With my income last year @ $240k, I paid in some $60k into federal tax. No refund!! Dont tell me I didnt pay my fair share. Citizens on the very high end and those in the lower end get away with paying nothing. A flat tax on EVERYONE would be fairest of all. Biggest fear of ALL, with the Federal Government printing so much money lately, when will the devaluation of the US Dollar happen?? When it does, watch out. Hyperinflation.
You lost me when you started comparing "driving speeds" to actual driving speeds. Yes, 174mph is a crazy speed to drive. The reality is that the "driving speed" under Bush (64mph) was ALSO a crazy driving speed. Yes, the current spending has to stop. Was our debt at zero 3 years ago? Of course not... and there is a lot of blame to throw around for that.
@cfaves, this video is over two years old, I was using it to illustrate things to people in mid 2009.When it was made, The Dragon Lady was still running roughshod as Speaker.
@Ameriproud67, please note that Clinton had a Republican Congress to work against, W had a Republican Congress to work with at the beginning, but he had a nation to keep safe from further terrorist attacks. Plus a Democrat Congress for most of the last term in office. Checks and balances, youngster, checks and balances.
This is a pretty disingenuous video considering it does not measure debt to GDP. Obama definitely did not handle the economy well, but a lot of the debt in his term is not his.
@13lackLight Actually this video is pretty accurate. GDP only increased by about 2 Trillion $ since 2001. Even if you showed % to GDP, Obama would top the charts. OF course not ALL National Debt "Obama" accumulated was a direct result of his failures. The issue is the magnitude of spending this guy has enforced and his absolute lack of understanding of Free prosperous markets. I'm not a fan of Bush but a "lot of debt in his terms is not his" either to use your logic.Obama is simply a catastrophe
@divinenuker Well, the guy also says the numbers are adjusted for inflation. Wouldn't that mean that at World War 2 and now, the debt would be roughly the same? In the video he says WW2 =New Jersey, and by the end of it all its like way out west somewhere. Also 2009 was Bush's budget, not Obama's. And the Fed printed a shit load of money lent it to banks at 0 interest, who then bought bonds. Obama sucks. So do Republicans. Yea, the stimulus was not a good idea either.
@divinenuker I've seen a chart of public debt compared to GDP and several periods in time rank above 2009-2011 in terms of the change, and Bush's second term actually had a larger increase in the debt than Obama. The period of 1941-1945 also showed a huge debt increase (for good reason).
I hope you realise that the Fed Reserve is a PRIVATE bank. Although Treasury mints money notes&coins (M0), it is the Fed Reserve that creates the vast majority of money (M3) from debt. The American Govt last had the ability to create its own money 100 years ago, now it borrows at interest.
Take a look at the USDebtClock org and go to "About" --> "Money/Banking History"
@Rightbackkatchya The federal reserve is NOT a private bank. Its an independently-run central bank. Its not directly influenced by the government, but it is very much a part of it. As for its role, the Fed just buys or sells government bonds for a small price to cause an increase or decrease in interest rates.
@Cfaves - I'm assuming you mean the one toward the end of Bush's term; that would be in 2007/2008. It switched back in 2011. As far as I'm concerned, that explains the economy at the end of Bush's term; the one that's still being blamed on him.
@Cfaves from Jan 2007-Jan 2011 (after the 2010 elections, ended a majority in both houses). That means from 2007-2011 4 years the dems had total control! and did pass a budget for 2 years and spent like mad!
We invaded Iraq under GB under the pretense of fighting terrorism, we let the Enron guys off, we let the banks make up "financial instruments" to destroy our savings by gambling on bundled mortgages with fake ratings of AAA. Are you going to blame GB for that? No, and you shouldn't. The president of the US doesn't do everything everyone seems to think they do. Obama didn't make the mound of debt we're in. Blame it on the fleecing of America and the masses unwilling to do anything about it.
Bullshit analysis. By tying numbers to a system with inherent bias, you skew the reaction. The suggestion that a Dem Congress is why HW Bush and Reagan drove up huge debt, no discussion of which sectors grew (hint: track the Pentagon's budget), and emotional response of the driving analogy all make this analysis = SPIN. Why take the full 8 years of Obama, as we're only in the third year of his first term? How does that skew your 174%?
Fuck this fake statistical mumbo jumbo and Fuck You.
you guys are idiots - its not a discussion about bush and Democrats or Reagan and democrats or democrats and democrats -- the point is the 'commander in Cheif' and the BLUE team has run wild and their projections will far surpass any of the previous presidents (combined) - u can understand simple math and speedometers.... (Dont read into it too much - -- scarry for us all indeed
for anyone who knows how to use GOOGLE, even though most of it is BIASED bull stuff. Clearly the Us Flourished with Reagan and the Rep Congress, continued with Bush sr, even . Clinton with the awesome Rep. Congress road the tail coat for the first three years actually going into the black from all the Republicans hard work. Bush got the shaft from Clinton who appointed The Mob where it continued till Clinton's Protege and here we are. The Banks control EVERYTHING, even the Oballess. Questions ?
@The1deemann all three references are a joke, look. Whitehouse (the biggest liar) The Fed/treasury who can't even answer the most simple questions (the biggest thiefs) and Westegg (Morgan biased bullshit) and the most amazing part A Million hits, I didn't even know there were that many stupid people in the WORLD !The Democrats have a long history of promoting racial inequality and controlling minorities by seeming to care about them but buying their votes with special monies, Our $
ONE ERROR (at least) in your video. Reagan did not have a Democratic Congress - the Republicans, under Reagan, controlled the Senate for 6 YEARS from 1981 to 1986, Bob Dole being majority leader.
@Ralphdraw3 The House of Representatives (those with the purse strings) was in Democratic control from 1954 until 1995. Republicans had to compromise with them to get things passed.
@jamesnewlife The video is incorrect - the Congress was not controlled by the Democrats. Control was split between Democrats and Republicans. Republicans are equally responsible for the deficit spending under Reagan.
@Ralphdraw3 NO... you're incorrect. Democrats held a majority in BOTH houses from the beginning of 2007(last 2 years of Bush pres.), to the beginning of 2011, at which point republicans took control of the house but NOT the senate. I'm guessing you vote democrat... figures you'd be ignorant.
@andli843 I was talking about Reagan. But if you want to talk about Bush43, the Republicans controlled the House (with the purse strings as someone here pointed out) for 6 years. And Republicans controlled the Senate for 4 years. See Wikepedia.
@Ralphdraw3 You have like 50 comments on here... notice how I made one comment on Bush and one on Reagan?? Nothing I said was incorrect. What's your point mentioning that the house pulls the purse strings? Since you pointed it out though, almost half of the Bush deficit was during the last 2 years under the democrats lmao!!
@Ralphdraw3 It's not really an error considering the dem's had control of the house for Reagan's ENTIRE presidency. The democrats also gained control of the senate in the beginning of 1987 and held control of BOTH houses for the last 1/4th of Reagan's presidency.
@andli843 Excellent history work. But what are you saying? that Bush43 and Reagan were wimps? So Reagan had no power over the Senate which was controlled for 3/4ths of his term by Republicans???? And what do you make of that Bush43 national debt - $5.9 trillion??? 3/4ths of the time under a Republican controlled House?
@Ralphdraw3 No, just pointing out the full situation. I don't like having blinders on, I'd rather see the full picture. Just so you know... the repubs edge on the dems in the senate during the Reagan admin was never greater than a 54/46 split. The dem controlled house had a much better edge... but no one is going to tell you anything. You're a genius after all. P.S. Bush's ntl. debt was $4.9 trillion and as I already pointed out, $1.6 trill was in 2 years under a dem super-majority.
@Ralphdraw3 I guess that genius mind of yours forgets that the repubs were the ones that forced a balanced budget down Clintons throat in the 90's, and were the ones responsible for the first surplus in decades...
@andli843 Actually, that's to the credit of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, which passed the Congress without a single Republican vote. The Republican majorities abandoned things like PAYGO and surpluses when Bush took office. And fun fact: Clinton balanced Arkansas' budget twelve times as governor of one of the poorest states in the nation. We would've had a bigger surplus, too, but the Republicans and conservative Democrats killed Clinton's health care proposals.
@VoiceHunter All the Omnibus Budget Act did was raise taxes... most of which affected the poor dis-proportionately. You're completely ignorant... The republicans were the ones that forced budget reductions, shut down the government multiple times to do so, and eventually balanced the budget and gave us our first surplus in decades...
@andli843 And what did the Republicans do while President Clinton was making our country greater? Oh, nothing special. Just impeach him for a blowjob, lie about him, accuse him of murder, make up numerous accounting scandals, attack his wife and even his own daughter sometimes, and a bunch of other stuff that even got some Republican members of Congress to despise their own leader, Newt Gingrich. Republicans don't deserve ANY credit for the growth, at all. All they did was whine.
@VoiceHunter HAHAHA, you're kidding right? The republicans forced budgets down Clinton's throat and shut down the government more than once in order to do so. THEY are the ones that balanced the budget, not Clinton lmao!! Go read a history book. Clinton lied under oath... of course he was impeached you imbecile.
@andli843 Nope. Clinton stood his ground on every issue. Even welfare reform, an issue which HE campaigned on, was vetoed twice before it was done the right way by our president. Lying about a blowjob is not an impeachable offense, and Ken Starr's investigation was asinine, deceitful, and repleted with ties to right-wing lunatics. That bill he signed did raise taxes, but he also continued initiatives that reduce spending (such as PAYGO), and the middle-class was just fine.
@VoiceHunter You are simply incorrect. It seems like you think there were only one or two issues that caused the shutdown... Sorry, but the republicans ARE the ones that were in control of BOTH houses of congress, and ARE the ones that passed the budgets during the later part of the Clinton admin(when we balanced the budget and had a surplus). It wasn't WHAT he lied about that mattered, it was the fact that he lied UNDER OATH!!
@andli843 Clinton passed reforms with the Democratic Congress that would shape his eight years, entirely. Unlike Obama, he knew how to stand up to the terrorists and force THEM to compromise, even if it meant a government shutdown.
Oh nooooo. A president lied, you say? In that case, I say impeach all the presidents! From lying about blowjobs to lying about selling arms to Iran, impeach all the fuckers!
@VoiceHunter How am I talking like a two-year old? You are the one that called me a "cocksucker." Clinton was the PRESIDENT and he lied UNDER OATH in a federal court. He's lucky he didn't go to prison. Clinton did very little in the early years before the republicans took over both houses... it did not shape his presidency.
@andli843 The poverty and unemployment rates went down to levels Reagan wish he could have seen, and he was attacked purely out of jealousy and heavy partisanship on the Republicans' side. Clinton vetoed every bad idea the Republicans gave to him. Live with it, putz.
See? I can talk like a whiny little brat, too, little cocksucker. :)
@VoiceHunter The economy during the Clinton administration was not simply a result of Clinton lol... if you think this, then you are very simple minded. We go through economic cycles. Go google "unemployment rate" and look at the chart. ALSO, the unemployment rate peaked higher and fell further under Reagan than Clinton.
@andli843 The government is never the sole purpose for economic decline or growth. The dot com boom had a lot to do with it, but Bill Clinton and Al Gore used the opportunity to expand its use. All Reagan did was deregulate, give money to people who didn't need it, give tax cuts to people who didn't need them, and hand control of his administration to the banks and corporations. Plutocracy in the making.
@VoiceHunter The Clinton admin was a result of good leadership and compromise as BOTH houses were controlled by the opposing party. I give Clinton credit for that, but don't try and say that Clinton had control lol... he definitely did NOT. He was a good leader that knew how to compromise, MUCH better than the current president.
@andli843 Yes, he was better than Obama because he had a spine and knew how to dominate the playing field. The Republican Congress was weak, undisciplined, and couldn't even hold its leadership together.
@VoiceHunter It isn't about Obama not having a spine(although he doesn't), it's about the fact that he does not have the ability to lead and refuses to do so... he is hurting the economy by imposing stifling regulation, and he can't bring together congress.
@andli843 I gave you good reasons for why the credit for the economic growth should go to Clinton, you replied with nothing but a big, childish rant. I treat people the way they want to be treated.
"Stifling" regulation? Obama's approved fewer regulations than Bush! And who the fuck CAN bring together Congress when you have an opposition that literally goes against everything you do, even if it's cutting taxes for certain people?
@VoiceHunter Obama is blocking coal mining permits in Appalachia(using the EPA), forcing the shutdown of numerous coal plants(using the EPA), refuses to approve the Keystone XL pipeline, violated a federal judge on the offshore drilling moratorium, and even after it was rescinded continued a de-facto moratorium by NOT approving permits... he's also targeting fracking by using the EPA. I did not rant earlier and made it clear that repubs were responsible for the budgets under Clinton.
@andli843 That doesn't refute my point at all, Mr. Strawman. I didn't say that Obama didn't regulate, however, he has approved 613 federal rules during the first 33 months of his term, 4.7% fewer than the 643 cleared by Bush. If you want to blame Obama for regulating, you have to blame Bush even more.
@VoiceHunter I don't see the comparison... and I think you fail to realize what I wrote. Obama is using the EPA to do his bidding without actually having make new rules. He's abusing the executive power that he has and is in turn stifling job growth.
@andli843 Another lie. Obama HALTED EPA regulations at the demands of Republicans. I still fail to understand how Republicans continue to oppose environmental regulations after BP. Even Halliburton came out recently and stated that BP intentionally destroyed evidence after the spill in the Gulf. How a person can reason that these bastards shouldn't have any oversight is beyond me.
@VoiceHunter What EPA regulations did Obama halt?? No one is opposing environmental regulation, it just has be done in a way that facilitates growth... Don't blame BP for everything, they weren't even operating the rig... that was Transocean.
@VoiceHunter Obama is attempting to inject the government further into the public sector... this is completely contrary to what you claim to believe in on your page.
@VoiceHunter So you think that prohibiting industry from growing by imposing STIFLING regulation promotes job creation LMAO?? Also, regarding the post on my wall... I realize that there WAS an Equal Rights Amendment PROPOSED, but it has been dead for decades "moron."
@andli843 Depends on what regulations. If it's a regulation that creates monopolies, then no. If it's a regulation that breaks up monopolies and encourages competition, then yes.
...Which is why I propose bringing the amendment BACK! Why the hell do you keep arguing if all you have are strawman arguments and misinterpretations of what I'm trying to say?
@VoiceHunter Why are you talking about monopolies and competition all of the sudden?
On your profile it says that you, "Support amending the Equal Rights Amendment to the US Constitution. It isn't an amendment to the US constitution... that is my point. It was a proposed amendment that was never ratified.
@andli843 Because good regulations end monopolies and encourage competition. READ my fucking COMMENT.
I KNOW it isn't an amendment, you twit! It says I support amending such an amendment TO the Constitution! Go back to kindergarten and learn how to read.
@VoiceHunter I'm not saying we need to abolish ALL regulation. Did I ever say that? I'm specifically talking about the regulation Obama has been forcing on the energy industry... do you need to go back and READ MY FUCKING COMMENTS?
NO... what it says, is that you, "support AMENDING the EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT to the US Constitution" you twit. It doesn't read as you intended it. It should say, "I support adding an Equal Rights Amendment to the US Constitution."
@andli843 The punks who are responsible for destroying the Gulf and then destroying the evidence of it afterwards DO NOT need to be deregulated.
Are you my editor, or something? No. I thought that what I wrote was pretty clear. See, now because you've been thoroughly refuted on all your talking points, you're left with nothing but irrelevant crap like WHAT I WRITE ON MY CHANNEL.
@VoiceHunter I didn't say they needed to be deregulated... but a de-facto drilling moratorium(yes I know that they are now slowly approving permits) and ignoring a federal judge is not what is needed.
It wasn't clear and made it appear that you thought there was an Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution... because that's what it says.
@VoiceHunter Oh... and that's not all I'm left to lol. I think I've made several valid points and showed you that you have no idea what you are talking about in regard to Israel.
@VoiceHunter Again... BP wasn't the rig operator... they are just the fall guy because they have money and assets that we can go after. The rig operator was Transocean, that's why everyone that died worked for Transocean...
It's been fun though, you seem like a nice guy, we should do this again sometime ;) I gotta run now. Have a nice evening.
@andli843 If the US adopted a policy of neutrality, we would be safer as a nation, tensions would clear, spending would decrease, Israel and Palestine would both have to learn to sacrifice and lose some battles. Oh wait- we're only attacked because the terrorists hate our freedom, right? LOL.
Whoever you want to blame, they deserve to pay the consequences. First you said that these companies don't need to be deregulate, yet you criticize Obama just FOR regulating them.
@VoiceHunter I tend to agree with you on this... see we have some things in common. I'm not under the illusion that the world super-power will suddenly develop a policy of neutrality though lol.
I never said that they DON'T need to be regulated... go back and read man. I said that Obama was forcing stifling regulation, and I wasn't ONLY talking about deepwater drilling. There CAN be a balance...
@andli843 Absolutely, it will not. Now, I feel it's important that I address this: I do not blame the United States for Al Qaeda's attacks on us. HOWEVER, our involvement in this situation has heightened tensions. These countries do not like us. As a superpower, we should be promoting non-intervention. The US is recovering from one of the worst economic crises in history, and here is where the nation-building is needed. Israel can take care of itself.
@andli843 Yes, there can be a balance. But Obama has not been using the EPA to fulfill his own interests, like you said. He has even changed his response to these industries under the influence of Republican opposition.
@VoiceHunter Yes he has, and he has only changed his position on a few things because it was either retarded and impossible, or struck down by a federal judge...
@andli843 Google 'Obama halts controversial EPA regulation.' This regulation would have reduced concentrations of ground-level ozone. Arguing with you is really getting old, since you obviously have no idea what you're talking about and apparently don't read the fucking news.
@VoiceHunter HAHAHA, I guarantee I'm more educated than you and read more. I realize that Obama has halted ONE of the things that I pointed out, but it doesn't change the fact that he is using the EPA to do the dirty work in other areas.
@VoiceHunter You cited the fact that Obama has passed less "rules" than Bush did at the equivalent time... and I already stated that you misunderstood what I was saying. Obama is involving his admin MORE with private industry than the Bush admin did...
@andli843 That is entirely contradictory to what you're saying. Do you even proofread the shit you write?
That exodus was caused by ruthlessness and theft. The UN never took culture or the concerns of the people when they redrew the map. So, this led to some wars and the exodus. In other words, because a foreign government intervened in the policy of other nations for their own self-interests, the disputes were caused. The US is in no place to take a stance on this.
GB had control of the area already... it was their land like it or not. We did the same thing with Native Americans... and the same things has gone on all over the world... what is your point? Why is this case special? Israel was set up by the UN, which the US is a key leader of. Israel is also our ally... why should the US not even have a STANCE on this?
@andli843 GB, as well as other nations, took control of the territory after WWI. When they redrew the maps, they didn't consider the needs of the citizens. I am not justifying the actions of how other cultures were treated, because those have nothing to do with Israel. I don't see why you're even bringing that stuff up.
Our alliance with Israel has caused tensions in other nations. That is why we should not take a stance on it. We cannot AFFORD IT.
@VoiceHunter As for your comment on my wall. Palestine is NOT a state, Israel is. You can't blame a nation for protecting itself from people that are vowed to destroy them. Also, Israel did not "steal" land. Israel gained control of the land in question during WAR in which it was attacked by several different nations at the same time. I agree with some of what you said on my wall.
@andli843 The only reason why Palestine is not a legal state is because BOTH sides have done their part in breaking promises. How are we making it any better by spending more money and throwing all our support to one of the promise-breakers? Unless Iran and Palestine agree to make mutual concessions, the US should play no part in this. All our involvement in the matter has led more and more nations to oppose us. If we adopted a Monroe Doctrine-type policy, the US would be safer.
@andli843 The Palestinians. The British kicked the Palestinians out of the land in order to make a homeland for Jews. In fact, before Israel was a state, the country was only 5% Jewish.
Before the British took it over after WW1, the Ottomans controlled it. Before them, the Mamluks. It was controlled by many nations.
@VoiceHunter The Palestinians were not FORCED to leave... there is still a large Palestinian population in Israel lol. Thanks for writing what I wrote, you're wrong though, the British controlled it during the 1800's before giving it to the Ottomans.
@andli843 You're still not seeing my point. The Palestinians were evicted from their homes in 1948 so that the Jews could have a homeland. I already mentioned how the Jews were a minority in the land before the British mandates came along.
@VoiceHunter Great Britain had control of that land starting in 1922... they also controlled it earlier in the 1800's but gave it back to Ottoman Empire for a period of time.
At 2:16 what does it say about the state of the republican party that the "slowest car" is driven by a democrat? Just for the record, I'm a hardcore conservative.
@KatanaK1D93 Agreed for the most part. Reagan was spending the soviets into oblivion(which he did). Since that is my only valid point, I'm going to be a grammar douche and call you out for mis-spelling Reagan.(sarcasm)
Unfortunately, as precipitous as Obama's spending is, this video also shows that Republicans, if given the opportunity, will spend like Democrats. And I hate the fact that Clinton comes out smelling like a rose. Gridlock, baby, gridlock--together with a part-time Congress and term limits will keep them from accomplishing much--and that sound pretty good to me. Let's hope the voters learn from this: that this is what happens when either party controls both the WH, and both houses of Congress.
The GAO itemizes the debt. It's sad that we Boomers (Obama is a Boomer too) are going to make Generations Y and Z pay for the entire amount. The young people don't know that the $15 trillion will have to be worked for and paid for with their dollars while we retire and have it easy.
@anebturia Did you not pay for your retirement? I think you (boomer paid for your retirement) - The point would be that you still go ripped off b/c you'll get less than what you put in. And what I put in is just not even worth it at all and I'll get nothing back.
@anebturia So you didn't pay a crap load into the system in medicare before? My point is you are going to get less than what you paid for and younger people are going to get nothing.
@FavreianVengeance All you need to be eligible for Medicare is to earn enough "credits." Both hubby and I earned enough. I earned enough within 5-6 years. It's not based on total amount of Medicare Tax paid, just work credits that are easy to meet. We get Medicare when we hit 65. How it will be paid is based on contributions (taxes) from the younger workers. To me, it's a scam. I didn't pay much at all.
@anebturia Interesting - I think the problem is the rules are always changing. If a company ran medicare the way the govt runs medicare there'd be mass lawsuits and they'd be in chapter 11. I just want the govt out.
This is an excellent illustration of how DEBT ACCELERATES over time in the FRACTIONAL RESERVE PONZI SCHEME. This is a mathematical certainty in a system which requires ever more debt simply to keep functioning. The Presidents can only fiddle with the handbrake. The Central Banks are in the driving seat. The stable, neutral alternative is full reserve banking.
I think your analysis is overly simplistic: debts were incurred during presidencies/congresses, but external conditions were also a factor, and you fail to discuss those at all. The current debt is driven by four factors: govt spending in response to the 2008 crisis, post 9/11 wars, Bush era tax cuts, and unfunded entitlements. However, this video has prompted me to do my own research to understand the problem better. Thank you.
I'd like to point something out. When the Great Depression hit, the "speed" increased by a factor of 8, from 5mph to 40mph. At the end of Bush's term / start of Obama's term, the "speed" went from 64mph to 174mph, increasing by a factor of about 2.7.
Furthermore, taxes on rich Americans went from about 25% to over 60% around 1930, but didn't go up in 2008. If you want to "slow down," you need more income.
That being said, I agree, Obama does need to balance the budget.
@BrandonSchleifer That's not how you run a biz! No responsible business resorts to raising costs on products they sell without first seeing if they can cut the budget/expenses. According to your logic, if a bakery has a water leak which is costing them a LOT of money, instead of fixing the leak they should let it bleed, but raise the cost of bread in order to offset the extra costs. That makes no sense, and I won't buy bread from that bakery as a result. The govt needs to fix the leaks!
@vicardaniel You have no idea what I'm saying. This is about revenue verses debt, and stimulus verses recession. If the economy is bad, the government spends money to improve the economy, feed the hungry, make new jobs, etc., but if the government wants to pay for this, they need more income.
I'm all for "fixing the leaky pipe," but you need to spend money to do that! I'm simply pointing out that, if you want to pay for fixing the pipe instead of going into debt, you need to raise your prices.
Cut the military budget? problem solved? you realize that part of the "military budget" their wanting to cut is its education/retirement benefits/healthcare funding for the military right!? its not so simple. When you have a congress that spends more time talking about steriods in sports then you do about the iraq war, the national healthcare systems, the issues are alot deeper then that.
@rickcain2320 Not entirely true. Cutting the military budget would help, but abolition of blood-draining entitlements and useless departments like Education and HUD would do this country a world of good.
Then we can start paying back all the debt and pain that Obama has brought.
Obama's spending? at this point its less than 50 billion a year. Stimulus is pretty much done. His spending is a tiny fraction of the amount you are blaming him for, as a result of your inability to understand how a budget works.
Selective information dissemination is dangerous. Let us step back and learn from history: Under FDR, unemployment from the Great Depression fell from 25% to 9%. What did he do to get us out of it? Increase government spending. New projects (such as the highway/freeway system every American here has benefited from), helped put Americans to work, and thus get money flowing in the economy again. Obama is doing much the same. W is still responsible for the vast majority of the current debt.
I don't think Obama is going to keep the pace he started with but he had to spend money to save jobs. Now he should be able to slow down and spend less. It's like your in the back seat of a car and the driver is unconscious and the car is headed for an avalanche but there is no way to avoid being hit except for jumping in the driver seat and hitting the gas to the floor and passing the avalanche unscathed. Of course after the danger is gone your not going to keep the pedal to the medal.
@JonJonesize you're full of right-wing bullshit. you don't even realize that out of context quote by pelosi was a jab at all the republican lies regarding health care.
@JonJonesize I didn't say that. I hope you enjoy your battle with the straw man you created. The reason we have the debt is primarily (80%) the recession and bush legislation. We need congress to cooperate, but we have the tea party to thank for this incompetent congress.
@JonJonesize Jon, you need to try harder than that. CBO projected a 1.2 trillion dollar deficit before the stimulus and 1.4 after. An increase of 15% for FY 2009. The stimulus is 5.6% of our debt. Over the last 3 years, 21% of the deficit. One FIFTH. You morons are complaining about ONE-FIFTH of our deficit (obama's spending), while ignoring the 80%.
"Nearly half of Americans incorrectly think President Obama started the the bank bailout program, otherwise known as the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), a new poll shows. Just 34 percent of Americans surveyed by the Pew Research Center correctly said that TARP was enacted by the Bush administration. Almost half -- 47 percent -- think Mr. Obama started the bank bailout, according to the survey, conducted July 1-5. There was no partisan divide on the issue. "
@JonJonesize nope. the deficit is 10 years old. Clinton resolved the 300 billion dollar deficit he was given (1/4 the size of the deficit bush gave obama)
loved it, keep em coming.. someones gotta wake these nitwits up! just keep smiling cause obama's the man! yea right the man to turn this country to more crap...ogh and u gotta love the billions were spending on libya, WITHOUT congressional approval Obama just blowing people up.
lmao!! were not done yet in libya...and to get congress approval before using military action like that is what makes obama a dictator... u think saddam needed approval to go to war or drop bombs? NO! did obama get approval from congress to drop bombs..no he just went and did it...like any dictator would.
@1UNSEENKID some day, I'm going to meet a conservative that has the balls and the drive to take 5 minutes and prove his own shit wrong. until then, you morons will continue to vote against yourself based on lies.
@JonJonesize and I HAVE read the budget, you dimwit. Its available freely online. You cons are fucking dumb, and refused to take any responsibility for your OWN ACTIONS.
@darliegoddess Then Bush should go down in history for being the first person to spend trillions of dollars, without even being office! You are joking right? You are probably on welfare, addicted to PCP and worship MSNBC hosts who have zero education between them.
@darliegoddess So anything that is simplistic is incorrect? Sounds like you're an idiot. You make 2500 atoms a week? You don't even know how to put currency next to the amount of money you make. So what if you make that? Crab fishermen make more. Keynes failed, why don't you get that? Probably for the same reason you dismiss anything that is simplistic is lesser, and you can't put currency next to the amount you make.
@Superorchestra he dumbass? I assume you meant hey*. I have no idea what point you are trying to make. The point I was making was, you can't blame Bush for piling on debt that he had NOTHING to do with. Monetary spending to boost the economy doesn't work. You are left with a few things 1) High Unemployment (CHECK), 2) MASSIVE Debt (CHECK), 3) Crowding out of private investment (CHECK) 4) MASSIVE corruption (CHECK), 5) INFLATION (CHECK), 6) Stagnation (CHECK) . Vote Economic Freedom 2012 (NO O)
@Alias828 Obama's spending is 20% of the deficit during the last 3 years, created millions of jobs (11% ue without it) and brought in about 100 billion in tax revenue. The other 80% (meaning, the vast majority) is from 2001-2003 and the recessions under GWB. Just the facts.
@ratty88 You're logic makes no sense. You can easily have full employment! Hire 1/2 the people unemployed to dig a hole, and the other 1/2 the fill it back up. You're statistics are so foolish! What about the 10's of millions of people out of work because of crowding out of private investment due to government spending??? The amount of loanable funds is reduced for the private market. The government does not create jobs that are productive, the free market does. See DPRK vs Sourth Korea.
@Alias828 I'd love for you to prove this "crowding out of private investment", lol. You'd do well to stop trying to use that thing you call a mind and just read some legitimate economists.
@ratty88 Ohh, Hayek isn't a legitimate economist? He is better than anyone you can cite. You have giving NO empirical information to support the other side. Your counter argument consists of nothing. It all add's up. You are very young, and very dumb.
With my income last year @ $240k, I paid in some $60k into federal tax. No refund!! Dont tell me I didnt pay my fair share. Citizens on the very high end and those in the lower end get away with paying nothing. A flat tax on EVERYONE would be fairest of all. Biggest fear of ALL, with the Federal Government printing so much money lately, when will the devaluation of the US Dollar happen?? When it does, watch out. Hyperinflation.
ups767fo 1 day ago
You lost me when you started comparing "driving speeds" to actual driving speeds. Yes, 174mph is a crazy speed to drive. The reality is that the "driving speed" under Bush (64mph) was ALSO a crazy driving speed. Yes, the current spending has to stop. Was our debt at zero 3 years ago? Of course not... and there is a lot of blame to throw around for that.
neoikon 1 day ago
@cfaves, this video is over two years old, I was using it to illustrate things to people in mid 2009.When it was made, The Dragon Lady was still running roughshod as Speaker.
@Ameriproud67, please note that Clinton had a Republican Congress to work against, W had a Republican Congress to work with at the beginning, but he had a nation to keep safe from further terrorist attacks. Plus a Democrat Congress for most of the last term in office. Checks and balances, youngster, checks and balances.
treebeard431 3 days ago
Notice that Bill Clinton by far is most responsible driver and GW Bush is the second worst driver.
AmeriProud67 3 days ago
Serious question: where do you get your numbers?
lbaumy 3 days ago
Update it please!
gewe33523 1 week ago
This is a pretty disingenuous video considering it does not measure debt to GDP. Obama definitely did not handle the economy well, but a lot of the debt in his term is not his.
13lackLight 3 weeks ago
@13lackLight Actually this video is pretty accurate. GDP only increased by about 2 Trillion $ since 2001. Even if you showed % to GDP, Obama would top the charts. OF course not ALL National Debt "Obama" accumulated was a direct result of his failures. The issue is the magnitude of spending this guy has enforced and his absolute lack of understanding of Free prosperous markets. I'm not a fan of Bush but a "lot of debt in his terms is not his" either to use your logic.Obama is simply a catastrophe
divinenuker 4 days ago
@divinenuker Well, the guy also says the numbers are adjusted for inflation. Wouldn't that mean that at World War 2 and now, the debt would be roughly the same? In the video he says WW2 =New Jersey, and by the end of it all its like way out west somewhere. Also 2009 was Bush's budget, not Obama's. And the Fed printed a shit load of money lent it to banks at 0 interest, who then bought bonds. Obama sucks. So do Republicans. Yea, the stimulus was not a good idea either.
13lackLight 4 days ago
@divinenuker I've seen a chart of public debt compared to GDP and several periods in time rank above 2009-2011 in terms of the change, and Bush's second term actually had a larger increase in the debt than Obama. The period of 1941-1945 also showed a huge debt increase (for good reason).
wildstyle2192 2 days ago
This man needs a podcast. Immediately.
chimmichanga21 4 weeks ago 4
I hope you realise that the Fed Reserve is a PRIVATE bank. Although Treasury mints money notes&coins (M0), it is the Fed Reserve that creates the vast majority of money (M3) from debt. The American Govt last had the ability to create its own money 100 years ago, now it borrows at interest.
Take a look at the USDebtClock org and go to "About" --> "Money/Banking History"
Rightbackkatchya 1 month ago
@Rightbackkatchya The federal reserve is NOT a private bank. Its an independently-run central bank. Its not directly influenced by the government, but it is very much a part of it. As for its role, the Fed just buys or sells government bonds for a small price to cause an increase or decrease in interest rates.
OddRobb 1 week ago
When did we get a democratic congress....
Cfaves 1 month ago 3
@Cfaves - I'm assuming you mean the one toward the end of Bush's term; that would be in 2007/2008. It switched back in 2011. As far as I'm concerned, that explains the economy at the end of Bush's term; the one that's still being blamed on him.
thurmanlady 3 weeks ago
@Cfaves from Jan 2007-Jan 2011 (after the 2010 elections, ended a majority in both houses). That means from 2007-2011 4 years the dems had total control! and did pass a budget for 2 years and spent like mad!
osu1bucks69 1 day ago
We invaded Iraq under GB under the pretense of fighting terrorism, we let the Enron guys off, we let the banks make up "financial instruments" to destroy our savings by gambling on bundled mortgages with fake ratings of AAA. Are you going to blame GB for that? No, and you shouldn't. The president of the US doesn't do everything everyone seems to think they do. Obama didn't make the mound of debt we're in. Blame it on the fleecing of America and the masses unwilling to do anything about it.
transcendtient 1 month ago
@transcendtient You sir are a blind fool who even I can see how stupid and ignorant you are.
Me being a 13 year old kid.
MikeHawkIs2Cool 3 weeks ago
@MikeHawkIs2Cool Rock on MY COCK IS TOO COOL. Let me know what you think when you grow some pubes.
transcendtient 5 days ago
@transcendtient Excuse me did you just call your own penis cool and to let you know when you grow pubes?......Sad indeed.
P.S. I don't remember why your so angry 'cause I cant find my comment anywhere so w/e
MikeHawkIs2Cool 3 days ago
OWN BUDGET *****PROJECTIONS**** in constant dollars???
Ralphdraw3 1 month ago
Would you update this video with the latest figures?
TruthAxe 1 month ago
great you said who led the congress
nottinmatterz2day 1 month ago
Bullshit analysis. By tying numbers to a system with inherent bias, you skew the reaction. The suggestion that a Dem Congress is why HW Bush and Reagan drove up huge debt, no discussion of which sectors grew (hint: track the Pentagon's budget), and emotional response of the driving analogy all make this analysis = SPIN. Why take the full 8 years of Obama, as we're only in the third year of his first term? How does that skew your 174%?
Fuck this fake statistical mumbo jumbo and Fuck You.
kidcopernicus 1 month ago
@kidcopernicus
you guys are idiots - its not a discussion about bush and Democrats or Reagan and democrats or democrats and democrats -- the point is the 'commander in Cheif' and the BLUE team has run wild and their projections will far surpass any of the previous presidents (combined) - u can understand simple math and speedometers.... (Dont read into it too much - -- scarry for us all indeed
rikdrt1 1 month ago
for anyone who knows how to use GOOGLE, even though most of it is BIASED bull stuff. Clearly the Us Flourished with Reagan and the Rep Congress, continued with Bush sr, even . Clinton with the awesome Rep. Congress road the tail coat for the first three years actually going into the black from all the Republicans hard work. Bush got the shaft from Clinton who appointed The Mob where it continued till Clinton's Protege and here we are. The Banks control EVERYTHING, even the Oballess. Questions ?
The1deemann 1 month ago
@The1deemann all three references are a joke, look. Whitehouse (the biggest liar) The Fed/treasury who can't even answer the most simple questions (the biggest thiefs) and Westegg (Morgan biased bullshit) and the most amazing part A Million hits, I didn't even know there were that many stupid people in the WORLD !The Democrats have a long history of promoting racial inequality and controlling minorities by seeming to care about them but buying their votes with special monies, Our $
The1deemann 1 month ago
ONE ERROR (at least) in your video. Reagan did not have a Democratic Congress - the Republicans, under Reagan, controlled the Senate for 6 YEARS from 1981 to 1986, Bob Dole being majority leader.
Ralphdraw3 1 month ago
@Ralphdraw3 The House of Representatives (those with the purse strings) was in Democratic control from 1954 until 1995. Republicans had to compromise with them to get things passed.
jamesnewlife 1 month ago
@jamesnewlife The video is incorrect - the Congress was not controlled by the Democrats. Control was split between Democrats and Republicans. Republicans are equally responsible for the deficit spending under Reagan.
Ralphdraw3 1 month ago
@Ralphdraw3 NO... you're incorrect. Democrats held a majority in BOTH houses from the beginning of 2007(last 2 years of Bush pres.), to the beginning of 2011, at which point republicans took control of the house but NOT the senate. I'm guessing you vote democrat... figures you'd be ignorant.
andli843 1 month ago
@andli843 I was talking about Reagan. But if you want to talk about Bush43, the Republicans controlled the House (with the purse strings as someone here pointed out) for 6 years. And Republicans controlled the Senate for 4 years. See Wikepedia.
Ralphdraw3 1 month ago
@Ralphdraw3 You have like 50 comments on here... notice how I made one comment on Bush and one on Reagan?? Nothing I said was incorrect. What's your point mentioning that the house pulls the purse strings? Since you pointed it out though, almost half of the Bush deficit was during the last 2 years under the democrats lmao!!
andli843 1 month ago
@Ralphdraw3 It's not really an error considering the dem's had control of the house for Reagan's ENTIRE presidency. The democrats also gained control of the senate in the beginning of 1987 and held control of BOTH houses for the last 1/4th of Reagan's presidency.
andli843 1 month ago
@andli843 Excellent history work. But what are you saying? that Bush43 and Reagan were wimps? So Reagan had no power over the Senate which was controlled for 3/4ths of his term by Republicans???? And what do you make of that Bush43 national debt - $5.9 trillion??? 3/4ths of the time under a Republican controlled House?
Ralphdraw3 1 month ago
@Ralphdraw3 No, just pointing out the full situation. I don't like having blinders on, I'd rather see the full picture. Just so you know... the repubs edge on the dems in the senate during the Reagan admin was never greater than a 54/46 split. The dem controlled house had a much better edge... but no one is going to tell you anything. You're a genius after all. P.S. Bush's ntl. debt was $4.9 trillion and as I already pointed out, $1.6 trill was in 2 years under a dem super-majority.
andli843 1 month ago
@Ralphdraw3 I guess that genius mind of yours forgets that the repubs were the ones that forced a balanced budget down Clintons throat in the 90's, and were the ones responsible for the first surplus in decades...
andli843 1 month ago
@andli843 Actually, that's to the credit of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, which passed the Congress without a single Republican vote. The Republican majorities abandoned things like PAYGO and surpluses when Bush took office. And fun fact: Clinton balanced Arkansas' budget twelve times as governor of one of the poorest states in the nation. We would've had a bigger surplus, too, but the Republicans and conservative Democrats killed Clinton's health care proposals.
VoiceHunter 1 month ago
@VoiceHunter All the Omnibus Budget Act did was raise taxes... most of which affected the poor dis-proportionately. You're completely ignorant... The republicans were the ones that forced budget reductions, shut down the government multiple times to do so, and eventually balanced the budget and gave us our first surplus in decades...
andli843 1 month ago
@andli843 And what did the Republicans do while President Clinton was making our country greater? Oh, nothing special. Just impeach him for a blowjob, lie about him, accuse him of murder, make up numerous accounting scandals, attack his wife and even his own daughter sometimes, and a bunch of other stuff that even got some Republican members of Congress to despise their own leader, Newt Gingrich. Republicans don't deserve ANY credit for the growth, at all. All they did was whine.
VoiceHunter 1 month ago
@VoiceHunter HAHAHA, you're kidding right? The republicans forced budgets down Clinton's throat and shut down the government more than once in order to do so. THEY are the ones that balanced the budget, not Clinton lmao!! Go read a history book. Clinton lied under oath... of course he was impeached you imbecile.
andli843 1 month ago
@andli843 Nope. Clinton stood his ground on every issue. Even welfare reform, an issue which HE campaigned on, was vetoed twice before it was done the right way by our president. Lying about a blowjob is not an impeachable offense, and Ken Starr's investigation was asinine, deceitful, and repleted with ties to right-wing lunatics. That bill he signed did raise taxes, but he also continued initiatives that reduce spending (such as PAYGO), and the middle-class was just fine.
VoiceHunter 1 month ago
@VoiceHunter You are simply incorrect. It seems like you think there were only one or two issues that caused the shutdown... Sorry, but the republicans ARE the ones that were in control of BOTH houses of congress, and ARE the ones that passed the budgets during the later part of the Clinton admin(when we balanced the budget and had a surplus). It wasn't WHAT he lied about that mattered, it was the fact that he lied UNDER OATH!!
andli843 1 month ago
@andli843 Clinton passed reforms with the Democratic Congress that would shape his eight years, entirely. Unlike Obama, he knew how to stand up to the terrorists and force THEM to compromise, even if it meant a government shutdown.
Oh nooooo. A president lied, you say? In that case, I say impeach all the presidents! From lying about blowjobs to lying about selling arms to Iran, impeach all the fuckers!
When will you stop talking like a two-year-old?
VoiceHunter 1 month ago
@VoiceHunter How am I talking like a two-year old? You are the one that called me a "cocksucker." Clinton was the PRESIDENT and he lied UNDER OATH in a federal court. He's lucky he didn't go to prison. Clinton did very little in the early years before the republicans took over both houses... it did not shape his presidency.
andli843 1 month ago
@andli843 So, what do you think of Kenneth Starr's crooked investigations?
VoiceHunter 1 month ago
@andli843 The poverty and unemployment rates went down to levels Reagan wish he could have seen, and he was attacked purely out of jealousy and heavy partisanship on the Republicans' side. Clinton vetoed every bad idea the Republicans gave to him. Live with it, putz.
See? I can talk like a whiny little brat, too, little cocksucker. :)
VoiceHunter 1 month ago
@VoiceHunter The economy during the Clinton administration was not simply a result of Clinton lol... if you think this, then you are very simple minded. We go through economic cycles. Go google "unemployment rate" and look at the chart. ALSO, the unemployment rate peaked higher and fell further under Reagan than Clinton.
andli843 1 month ago
@andli843 The government is never the sole purpose for economic decline or growth. The dot com boom had a lot to do with it, but Bill Clinton and Al Gore used the opportunity to expand its use. All Reagan did was deregulate, give money to people who didn't need it, give tax cuts to people who didn't need them, and hand control of his administration to the banks and corporations. Plutocracy in the making.
VoiceHunter 1 month ago
@VoiceHunter The Clinton admin was a result of good leadership and compromise as BOTH houses were controlled by the opposing party. I give Clinton credit for that, but don't try and say that Clinton had control lol... he definitely did NOT. He was a good leader that knew how to compromise, MUCH better than the current president.
andli843 1 month ago
@andli843 Yes, he was better than Obama because he had a spine and knew how to dominate the playing field. The Republican Congress was weak, undisciplined, and couldn't even hold its leadership together.
VoiceHunter 1 month ago
@VoiceHunter It isn't about Obama not having a spine(although he doesn't), it's about the fact that he does not have the ability to lead and refuses to do so... he is hurting the economy by imposing stifling regulation, and he can't bring together congress.
andli843 1 month ago
@andli843 I gave you good reasons for why the credit for the economic growth should go to Clinton, you replied with nothing but a big, childish rant. I treat people the way they want to be treated.
"Stifling" regulation? Obama's approved fewer regulations than Bush! And who the fuck CAN bring together Congress when you have an opposition that literally goes against everything you do, even if it's cutting taxes for certain people?
VoiceHunter 1 month ago
@VoiceHunter Obama is blocking coal mining permits in Appalachia(using the EPA), forcing the shutdown of numerous coal plants(using the EPA), refuses to approve the Keystone XL pipeline, violated a federal judge on the offshore drilling moratorium, and even after it was rescinded continued a de-facto moratorium by NOT approving permits... he's also targeting fracking by using the EPA. I did not rant earlier and made it clear that repubs were responsible for the budgets under Clinton.
andli843 1 month ago
@andli843 That doesn't refute my point at all, Mr. Strawman. I didn't say that Obama didn't regulate, however, he has approved 613 federal rules during the first 33 months of his term, 4.7% fewer than the 643 cleared by Bush. If you want to blame Obama for regulating, you have to blame Bush even more.
VoiceHunter 1 month ago
@VoiceHunter I don't see the comparison... and I think you fail to realize what I wrote. Obama is using the EPA to do his bidding without actually having make new rules. He's abusing the executive power that he has and is in turn stifling job growth.
andli843 1 month ago
@andli843 Another lie. Obama HALTED EPA regulations at the demands of Republicans. I still fail to understand how Republicans continue to oppose environmental regulations after BP. Even Halliburton came out recently and stated that BP intentionally destroyed evidence after the spill in the Gulf. How a person can reason that these bastards shouldn't have any oversight is beyond me.
VoiceHunter 1 month ago
@VoiceHunter What EPA regulations did Obama halt?? No one is opposing environmental regulation, it just has be done in a way that facilitates growth... Don't blame BP for everything, they weren't even operating the rig... that was Transocean.
andli843 1 month ago
@VoiceHunter Obama is attempting to inject the government further into the public sector... this is completely contrary to what you claim to believe in on your page.
andli843 1 month ago
@andli843 Unregulated capitalism does not promote job creation. Never has, never will. Austrian economics is a failed belief system.
VoiceHunter 1 month ago
@VoiceHunter So you think that prohibiting industry from growing by imposing STIFLING regulation promotes job creation LMAO?? Also, regarding the post on my wall... I realize that there WAS an Equal Rights Amendment PROPOSED, but it has been dead for decades "moron."
andli843 1 month ago
@andli843 Depends on what regulations. If it's a regulation that creates monopolies, then no. If it's a regulation that breaks up monopolies and encourages competition, then yes.
...Which is why I propose bringing the amendment BACK! Why the hell do you keep arguing if all you have are strawman arguments and misinterpretations of what I'm trying to say?
VoiceHunter 1 month ago
@VoiceHunter Why are you talking about monopolies and competition all of the sudden?
On your profile it says that you, "Support amending the Equal Rights Amendment to the US Constitution. It isn't an amendment to the US constitution... that is my point. It was a proposed amendment that was never ratified.
andli843 1 month ago
@andli843 Because good regulations end monopolies and encourage competition. READ my fucking COMMENT.
I KNOW it isn't an amendment, you twit! It says I support amending such an amendment TO the Constitution! Go back to kindergarten and learn how to read.
VoiceHunter 1 month ago
@VoiceHunter I'm not saying we need to abolish ALL regulation. Did I ever say that? I'm specifically talking about the regulation Obama has been forcing on the energy industry... do you need to go back and READ MY FUCKING COMMENTS?
NO... what it says, is that you, "support AMENDING the EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT to the US Constitution" you twit. It doesn't read as you intended it. It should say, "I support adding an Equal Rights Amendment to the US Constitution."
andli843 1 month ago
@andli843 The punks who are responsible for destroying the Gulf and then destroying the evidence of it afterwards DO NOT need to be deregulated.
Are you my editor, or something? No. I thought that what I wrote was pretty clear. See, now because you've been thoroughly refuted on all your talking points, you're left with nothing but irrelevant crap like WHAT I WRITE ON MY CHANNEL.
VoiceHunter 1 month ago
@VoiceHunter I didn't say they needed to be deregulated... but a de-facto drilling moratorium(yes I know that they are now slowly approving permits) and ignoring a federal judge is not what is needed.
It wasn't clear and made it appear that you thought there was an Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution... because that's what it says.
andli843 1 month ago
@andli843 Farewell, then.
VoiceHunter 1 month ago
@VoiceHunter Later
andli843 1 month ago
@VoiceHunter Oh... and that's not all I'm left to lol. I think I've made several valid points and showed you that you have no idea what you are talking about in regard to Israel.
andli843 1 month ago
@VoiceHunter Again... BP wasn't the rig operator... they are just the fall guy because they have money and assets that we can go after. The rig operator was Transocean, that's why everyone that died worked for Transocean...
It's been fun though, you seem like a nice guy, we should do this again sometime ;) I gotta run now. Have a nice evening.
andli843 1 month ago
@andli843 If the US adopted a policy of neutrality, we would be safer as a nation, tensions would clear, spending would decrease, Israel and Palestine would both have to learn to sacrifice and lose some battles. Oh wait- we're only attacked because the terrorists hate our freedom, right? LOL.
Whoever you want to blame, they deserve to pay the consequences. First you said that these companies don't need to be deregulate, yet you criticize Obama just FOR regulating them.
VoiceHunter 1 month ago
@VoiceHunter I tend to agree with you on this... see we have some things in common. I'm not under the illusion that the world super-power will suddenly develop a policy of neutrality though lol.
I never said that they DON'T need to be regulated... go back and read man. I said that Obama was forcing stifling regulation, and I wasn't ONLY talking about deepwater drilling. There CAN be a balance...
andli843 1 month ago
@andli843 Absolutely, it will not. Now, I feel it's important that I address this: I do not blame the United States for Al Qaeda's attacks on us. HOWEVER, our involvement in this situation has heightened tensions. These countries do not like us. As a superpower, we should be promoting non-intervention. The US is recovering from one of the worst economic crises in history, and here is where the nation-building is needed. Israel can take care of itself.
VoiceHunter 1 month ago
@andli843 Yes, there can be a balance. But Obama has not been using the EPA to fulfill his own interests, like you said. He has even changed his response to these industries under the influence of Republican opposition.
VoiceHunter 1 month ago
@VoiceHunter Yes he has, and he has only changed his position on a few things because it was either retarded and impossible, or struck down by a federal judge...
andli843 1 month ago
@andli843 Google 'Obama halts controversial EPA regulation.' This regulation would have reduced concentrations of ground-level ozone. Arguing with you is really getting old, since you obviously have no idea what you're talking about and apparently don't read the fucking news.
VoiceHunter 1 month ago
@VoiceHunter HAHAHA, I guarantee I'm more educated than you and read more. I realize that Obama has halted ONE of the things that I pointed out, but it doesn't change the fact that he is using the EPA to do the dirty work in other areas.
andli843 1 month ago
@andli843 HAHAHAHA. HAHAHAHAHAHHA. HAHAHAAHHAHA. HAHA. HA. See? I can talk like an obnoxious know-it-all, too!
I already brought up how Obama has been regulating even less than George W. Bush. Or has your pea-sized brain led you to forget that part?
VoiceHunter 1 month ago
@VoiceHunter You cited the fact that Obama has passed less "rules" than Bush did at the equivalent time... and I already stated that you misunderstood what I was saying. Obama is involving his admin MORE with private industry than the Bush admin did...
andli843 1 month ago
@andli843 That is entirely contradictory to what you're saying. Do you even proofread the shit you write?
That exodus was caused by ruthlessness and theft. The UN never took culture or the concerns of the people when they redrew the map. So, this led to some wars and the exodus. In other words, because a foreign government intervened in the policy of other nations for their own self-interests, the disputes were caused. The US is in no place to take a stance on this.
VoiceHunter 1 month ago
@VoiceHunter What is contradictory?
GB had control of the area already... it was their land like it or not. We did the same thing with Native Americans... and the same things has gone on all over the world... what is your point? Why is this case special? Israel was set up by the UN, which the US is a key leader of. Israel is also our ally... why should the US not even have a STANCE on this?
andli843 1 month ago
@andli843 GB, as well as other nations, took control of the territory after WWI. When they redrew the maps, they didn't consider the needs of the citizens. I am not justifying the actions of how other cultures were treated, because those have nothing to do with Israel. I don't see why you're even bringing that stuff up.
Our alliance with Israel has caused tensions in other nations. That is why we should not take a stance on it. We cannot AFFORD IT.
VoiceHunter 1 month ago
@VoiceHunter As for your comment on my wall. Palestine is NOT a state, Israel is. You can't blame a nation for protecting itself from people that are vowed to destroy them. Also, Israel did not "steal" land. Israel gained control of the land in question during WAR in which it was attacked by several different nations at the same time. I agree with some of what you said on my wall.
andli843 1 month ago
Comment removed
VoiceHunter 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@andli843 The only reason why Palestine is not a legal state is because BOTH sides have done their part in breaking promises. How are we making it any better by spending more money and throwing all our support to one of the promise-breakers? Unless Iran and Palestine agree to make mutual concessions, the US should play no part in this. All our involvement in the matter has led more and more nations to oppose us. If we adopted a Monroe Doctrine-type policy, the US would be safer.
VoiceHunter 1 month ago
@andli843 Israel started off as a nation comprised of stolen land. Tensions heightened and Israel took even more land.
VoiceHunter 1 month ago
@VoiceHunter No it didn't, go read some history... check who had control of that land before Israel was formed.
andli843 1 month ago
@andli843 The Palestinians. The British kicked the Palestinians out of the land in order to make a homeland for Jews. In fact, before Israel was a state, the country was only 5% Jewish.
Before the British took it over after WW1, the Ottomans controlled it. Before them, the Mamluks. It was controlled by many nations.
VoiceHunter 1 month ago
@VoiceHunter The Palestinians were not FORCED to leave... there is still a large Palestinian population in Israel lol. Thanks for writing what I wrote, you're wrong though, the British controlled it during the 1800's before giving it to the Ottomans.
andli843 1 month ago
@andli843 You're still not seeing my point. The Palestinians were evicted from their homes in 1948 so that the Jews could have a homeland. I already mentioned how the Jews were a minority in the land before the British mandates came along.
VoiceHunter 1 month ago
@VoiceHunter They were not evicted, it was a voluntary exodus... go back to history class. The reasons for the exodus are debated.
andli843 1 month ago
@VoiceHunter Great Britain had control of that land starting in 1922... they also controlled it earlier in the 1800's but gave it back to Ottoman Empire for a period of time.
andli843 1 month ago
Clinton handed Bush Jr. a 5.6 Trillion End-of-FY 2001 CBO Projected Gross Federal Debt.
Bush Jr. handed Obama an 11.5 Trillion End-of-FY 2009 CBO Projected Gross Federal Debt.
Through Fiscal Year 2010, you get these results:
Obama's Debt Contributions -- 2 Trillion
Bush Jr's Debt Contributions -- 5.9 Trillion
Clinton's Debt Contributions -- 1.2 Trillion
Bush Sr's Debt Contributions -- 1.5 Trillion
Reagan's Debt Contributions -- 1.9 Trillion
Ralphdraw3 1 month ago
This should be shown on television.... (if accurate) it is certainly a good illustration for us sheeples.
MsSusan1957 1 month ago
we need a cop somebodys speeding
ArgentDawn55 1 month ago
Great illustration...
evilpanamajack 1 month ago 2
At 2:16 what does it say about the state of the republican party that the "slowest car" is driven by a democrat? Just for the record, I'm a hardcore conservative.
bjs030 2 months ago
@bjs030 it was a republican congress, the congress has power over the budget so thats what matters most
JRayMalcolm 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
How about the government sell National Debt Reduction Wrist Bands. Buy wrist bands to help find a cure to the national debt.
dandyname 2 months ago
Reagen was a republican
George H Bush was a Republican
Bill Clinton was a democrat
KatanaK1D93 2 months ago
@KatanaK1D93 Agreed for the most part. Reagan was spending the soviets into oblivion(which he did). Since that is my only valid point, I'm going to be a grammar douche and call you out for mis-spelling Reagan.(sarcasm)
bjs030 2 months ago
Unfortunately, as precipitous as Obama's spending is, this video also shows that Republicans, if given the opportunity, will spend like Democrats. And I hate the fact that Clinton comes out smelling like a rose. Gridlock, baby, gridlock--together with a part-time Congress and term limits will keep them from accomplishing much--and that sound pretty good to me. Let's hope the voters learn from this: that this is what happens when either party controls both the WH, and both houses of Congress.
surfcitytoo 2 months ago in playlist Favorite videos
The GAO itemizes the debt. It's sad that we Boomers (Obama is a Boomer too) are going to make Generations Y and Z pay for the entire amount. The young people don't know that the $15 trillion will have to be worked for and paid for with their dollars while we retire and have it easy.
anebturia 2 months ago
@anebturia Did you not pay for your retirement? I think you (boomer paid for your retirement) - The point would be that you still go ripped off b/c you'll get less than what you put in. And what I put in is just not even worth it at all and I'll get nothing back.
FavreianVengeance 2 months ago
@FavreianVengeance I will get far more than what I paid in, thanks to the younger voters..
anebturia 2 months ago
@anebturia So you didn't pay a crap load into the system in medicare before? My point is you are going to get less than what you paid for and younger people are going to get nothing.
FavreianVengeance 2 months ago
@FavreianVengeance All you need to be eligible for Medicare is to earn enough "credits." Both hubby and I earned enough. I earned enough within 5-6 years. It's not based on total amount of Medicare Tax paid, just work credits that are easy to meet. We get Medicare when we hit 65. How it will be paid is based on contributions (taxes) from the younger workers. To me, it's a scam. I didn't pay much at all.
anebturia 2 months ago
@anebturia Interesting - I think the problem is the rules are always changing. If a company ran medicare the way the govt runs medicare there'd be mass lawsuits and they'd be in chapter 11. I just want the govt out.
FavreianVengeance 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This is an excellent illustration of how DEBT ACCELERATES over time in the FRACTIONAL RESERVE PONZI SCHEME. This is a mathematical certainty in a system which requires ever more debt simply to keep functioning. The Presidents can only fiddle with the handbrake. The Central Banks are in the driving seat. The stable, neutral alternative is full reserve banking.
finnraft 2 months ago
Comment removed
finnraft 2 months ago
Where do these numbers come from? Who is keeping track of all this? How much is this group making off keeping track of the national debt?
gunforme 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Watch /watch?v=n4em7VeCHSs and /watch?v=7R4yEqdKYyM to make sure that you have not been brainwashed and have an accurate pitcture of things !!!!
ncollier1 2 months ago
I think your analysis is overly simplistic: debts were incurred during presidencies/congresses, but external conditions were also a factor, and you fail to discuss those at all. The current debt is driven by four factors: govt spending in response to the 2008 crisis, post 9/11 wars, Bush era tax cuts, and unfunded entitlements. However, this video has prompted me to do my own research to understand the problem better. Thank you.
9P9T6 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
How the American government is destroying the planet
Search For the series
"THE GREAT DISASTERS"
eliasmouawad 2 months ago in playlist eliasmouawad's favorites
Got a funny link for you all - about the debt situation: debtcock.com
-its a bit crude, but hilarious lol!
Check out the wall of shame to see what they've done with Berlusconi's headshot!
debtcock 2 months ago
cmon the national debt is almost 15 trillion, there is no possible way to stop the spending.
TheXxTanmanxX 2 months ago
@TheXxTanmanxX We're over 15 trillion now. A lot has happened since you posted the comment a week ago.
Robbie12992 2 months ago
I'd like to point something out. When the Great Depression hit, the "speed" increased by a factor of 8, from 5mph to 40mph. At the end of Bush's term / start of Obama's term, the "speed" went from 64mph to 174mph, increasing by a factor of about 2.7.
Furthermore, taxes on rich Americans went from about 25% to over 60% around 1930, but didn't go up in 2008. If you want to "slow down," you need more income.
That being said, I agree, Obama does need to balance the budget.
BrandonSchleifer 2 months ago
@BrandonSchleifer That's not how you run a biz! No responsible business resorts to raising costs on products they sell without first seeing if they can cut the budget/expenses. According to your logic, if a bakery has a water leak which is costing them a LOT of money, instead of fixing the leak they should let it bleed, but raise the cost of bread in order to offset the extra costs. That makes no sense, and I won't buy bread from that bakery as a result. The govt needs to fix the leaks!
vicardaniel 2 months ago
@vicardaniel You have no idea what I'm saying. This is about revenue verses debt, and stimulus verses recession. If the economy is bad, the government spends money to improve the economy, feed the hungry, make new jobs, etc., but if the government wants to pay for this, they need more income.
I'm all for "fixing the leaky pipe," but you need to spend money to do that! I'm simply pointing out that, if you want to pay for fixing the pipe instead of going into debt, you need to raise your prices.
BrandonSchleifer 2 months ago
Cut the military budget? problem solved? you realize that part of the "military budget" their wanting to cut is its education/retirement benefits/healthcare funding for the military right!? its not so simple. When you have a congress that spends more time talking about steriods in sports then you do about the iraq war, the national healthcare systems, the issues are alot deeper then that.
mrgrey54 2 months ago
ATTACKWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAATCH!
AesirV 2 months ago
Obonzi-ponzi is bleeding America dry.
eastariel 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A CHEER FOR JUSTICE
Put the money down!
Put it back on the ground.
It's flying like bat wings
into evil ponzi schemes.
Put it in the hands
of the ordinary man,
so we can buy our bread,
so we won't all be dead.
eastariel 2 months ago
Cut the Military Budget. Problem solved.
rickcain2320 2 months ago
@rickcain2320 Not entirely true. Cutting the military budget would help, but abolition of blood-draining entitlements and useless departments like Education and HUD would do this country a world of good.
Then we can start paying back all the debt and pain that Obama has brought.
hailholyghost 2 months ago
they just repeat the same bullshit about "spending" for 3 years, and all you knuckleheads fall in line without a single thought
ratty88 3 months ago
republicans in congress know that. Cato knows that. but they know conservatives are too busy (or lazy) to check.
ratty88 3 months ago
This video's fucking stupid, and whoever created it is either a moron, or a propagandist taking advantage of morons.
ratty88 3 months ago
again - 1.2 trillion of the 1.4 trillion dollar deficit in FY2009 was in place prior to Obama taking office. You are blaming him for bush's policies.
ratty88 3 months ago
Obama's spending? at this point its less than 50 billion a year. Stimulus is pretty much done. His spending is a tiny fraction of the amount you are blaming him for, as a result of your inability to understand how a budget works.
ratty88 3 months ago
Comment removed
ratty88 3 months ago
Selective information dissemination is dangerous. Let us step back and learn from history: Under FDR, unemployment from the Great Depression fell from 25% to 9%. What did he do to get us out of it? Increase government spending. New projects (such as the highway/freeway system every American here has benefited from), helped put Americans to work, and thus get money flowing in the economy again. Obama is doing much the same. W is still responsible for the vast majority of the current debt.
kaiphantom 3 months ago
Wow jon jon, you need to settle down - I don't know anybody that would bother to read your book of stupidity that you wrote on youtube, lmao.
ratty88 3 months ago
I don't think Obama is going to keep the pace he started with but he had to spend money to save jobs. Now he should be able to slow down and spend less. It's like your in the back seat of a car and the driver is unconscious and the car is headed for an avalanche but there is no way to avoid being hit except for jumping in the driver seat and hitting the gas to the floor and passing the avalanche unscathed. Of course after the danger is gone your not going to keep the pedal to the medal.
Rayormy 3 months ago
@JonJonesize are you having a rightwing nut stroke? lol
ratty88 3 months ago
Yeah, Democrats had fully control at one point.
vh8282 3 months ago
1) Wallstreet funding from 1989: bit. ly/ qGw5ln
2) rootstrikers
vh8282 3 months ago
@JonJonesize awww, sweetie did I hurt your feelings? Its for your own good that you get used to working with facts. I'm sorry it hurts.
ratty88 3 months ago
@JonJonesize you're full of right-wing bullshit. you don't even realize that out of context quote by pelosi was a jab at all the republican lies regarding health care.
you really don't know anything at all.
ratty88 3 months ago
@JonJonesize I didn't say that. I hope you enjoy your battle with the straw man you created. The reason we have the debt is primarily (80%) the recession and bush legislation. We need congress to cooperate, but we have the tea party to thank for this incompetent congress.
ratty88 3 months ago
@JonJonesize Jon Jon - this VIDEO blames Obama for every dime during his presidency, while only 20% is his spending. Its LYING.
ratty88 3 months ago
But as always, asking a conservative to do ANY research at all, after they've found a blog post supporting their preconceived notions is folly.
ratty88 3 months ago
And that one fifth that Obama spent? 3 million jobs. We'd be over 11% UE without it.
ratty88 3 months ago
@JonJonesize Jon, you need to try harder than that. CBO projected a 1.2 trillion dollar deficit before the stimulus and 1.4 after. An increase of 15% for FY 2009. The stimulus is 5.6% of our debt. Over the last 3 years, 21% of the deficit. One FIFTH. You morons are complaining about ONE-FIFTH of our deficit (obama's spending), while ignoring the 80%.
ratty88 3 months ago
@JonJonesize
cbsnews*com/8301-503544_162-20013452-503544*html
Shut up you idiot!
darliegoddess 3 months ago
It's YT screwing up the links cbsnewsDOTcom/8301-503544_162-20013452-503544DOThtml
More Americans think Obama, Not Bush, Enacted Bank Bailouts, Poll Shows
Superorchestra 3 months ago
"Nearly half of Americans incorrectly think President Obama started the the bank bailout program, otherwise known as the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), a new poll shows. Just 34 percent of Americans surveyed by the Pew Research Center correctly said that TARP was enacted by the Bush administration. Almost half -- 47 percent -- think Mr. Obama started the bank bailout, according to the survey, conducted July 1-5. There was no partisan divide on the issue. "
Superorchestra 3 months ago
@JonJonesize nope. the deficit is 10 years old. Clinton resolved the 300 billion dollar deficit he was given (1/4 the size of the deficit bush gave obama)
ratty88 3 months ago
loved it, keep em coming.. someones gotta wake these nitwits up! just keep smiling cause obama's the man! yea right the man to turn this country to more crap...ogh and u gotta love the billions were spending on libya, WITHOUT congressional approval Obama just blowing people up.
1UNSEENKID 3 months ago
@1UNSEENKID how many billions have we spent in libya? 2? Last I heard it was 1.
1/500th the cost of our dictator removal in iraq
ratty88 3 months ago
lmao!! were not done yet in libya...and to get congress approval before using military action like that is what makes obama a dictator... u think saddam needed approval to go to war or drop bombs? NO! did obama get approval from congress to drop bombs..no he just went and did it...like any dictator would.
1UNSEENKID 3 months ago
@1UNSEENKID the senate unanimously approved the no fly zone, cutie
ratty88 3 months ago
lmao ive read all your posts on here ratty88..your name should really be TROLLY88....
haha dont feed the troll!!!
1UNSEENKID 3 months ago
@1UNSEENKID some day, I'm going to meet a conservative that has the balls and the drive to take 5 minutes and prove his own shit wrong. until then, you morons will continue to vote against yourself based on lies.
ratty88 3 months ago
@1UNSEENKID cutie, if there's one thing you've made clear - you flunked economics.
ratty88 3 months ago
@1UNSEENKID HOW MANY BILLIONS, moron? are we up to 1/500th what we spent on dictator removal in Iraq?
ratty88 3 months ago
With 0 americans dead in libya - its worth complaining about?
ratty88 3 months ago
@JonJonesize and I HAVE read the budget, you dimwit. Its available freely online. You cons are fucking dumb, and refused to take any responsibility for your OWN ACTIONS.
We're still paying for 2001-2003, half-wit.
ratty88 3 months ago
Simplistic nonsense! Obamas debt IS BUSHS DEBT!
darliegoddess 3 months ago 2
@darliegoddess Then Bush should go down in history for being the first person to spend trillions of dollars, without even being office! You are joking right? You are probably on welfare, addicted to PCP and worship MSNBC hosts who have zero education between them.
Alias828 3 months ago
@Alias828 I make 2500 a week and have never taken unemployment or welfare in my life.
darliegoddess 3 months ago
@darliegoddess So anything that is simplistic is incorrect? Sounds like you're an idiot. You make 2500 atoms a week? You don't even know how to put currency next to the amount of money you make. So what if you make that? Crab fishermen make more. Keynes failed, why don't you get that? Probably for the same reason you dismiss anything that is simplistic is lesser, and you can't put currency next to the amount you make.
Economic Freedom 2012 (NO OBAMA)
Alias828 3 months ago
@Alias828 You are a moron.
Superorchestra 3 months ago 2
@Alias828 He dumbass , look up Fed gives banks 16 trillion. Did you grow up an asshole or just become one ?
Superorchestra 3 months ago
@Superorchestra he dumbass? I assume you meant hey*. I have no idea what point you are trying to make. The point I was making was, you can't blame Bush for piling on debt that he had NOTHING to do with. Monetary spending to boost the economy doesn't work. You are left with a few things 1) High Unemployment (CHECK), 2) MASSIVE Debt (CHECK), 3) Crowding out of private investment (CHECK) 4) MASSIVE corruption (CHECK), 5) INFLATION (CHECK), 6) Stagnation (CHECK) . Vote Economic Freedom 2012 (NO O)
Alias828 3 months ago
@Alias828 Obama's spending is 20% of the deficit during the last 3 years, created millions of jobs (11% ue without it) and brought in about 100 billion in tax revenue. The other 80% (meaning, the vast majority) is from 2001-2003 and the recessions under GWB. Just the facts.
ratty88 3 months ago
@ratty88 You're logic makes no sense. You can easily have full employment! Hire 1/2 the people unemployed to dig a hole, and the other 1/2 the fill it back up. You're statistics are so foolish! What about the 10's of millions of people out of work because of crowding out of private investment due to government spending??? The amount of loanable funds is reduced for the private market. The government does not create jobs that are productive, the free market does. See DPRK vs Sourth Korea.
Alias828 3 months ago
@Alias828 I'd love for you to prove this "crowding out of private investment", lol. You'd do well to stop trying to use that thing you call a mind and just read some legitimate economists.
ratty88 3 months ago
@ratty88 Ohh, Hayek isn't a legitimate economist? He is better than anyone you can cite. You have giving NO empirical information to support the other side. Your counter argument consists of nothing. It all add's up. You are very young, and very dumb.
Alias828 3 months ago