Democrats voted for it. Go to Wikipedia a search "Bush tax cuts" and you'll learn all about it.
ggadguy 9 months ago
@ggadguy yeah they got renewed the first time. obama did that as a way of trying to find middle ground with the tea party and repubs. it was a bad idea though because it didn't make them any less partisan and it made our deficit problem worse. understand though that the tax cuts would have never even existed in the first place if not for the right wing. for the next budget however, obama has made it clear the tax cuts will not be renewed again. this time we will not stand for it.
Odysseus087 9 months ago
@Odysseus087 I believe that the corporate/government masters will never give power back to the people. They will instead do favors for each other until we are completely a fascist/socialist paradise.
ggadguy 9 months ago
@ggadguy yeah well it sounds like you are a full blown conspiracy theorist. ppl like you want to basically fight the civil war all over again. i'm not saying you are a racist who wants slavery, but you obviously buy into the alex jones libertarian/secessionist line that the federal govt is evil no matter what. luckily most of this country will never ally themselves with your cause to overthrow the govt...we'd rather use the system that exists to vote in pols that want real progress
Odysseus087 9 months ago
@ggadguy by the way its ironic that you speak in "orwellian" language. did you know that george orwell was in fact a devout democratic socialist? 1984 and animal farm were about totalitarianism, not socialism...unfortunately his writing has been misrepresented by ppl like alex jones.
Odysseus087 9 months ago
@Odysseus087 The dirty little "secret" (if something so obvious can be considered secret) is that socialism cannot exist without totalitarianism as it's base. If the means or production, which includes one's own labor, is owned by the state, then there are no rights, it is absolute rule. Under any supposed socialist utopia where everything is shared, what happens when one member of the society decides he owns his own body and claims the product of his labor for himself?
wrjamescom 7 months ago
@wrjamescom no one is advocating full on socialism. that's not what democratic socialism is. germany and the other leading countries in the EU like France, Norway, Sweden, etc are carrying on the democratic socialistic tradition and they are thriving with extremely healthy economies and extremely high standards of living for their citizens. they have effectively balanced socialism and capitalism. the US needs to wake up and start thinking outside the box.
Odysseus087 7 months ago
@Odysseus087 LOTS of people are advocating full socialism, including the president. Partial socialism is like only being raped a little bit, like that's ok. But you missed the point that all those socialist countries could not exist without US taxpayers (free people) propping them up. And even with US taxpayers proving their defense, the R&D for their medical scams, etc, they are still going broke.
wrjamescom 7 months ago
@Odysseus087 The socialist box is the problem. Free people produce, socialism cannot and will never provide production.
wrjamescom 7 months ago
@wrjamescom go read your atlas shrugged and continue living in your alternate universe
Odysseus087 7 months ago
@Odysseus087 I live in the real world. Obviously you prefer a fantasy one, where socialism doesn't have a 100% failure rate.
wrjamescom 7 months ago
@wrjamescom my god! You really rant about socalism dont you? I dunno if you noticed by your WAY off topic from the video and sound a bit looney!
CetraTJ 7 months ago
@CetraTJ Claiming that discussions on socialism are off topic on that video is pretty looney.
wrjamescom 7 months ago
@wrjamescom saying socialism has a 100% failure rate is just pure ignorance. every country in the world has elements of socialism. it's a matter of finding the right balance between capitalism and socialism.
Odysseus087 7 months ago
@Odysseus087 You fail to recognize your own ignorance. Like I said, socialism has a 100% failure rate. It cannot exist without free people outside propping it up artificially. Sure, it works to a limited degree as long as someone else is paying for it. But has never and can never stand on it's own.
wrjamescom 7 months ago
@wrjamescom So you must be completely against taxes then. Here's a reality check. A critical measure of the health of a modern democracy is its ability to legitimately extract taxes from its own elites. The most dysfunctional societies in the developing world are those whose elites succeed either in legally exempting
themselves from taxation, or in taking advantage of lax enforcement to evade them, thereby shifting the burden of public expenditure onto the rest of society.
Odysseus087 7 months ago
@Odysseus087 You assume a lot before speaking, don't you? I agree taxes are a necessary evil. But the fatal flaw of socialism is that people living off of others run out of resources as there's no incentive to produce if you can't keep it and no incentive to work i someone else if robbed for your needs. And I wouldn't want to live in a democracy. I prefer a constitutional republic where officials are obligated to the constitution and not the people, where not just the majority has rights.
wrjamescom 7 months ago
@Odysseus087 You assume a lot before speaking, don't you? I agree taxes are a necessary evil. But the fatal flaw of socialism is that people living off of others run out of resources as there's no incentive to produce if you can't keep it and no incentive to work i someone else if robbed for your needs. And I wouldn't want to live in a democracy. I prefer a constitutional republic where officials are obligated to the constitution and not the people, where not just the majority has rights.
wrjamescom 7 months ago
@Odysseus087 When over half the population relies on government to use force to extract handouts from the rest, and those people are allowed to vote, the that's the end of the road for a free nation. No one on the public dole should ever be allowed to vote.
wrjamescom 7 months ago
@wrjamescom I've heard all that nonsense before. You're using that teabagger talking point that complains about 50% of Americans not paying federal income tax. The reason why we don't collect federal income tax on that group is because income inequality in America is the worst of any developed nation in the entire world . They don't make enough money to pay taxes and support their families. The real problem is that the upper 1% owns something like 40% of America's wealth
Odysseus087 7 months ago
@Odysseus087 Eat your cracker, Polly. Instead of parroting that line of BS, why not see if you can get those at the bottom to pay their fair share instead of ZERO.
wrjamescom 7 months ago
@Odysseus087 Poor Americans have cars, phone, cell phones, internet, AC, cable TV, and so much food they are the fattest people in the country. Yeah, they have it so bad, huh?
wrjamescom 7 months ago
@wrjamescom Been drinking the Kool-Aid, haven't you.
Norway may be the only developed nation with a surplus. It also has full employment and provides free medical care for its citizens. A socialist success. When it comes to taking care of its people, let's talk about the 100% failure rate of capitalism.
ChuloSkylark 7 months ago
@ChuloSkylark Are you serious? Are you really that uneducated? Norway has among the most oppressive taxation on the planet, and they couldn't collect half of that if they allowed free trade. And still they can't pay their own bills without the US subsidizing their defense, drug costs, etc. They only reason they aren't flat broke is oil, and when that runs out, they'll be lucky if they do as well as Greece or Cuba.
wrjamescom 7 months ago
@wrjamescom What is it with you obnoxious goose steppers? Why do you feel the need to call anyone stupid if they disagree with you? And more importantly, what twisted spin can you use to explain why Norway is considered to contain some of the happiest people in any developed country? Highest taxes; lowest unemployment rate. Messes with your 'cut taxes for the rich and they will hire people' philosophy, doesn't it?
Now go make up some more bs excuses.
ChuloSkylark 7 months ago
@ChuloSkylark Your parrot lines don't seem to fit reality. Contrary to your trainer's instructions, very few, if any, believe in "cutting taxes for the rich". Many people, myself included, believe in cutting taxes for tax payers. Government is already vastly overfunded, which is pretty evident in their vast waste. People who aren't robbed of their hard earned can and do participate in trade. Government doesn't create jobs. But don't let reality ruin your delusions.
wrjamescom 7 months ago
@ChuloSkylark A non-reading parrot! How quaint! Your parrot lines don't seem to fit, do they? Contrary to your trainer's instructions, very few, if any, believe in "cutting taxes for the rich". Many people, myself included, believe in cutting taxes for tax payers. Government is already vastly overfunded, which is pretty evident in their vast waste. People who aren't robbed of their hard earned can and do participate in trade. Government doesn't create jobs.
wrjamescom 7 months ago
@wrjamescom While taxes are at historic lows, you continue ranting about the vast government with its vast waste and all your other half-vast ideas but do it with someone else. Your delusions bore me and you can't think for yourself; you simply regurgitate the same stale right wing bs.
It is nice that you have something to do with your time; but this isn't a children's site. Plus, you're an obnoxious brat.
ChuloSkylark 7 months ago
@ggadguy So buy stock and ride to riches with them? Always cracks me up how people bitch about "rich people" that are only rich because they own a lot of stock, but then don't get in on the deal WITH the rich.
spazoq 7 months ago
@spazoq You can certainly buy stock if you'd like. I never said you can't or I can't. What I'm opposed to is corporate bailouts, corporate special privileges from the government, etc. This isn't capitalism, but crony capitalism.
ggadguy 7 months ago
@ggadguy also your criticisms of the video are false. the graph in the video is not a graph of natiional debt in $, it's a graph of national debt as a % of gdp. do you understand the distinction here? it's a way of adjusting for inflation so it's actually the most accurate way of depicting debt. when you say obama is a supply sider you are also mostly wrong. he is using mostly keynesian economics, minus the bush tax cuts which will not be renewed again. we learned once from fdr
Odysseus087 9 months ago
@Odysseus087 Yes, I understand the distinction. But the real debt numbers went up. I just want people to be aware of this fact. As far as Obama he extended the Bush tax cuts which is supply-side economics, at the same time he's a Keynesian by creating government stimulus projects. So I would say he has parts of both, even though I agree Obama is more Keynesian. I do believe he will extend them again, especially in an election year.
ggadguy 9 months ago
@ggadguy i think the fact its an election yr means they wont be extended. ppl finally seem to be wising up to the whole tax cuts issue. i think by next yr public support for higher taxes on top earners will be very popular. actually, polls show it already is a very popular idea. i truly believe the republican supply side economic theory is in its last throes. the american public is pretty ignorant, but in this case i think most citizens see through the bullshit from guys like paul ryan
Odysseus087 9 months ago
@Odysseus087 Tax increases on corporations certainly can have populist support. But I just don't think either party will raise taxes on their favorite corporate contributors. One thing that hasn't been tried yet is cutting government. In fact, both parties support bigger government, even Ryan and Republicans as seen in the Bush years. Both parties are going to bankrupt the country sending the value of our currency lower and lower in value.
ggadguy 8 months ago
@ggadguy cutting govt will lead to a second great depression if we cut in the wrong places. it might lower the debt, but unemployment will skyrocket and millions will suffer. if you want to cut military spending then fine, but cutting social programs is a recipe for disaster. we already know that from the great depression. if you want a good example of what we should be doing, look at the german economy. also the 'people's budget' is out there but it's bein suppressed by repubs and baggers
Odysseus087 8 months ago
@ggadguy It's nice to see someone noting that fact. The government and the debt continued to grow under Clinton. There was never any surplus, only "projected surplus" which presumed the several bubbles would go on forever and never burst, that the economy would keep growing under artificial pressure forever. But even that false projections would never have existed without the republican congress butting the brakes on Hillary's socialist scams. Clinton gets no credit for it.
wrjamescom 7 months ago
@ggadguy It's noce to see someone noting that fact. The government and the debt continued to grow under Clinton. There was never any surplus, only "projected surplus" which presumed the several bubbles would go on forever and never burst, that the economy would keep growing under artificial pressure forever. But even that false projections would never have existed without the republican congress butting the brakes on Hillary's socialist scams. Clinton gets no credit for it.
wrjamescom 7 months ago
Didnt Clinton raid SS and Medicare to reduce the debt? Didnt he also redefine what was considered to be unemployed?(go to shadowstats to see the real unemployment). Also what about going off the gold standard? That allowed massive borrowing/inflation, plus keeping interest rates artificially low to increase borrowing even more(interest rates are really negative). Also wasnt all the borrowing used to expand government? Thats not conservative at all.
Plus Obama signed TARP etc & is -$1.5 tril p/a
NicosMind 9 months ago
Ah Yes... Another Democrat Video bashing Republicans!
People believe this crap?? Blame Obama he sucks! Worst President Ever!!
MrStaticrocker 10 months ago
@MrStaticrocker hey look timmy, its another racist xenophob who just finished with his tea party protests and has now watched himself some Glenn Beck and feels like being a a tad ignorant in the face of overwhelming ACTUAL FACTS! not lies and propaganda the republicans spew. YES! yes lets go call obama a socialist and a fascist even though he is neither. Its genius i tells, ya. GENIUS!
shithappens667 10 months ago
You are being less than honest - good political campaign video ! Since WWII did anything take place on an industrial level in this country? Could the Gov't be the befeciary of that growth? How did Carter perform ?? Clinton benfit of anything like the birth of the internet and the end of the cold war ?? If you are going to do something like this a PRETEND to be telling the truth - include all facets of the truth....
knight6479 11 months ago
A corporate tax is a tax on the poor. You probably don't understand anything based on this video.
If you increase taxes on McDonalds. They are not going to go "Oh well that's a pickle" They are simply going to pass on the tax to the consumer. Are they going to take a hit on their net profits each year? Or are they going to raise the cost of a Big Mac to pay for the tax?
If you tax them it costs consumers billions, or it drives them out of business. No other option.
cashin1243 11 months ago
Conservative = America's shyyyt stain
chronicman06 11 months ago
What gets me is that everyone is trying to prove who is right and who is wrong. while AMERICA goes down the tube.
mogges1 11 months ago
What Branch of government controls the nations checkbook ??
knight6479 11 months ago
We had the cold war with the soviets so i don't blame regan Bush is a absolute moran and the dumbest man we ever elected. I think a 18 yr old college student could run our country better than bush.
kevinjrxoxo 1 year ago
I just love to see people defend their stupid republican politicians. The truth can smack them in the face over and over but they will still regurgitate the right wing talking points. Not their fault there is nothing but none sense on the air waves not one bit of truth or reason.
N0g0dzN0masterz 1 year ago 7
@N0g0dzN0masterz why are you still living in a reality that is divided into two political party systems. Are you still that blind to the truth?
whatever you do, dont turn off the T.V. or the radio. Always listen to what they have to tell you.
selfmadeboys88 7 months ago
@selfmadeboys88 How does what I posted even begging to give you that impression? I'm talking about the idiocy of bipartisan politics. Which is fake... there is only one party in the U.S. the capitalist pig party... and about the t.v. and radio. I like to keep up with their latest methods of deception. Is actually quite amusing.
N0g0dzN0masterz 7 months ago
@N0g0dzN0masterz Oh well shit sorry man, Im right there with you. Only i dont really keep up with any of it, cause we all know its bullshit.
I hate both parties, but its so trendy to bash on republicans, so i though thats what you were doing. I in no way shape or form support any republican at all, nor any democrat at all, but i do hate trends.
I jumped the gun man, sorry.
selfmadeboys88 7 months ago
I just LOVE the simple explanations to complex problems. (I'm sorry, or is it the over-simplified explanations to complex problems.)
jw29307 1 year ago
our national debt ($14.1 trillion) will soon surpass our GDP ($14.3 trillion). but i suppose you think that's a good thing....
T0NNiX 1 year ago
Nice try... BUT OBAMA INCREASED OUR NATIONAL DEBT BY $2 TRILLION IN HIS FIRST YEAR IN OFFICE. And a total of $3 trillion since he took office. Obama has increased our debt by more than all the presidents did in our first 220 years of history.
LameBrainMcCain 1 year ago
@LameBrainMcCain Are you astonishingly bad at math? Debt as a raw number is meaningless. The Debt only makes sense when adjusted for GDP. If you don't take inflation and population growth into account the numbers make no sense... and tend to make people who are bad at math use ALL CAPS.
Also... your last sentence is mind numbingly wrong. You are saying that $3T (how much Obama raised the debt) is more than $11T (the debt raised over the first 220 years). Why are you so stupid?
r3ality1 1 year ago
@r3ality1
Our debt is $14 trillion. That is $100K per worker. $50K per citizen. Big numbers!
We could double our population to halve the debt per person, but the cost of our social services would rise too. Inflation could be used to reduce our debt, but it would also reduce the value of your savings, although I suspect you are too stupid to have any.
The first 220 years of our history ended in 1997, not 2009. You are ASTONISHINGLY BAD AT MATH AND READING (the caps help emphasize my point)
LameBrainMcCain 1 year ago
@LameBrainMcCain True, I didn't do the math from 1776 forward 220 years. So you meant 1997. The debt was $5.3T in '97 which you think is still larger than $3T. Wrong again.
If you want to emphasize a point then you should use convincing dialog rather than all caps. Using all caps makes you look like the snot nosed 4th grader yelling at the school lunch lady because you want more pudding.
Don't make assumptions about others' wealth. It makes you look more and more foolish.
r3ality1 1 year ago
@LameBrainMcCain You are such a moron and a liar, Obama has increased the debt but not more then Reagan did at least not yet. Also Obama did put the both wars on the budget something Bush did not do. He use the back door by spending the money as "emergency founding" So You need to do some more research and or stop listening to your boy Glenn or Rush or any of the other carbon copies of the right wing spin machine.
N0g0dzN0masterz 1 year ago
@N0g0dzN0masterz
According to National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms on wikipedia, Reagan incurred a debt increase of $1.730 Trillion. So far Obama has incurred a debt increase of 13.954 - 10.413 Trillion = $3.541 Trillion! Even in inflation adjusted $'s Reagan is still only $1.849 Trillion. Obama is near 2X!
YOU should do some research (check my source). It would appear YOU are the moron and liar. It would appear that YOU should check some sources. It would appear YOU are a spin machine.
LameBrainMcCain 1 year ago
@LameBrainMcCain Look You ... I am a moron so why do you even bother saying anything to me? I give a shit about Obama I know he will spend more the Reagan did. All I said is that he has not yet. Your wikipedia crap is very "reliable" though.... My point I made b4 was that republicans like to talk a big game about been fiscal conservatives but they are a bunch of liberal little bitches. If you defend that idiotic excuse of a party you are insane, the dems are no better they both suck.
N0g0dzN0masterz 1 year ago
@N0g0dzN0masterz
"I am a moron so why do you even bother saying anything to me?" to set the record straight.
"republicans like to talk a big game about been fiscal conservatives but they are a bunch of liberal little bitches" NO SHIT, SHERLOCK!!
"If you defend that idiotic excuse of a party you are insane" I NEVER defended Repubs.
"dems are no better they both suck." RIGHT ON!
LameBrainMcCain 1 year ago
@LameBrainMcCain In Jan. 2009, the CBO released "The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2009-2019." They projected the deficit for fiscal '09 would total $1.2T, or 8.3% of GDP. (Fed. fiscal year '09 was 10/1/08 to 9/30/09). The CBO cautioned that its projection didn't include future legislation e.g., the stimulus. In fact, the actual '09 deficit turned out to be $1.4T. In brief, the '09 deficit was $1.2T BEFORE OBAMA SET FOOT IN OFFICE, and he added 14% ($200B) w/the stimulus.
weaseldragon 10 months ago
@N0g0dzN0masterz
And bear in mind that Reagan was in office for 8 years while Obama has only been in office a little more than 2!!! In 2 years Obama incurred more than TWICE the debt Reagan did in 8!!! Your messiah is DESTROYING our nation, and people like you are too ignorant (and self righteous) to even do a minor amount of research and see it! LMAO!!
LameBrainMcCain 1 year ago
Both Rep. and Dem. got to go, this never should happen in todays age. THROW THE BUMS OUT!
Mr4n4fun 1 year ago
By the way the debt between 1945 and 1980 went from $250 billion to $1 trillion. Going off the GDP isn't a good idea. in 1860 $100 would buy you $101 in 1910. in 1960 $100 would buy you $725 in 2010.. is there something wrong with this picture? You make a good valid point in your video and and are pretty right about Reagan etc. But between 1945 and 1980 even tho our debt to GDP was dropping the value of the dollar lost 77% of its value in just 35 years
metallifreak100 1 year ago
Why doesn't the Iraq and Afghan War help the US economy like WW2 did?
Because during and after WW2 people bought American bombs and jeeps for their armies.
Now, more people buy Russian, Chinese and European arms because they think USA is a destroyer of countries. And American jeeps are made in Mexico.
PostBush 1 year ago
This video needs to be updated. Obama is now a supply-sider. Tax-cuts for the rich will continue. The upper 2% run the show and they won't allow voodoo economics to go away. Scary part is that many of the lower 98%, even those struggling and unemployed, also support this BS theory. How can you believe that this a failed experiment rather than an intentional ploy to make the rich richer?
Ugotpwned66 1 year ago
Very interesting presentation. Still, I think it's worth remembering that only congress can spend money, and within congress only the House can create taxes. The president's sole power is the veto, which congress can override.
picbuck 1 year ago
Phil gramm, my senator, changed parties in 1982. Richard Shelby of Alabama, Trent lot of Mississippi. All of em' jumped ship on the Democrats, went over to the supply siders. I want to hear one reaganitte tell me how much money these mutherfuckers have made in the last 30 years? Phil gramm works for UBS, you think he doesn't have a few 100 million is a swiss bank? Wendy gramm was the godmother of enron. Trent lot's wife raked in millions with the lobby. Robber barons.
MrWhylie 1 year ago 4
THAT WAS BRILLIANT!!!!!!!!!!
darliegoddess 1 year ago
There's lots of talk that "Congress did it" and not the presidents. This is politically motivated. I checked the numbers before I made the video. If you are going to talk about them you should first see them here: zfacts.com/p/57.html
Congress passed almost exactly the budgets Regan and Bush-I asked for. On average Congress appropriated about $2B less per year (less debt, not more) out of about $600B, and Reagan and Bush increased the debt by $3,414 B.
Most of what you hear is this ridiculous.
sstoft 1 year ago 14
@sstoft Thanks for clearing it up, that definitely makes sense.
tropicallanterns 1 year ago
The moral of the story: get government hands off your purse strings.
Kiahsobyk 1 year ago
The specifics are important. It went up under Reagan because the defense had to be rebuilt after Carter. It went down under Clinton due to the defense dividend that Reagan created by bringing down the wall and ending the cold war. This trickle up poverty we have now is the worst yet. The deficit is higher than ever and going there didn't keep unemployment below 8% as promised.
BigHarry76 1 year ago
People are misunderstanding my point. My point is that this video's explanation is both biased and way oversimplified. It's far more complex than he's making it sound.
immikeurnot 1 year ago
@immikeurnot. Of course it's more complex than a 4 min video. But it's packed with info--far more than the Republican videos. Do you complain about them?
It was not Congress and Budgets it was R tax cuts, mainly for the rich & corporations. Every Republican in Congress voted for the tax cut and budget that made the budget U-turn shown in the graph. 20 out of 20 years, is not "complexities."
Supply siders like the huge debt to pressure to cut social security and Medicare.
sstoft 1 year ago 31
@sstoft I always complain about inaccuracies and outright lies. I'm not a Republican by any means.
What I am is opposed to intellectual dishonesty.
Tax cuts for example. I'm tired of hearing how evil they are. Only a moron would think that LESS theft is evil, no matter who we're stealing less from. What's evil is the over-spending going on. That is the problem, not tax cuts.
immikeurnot 1 year ago
@immikeurnot
By freezing the minimum wage for ten years Reagan took a major chunk of the population out participation in the economy and stagnated middle-class incomes in the process. US manufacturing markets plummeted with the loss of minimum wage workers (and those with wage increases linked to the minimum wage) when they were no longer able to buy the goods being manufactured. After 10 years min. wage workers were below or near the poverty line. You can't grow markets by killing them.
leapswithoutlooking 1 year ago
@leapswithoutlooking You're joking right? Every time minimum wage goes up, so do prices. We'd be better off eliminating it entirely because it will never be a "living wage". Why? Because it *can* never be a living wage. It's the bottom rung on the scale, and that rung is never going to be a viable career choice.
immikeurnot 1 year ago
Comment removed
TANCmaFreeman 1 year ago
No offense to you, @immikeurnot and @navyandorange, but you're both wearing blinders and still fail to see how this video's bell charts and other data from across the web incontrovertibly point to massive deficit-spending patterns during the Reagan, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. administrations -- much of being traced to massive defense buildup and war spending. This doesn't take a rocket scientist.
CONTINUED in next post...
TANCmaFreeman 1 year ago
Comment removed
TANCmaFreeman 1 year ago
It all comes from both Republicans and Democratic politicians selling this country on becoming a "DEBTOR-BASED SOCIETY," pure and simple. And the notion of "Fiscal Conservatism" from the Right/Republicans has been an utter and complete fallacy -- it is the worst type of "Voodoo Economics" that the GOP heaped upon the public for the last 30-plus-years (only adding to the deficits by extending tax cuts for the wealthy). It was a recipe for disaster...the worst of yet might still be to come.
END
TANCmaFreeman 1 year ago 4
@TANCmaFreeman
A quick note: From 1940-1981, the top U.S. marginal income tax rate averaged 81.4%. (From 1950-1963, the top rate exceeded 90%). Not many billionaires running around, but we paid down the nat'l debt.
Then starting with Reagan the top marginal tax rate has averaged 38.2% and now sits at 35%, off the historic low of 28% in 1988-1989. (Clinton raised it to 39.6% and balanced the budget, then GW Bush dropped it back to 35%, didn't pay for it, and grew the debt once again).
weaseldragon 10 months ago
CONTINUED from above post...
Factor in the fact that dying gasps of the Bush administration led to massive $800-billion-plus TARP bailouts of the banks, Wall Street investment firms, insurance companies ($183 billion alone to AIG) and other corporations, the G.W. Bush era was the biggest corporate welfare giveaway in history. This is also a by-product of massive deregulation...
CONTINUED to next post...
TANCmaFreeman 1 year ago 2
CONTINUED from above post...
...where this money has largely only benefited the likes of Halliburton, Northrop-Grumman, Boeing, Lockheed Martin and a few other mega-large defense contractors. This did not create many new jobs because the defense industry is already consolidated corporate contractors and the money was largely pocketed to boost the value of their stock and Wall Street investment.
CONTINUED in next post below...
TANCmaFreeman 1 year ago 2
CONTINUED from above post...
What happened with the defense buildup of the Reagan administration (to combat the Soviet buildup) and then the Iraq I war under Bush Sr. and second Iraq war and Afghanistan war under Bush Jr. created exponentially higher deficit going to the benefit of a CONSOLIDATED defense industry, where...
CONTINUED in next post...
TANCmaFreeman 1 year ago 3
CONTINUED from above post...
But the war spending and direct federal recovery programs instituted by FDR (like the Works Progress Administration) translated to direct job creation and the rebuilding in all sectors of American industry -- leading to the most prosperous post-war period (1946 to 1960 or so) in our nation's history, which also allowed our government to pay down some of the war debt.
CONTINUED to next post...
TANCmaFreeman 1 year ago 3
CONTINUED from above post...
Just as @sstoft so aptly pointed out in his fact-based, unbiased video here, World War II, through no fault of America's own being dragged into the war, left the equivalent of $10.5 trillion in debt (in today's dollars).
CONTINUED to next post...
TANCmaFreeman 1 year ago 3
(CONTINUED from above post)
....massive deficit-spending patterns during the Reagan, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. administrations -- much of being traced to massive defense buildup and war spending. This doesn't take a rocket scientist.
(CONTINUED in Next post...)
TANCmaFreeman 1 year ago 4
(START of comment string...)
No offense to you, @immikeurnot and @navyandorange, but you're both wearing blinders and still fail to see how this video's bell charts and other data from across the web incontrovertibly point to...
(CONTINUED to next post below...)
TANCmaFreeman 1 year ago 4
That still doesn't tell us anything meaningful about the national debt, or why it was a good idea to take it significantly higher to get out of it. Crazy.
BigHarry76 1 year ago
@BigHarry76. Actually, it tells who reversed it from going down to going up -- Reagan and his supply siders. It tells you Congress actually held Reagan back a bit from running it up. You can see the proof of that (From Congress and Time Mag.) here: zfacts.com/p/57.html
And of course it does not say to take it higher to get out of it. You made that up. It says fix unemployment like we did in WWII and then pay it down like after the war. You forgot that amazing story. Maybe you wanted to?
sstoft 1 year ago 19
A couple of facts you seem to be ignoring. The budget originates in the House, not the Oval office or the Senate. The House in the Reagan years was controlled by the.... I'll let you guess which party wrote the budget.
The debt under Clinton fell after the _____ party took control of the House in the 1994 elections. Plus, Clinton was in office during boom years.
You do not "buy" tax cuts, no matter who they are for. That was a cheap appeal to emotion, and a play on class envy. Very cheap.
immikeurnot 1 year ago
@immikeurnot Not your fault--the Rep. story. But the budget originates with the Pres. Then both the House & Senate pass bills. Then to conference, like any bill.
Reagan's 1st budget--The Senate was R, the House D. But Reagan coaxed the Dixie D's to go with the Rs. The Budget that passed was pure R. And $2B higher than the $542B Reagan requested.
The Time Mag. story of July 6, 1981 "He Got What He Wanted." It's free on line. In Reagan's 8 years Congress reduced his budgets by $16B. Etc. etc.
sstoft 1 year ago 24
@sstoft He usually suggests a budget, but budget bills originate in the House. They usually don't follow his budget, except in cases like we have currently.
immikeurnot 1 year ago
@sstoft wrong
wsmith1213 1 year ago
@immikeurnot hey buddy, (among other things) ever hear about an unknown concept called PRESIDENTIAL veto?
KAMERBURO 1 year ago
@KAMERBURO Yep. And have you heard of "we'll only let your funding stay in if you pass our funding"?
Welcome to politics, son.
immikeurnot 1 year ago
@immikeurnot true, but that doesn't imply that the house has the ultimate control over the budget. rather it implies that we have a corporatocracy. the latter I agree with.
KAMERBURO 1 year ago
@KAMERBURO Now that I'll agree with to a point. Corporatocracy ignores all the power and money funneled to vote-buying "social programs" that are destructive to our nation and the people caught in them. It also ignores the power and payoffs that unions regularly get.
Politics are dirty and the vast majority of politicians are crooks. They belong in prison, not in office. Party affiliation doesn't matter. Integrity does.
immikeurnot 1 year ago
@immikeurnot Surely it's no coincidence that the GDP expands at double the rate on average when a Democrat is president, as compared to a Republican. I recall calculating this myself using the GDP data per year from the back of an Econ book.
LNMagic 1 year ago 3
@LNMagic I can't comment on that because it's not something I've seen. I'll look into it though.
But again, the President isn't the end-all be-all of government or the direction it takes. We do have a government made up of three parts of equal power. The president is just the easiest to focus on, while Congress gets away with tons of bullshit because it's harder to focus on 535 cocksucking liars than it is to focus on one motherfucking crook.
immikeurnot 1 year ago
@immikeurnot i'makraut you are one of them sperm drinking fascists in a plaid shirt. Fuck you are an idiot.
malkooth 1 year ago
@malkooth Wow, what a well-thought out, articulated and helpful post. Thank you for informing me that I'm a fascist. Oddly enough, I'd always thought that my love of minimum government and broad personal liberties in areas like legalization of drugs, gay marriage, etc. put me firmly into the libertarian camp as far away from a fascist as could be. But apparently that was just my plaid shirt fucking with me.
Thanks for clearing that up, buddy. At least you're right that I'm Germanic...
immikeurnot 1 year ago
@immikeurnot Your taglines are pretty much Republican, plain and simple. Alan Greenspan is a "Libertarian" another word for in effect a trust fund baby on a tear. I don't like taxes anymore than you do but without some type of controls the thugs take control, look around brother.
malkooth 1 year ago
@malkooth Really? That's the definition of libertarian?
Where the fuck is my trust fund!? I'm barely making rent, you asshole.
immikeurnot 1 year ago
@immikeurnot You are obviously a black sheep or just too slow on the uptake to be included in the family. I'm sure at holidays they laugh at what a sucker you are.
malkooth 1 year ago
@immikeurnot lol The budget starts with the president, not the House. Did Beck tell you that? lol
johnnyu3 1 year ago 2
@johnnyu3 You might want to double check that, dude. Because Congress is responsible for writing and passing the budget. The president typically suggests one, but it's really Congress.
You're confusing reality of the law of the land with a fairly recent tradition. More education is in order for you.
immikeurnot 1 year ago
@immikeurnot
Congress didn't change in 1981. If anything congress took a right turn in the early 80s. They were called reagan democrats. It was a crazy time. Everyone saw the debt running out of control, even reagan's budget chief. When he spoke up, he was taken to the wood shed. It's just the truth, I was there.
MrWhylie 1 year ago 2
@MrWhylie Right on MrWhylie, thanks for not lying.
malkooth 1 year ago
Outstanding message. Every voter should see this.
pcramton 1 year ago 5
@mcarbus Good question. In fact, nothing will happen. The Japanese are at about 200% and nothing is happening to them. Many people have mortgages that are 200% or more of their income. And Uncle Sam is much stronger than any home buyer.
So having 8-10 million unemployed right now, is far worse. End the recession -- that by itself, will reduce the deficit enormously. It's like before -- first win the war, then pay off the debt.
sstoft 1 year ago 3
The super rich don't want equality nor stability, because they believe they earned the right to be above the rest of us. They want to bankrupt the nation, so they can own parts of it and do as they please. You can see it in every luxury car driver's eyes when they drive like the road belongs to them alone and the rest of us are an anno