You're very intelligent, I can see that, but it might not hurt to put the brakes on your spoken words, you're going like 235 mph as you read your script.
You really bring up a good point; just how is it that there isn't enough money in the Social Security system to pay out all the checks? Sure, they probably came up short when the system first started, as all of a sudden there was this huge expense without any previous income intended to fund it, but over the years, the rate of population growth should have created a surplus of funding to support retirees. So how are we not able to afford to give our retirees their pension checks?
@Dowski2882 It's an easier answer than you would think, and one that actually should scare us. The government raids the funds for pet projects and such.
Hi my name is hugh and what you say is exactly right, I have worked on the books since I was 15 yrs old and I have paid into this system and now im 53 and disabled I have no quality medical insurance The doctors I see are Quacks and I tried to get my SS and all they can tell me is they need more info stalling the process and if you miss one appointment or don't do something right they Deny you and you have to start all over again. they hope you die before you collect . They are NAZIS
So, do I see that correct that the stimulus package (mostly taxcuts for people and companies) did not do anything positive for the economy, but that, based on republican rhetoric, in general taxcuts promote job growth? But if you are right that these short term tax cuts from the Obama stimulus are not helping, why not stop the Bush-tax cuts, too?
One thing we all know about American history, Wherever we land we don't leave. We got 3 bases in Iraq, we are still in Vietnam, and still in Korea, and still got a base in Japan. Wherever we land we don't leave. I thought this was the United States of America, Not the United Empire of Earth! You wanna cut spending close all them bases and cut foreign aid to all of the countries we support and we will save some Money
Social security is in part backed by Bonds yes but that's not an I.O.U no more than China using US bonds to build bridges is an I.O.U, they are fully funded and paid for.
You might as well claim all Bonds are useless if that's your argument.
And all "welfare" is paid for by everyone's taxes, if someone becomes poor their taxes are used to pay for their welfare as well.
That aside, stop dancing around the issue, we know you don't like social security but won't admit it
@sassypantz676 I do not like a system that uses coercion to compel people to pay money into it, with no guarantee that they will get that money back. I do not like Ponzi schemes, which is want social security is. How about that?
It's not coercion it's a social contract, if people come together and agree on resources, (police, defense etc.) you are benefiting off the resources so you pitch in via taxes.
You can convince the people to change their minds or leave. This applies even in stateless societies.
Social Security gives out 100% benefits until 2035, then it gives out 75% benefits for another 50 years, I don't see a ponzi scheme here and with some tinkering it could function for centuries.
@sassypantz676 Actually, according to Lockean principles, the social contract would not hold if government imposes social security. Have you read the Second Treatise? Furthermore, social security is no where to be found in our constitution which is the embodiment of the social contract in America. You are a fool, my friend.
Social contracts exist whether or not states exist and social security is a textbook example of that, the overwhelming majority of people agreed to social security and everyone benefits from it which is why everyone pays via taxes.
I don't remember "firefighters" to be in the constitution either.
The $700 billion stimulus was trying to fill an $8 trillion hole of course the economy has not recovered.
@sassypantz676 Which philosophical paradigm are you using to define "social contract"? I know of no philosopher who would support the idea that a contract exists without a state. Furthermore, there is such a thing as tyranny of the majority; hence there are protections and enumerated powers outline in the constitution. Lastly, the federal government does not supply firefighters. That is a power delegated to the states, which in turn, the state gives to the municipalities.
For any of the stimulus deniers out there look at "Did the stimulus work? A review of the nine best studies on the subject." The studies show the stimulus did work and one showed that in 50 states, the ones that got the most stimulus had the best results.
The reason why that chart shows that (which the studies look at) is because the Obama administration underestimated how bad the recession was and if you push the charts up they would match all the studies.
@sassypantz676 The so called stimulus was/is an abysmal failure; Obama has no understanding of the real world let alone real life economics. The social democratic European model that he loves has been a total failure; he lives in an abstract Keynesian bubble and he will ultimately destroy this country if he is allowed to continue - many say that is his underlying goal
The Stimulus did reduce unemployment by a couple million but your right, it's hard to fill an $8 trillion hole with $700 billion.
Europe has lower unemployment and vastly lower poverty than the US and there's no correlation between welfare states and debt crises, the biggest welfare states like Sweden and Switzerland are doing fine.
If anything Europe is doing better and the Stimulus still helped make things not as bad.
@sassypantz676 You really are an idiot The unemployment rate in most countries in Europe is over 20% i.e Greece , U.K. , Italy , Spain, Portugal, Ireland, France, etc. Sweden and Switzerland arte TINY countries compared to the rest . gGet your facts strAight . That's in part why there is an
ECONOMIC CRISIS in Europe . Don't you read the news?!!
The FICA tax funds the checks sent to those who collect SS with the surplus going to the OASDI Trust. No expense accounts. Money is invested in safe treasuries.
I never understood why people wanted to tax the rich more. What do we get out of it? It goes from the rich, who don't do what *We* want with it, to the govt who still doesn't do what *We* want with it.
When are You going to debunk this idea that the administration has about a intellectual property economy being more profitable than an industrial economy. I'd like to see something on newer Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors over Coal and Green Energy as well if it's something You'd be willing to do.
Anybody see the MSNBC commercial with Rachel Maddow saying 'social security works, it's not a ponzi sceme and how despite the economy the elderly are doing ok? funny how she forgot to mention it's the youth that are supposed to be putting into that right now, you know all the unemployed youth?
So,, the question is, was the stimulus a big mistake on Obama's part or a calculated move with an alternative motive behind it? Is Obama stupid, or does he mean to screw us up?
@CommunistCritic, that is a laughable theory. Under communism, everyone is a slave to the big government elite. At least with Capitalism, people have the ability to work to earn their own share.
Of course it's everyone's right to save instead of investing, and no one's right to force him to do what's best for himself. And the government can hardly be trusted to make wise investments, given that they're not spending their own money, and most of a politician's activities can be split between buying votes and buying campaign funding. And class warfare is something that will continue to escalate until someone signs a peace treaty. But both sides desire conquest.
It's pretty simple by the sounds of it. Keynsian economics dictates that saving is detrimental to the economy, so they tax away what would otherwise be personal savings accounts for retirement, "invest" it on everyone's behalf, and then return it at retirement age. Then of course there's wealth redistribution involved, because when is there not? Everyone's so sick of the government taking from them and giving to someone else, so they demand it needs to take more from others and give to them.
Lee can't be taken seriously anymore. He just keeps giving Republican talking points. He's pretty much lying through his teeth. Also did you see that stupid graph he gave. The recovery would have been better if there was no stimulus. That is absolutely absurd. Lee works for a right wing think tank. It's his job to spread right wing talking points.
@issagc Uhm.. the data for that stupid graph comes from the administration's predictions and the actual unemployment numbers. It was not invented by some "right wing think tank". Get yer head out of yer butt dude.
@CommunistCritic You are basically a slave owner when you receive Welfare. People who work are paying for your work less lifestyle. It is unfair and disgusting.
@Politico37 I know very close friends who collect welfare and work 40+ hours a week at minimum wage jobs. Is this unfair and disgusting to you? Is there a person in the world who makes their money with no help from anyone? Do they not drive on public roads? Protected by Public Police, and Firefighters, go to Public Hospitals, pay into Social Security and Medicare, use student subsidized loans, send their kids to public schools. Where are the isolationists you speak of?
@CommunistCritic It is not a matter of isolationism. It is a matter of independence within society, if I may put it a bit strangely, meaning earning all that you get other people to give you by making it in their rational self interest to give it to you. The only way this is done is by a two sided exchange. However the matter of charity is special, where it may be in his interest to give you something for nothing, but that does not mean that you earned it. As to welfare? It is an act of force.
@eggory And private property is not an act of force? I own this, you do not, if you try to take it you die. It does not matter how much I use it, if ever, I can speculate it, destroy it, or whatever, if you try to use it you die. That is real coercion the accumulation of the means of production which is held over the workers head. Self-reliance, indepndance, etc. are all made up by the bourgeois, they don't want the proletariat to unite or cooperate they want us to compete and forever be slaves
Well what do you want bad economics is politically correct, safety nets only gives relevance to government and makes no sense in the long term unless you want to settle for less in life and say this is all we as a people are capable of. The government does a piss poor job of creating actual prosperity and it always will. For once it would be nice to hear an actual solution or end goal of government's master plan instead of your lot sucks in life because of someone else. Very productive thinking.
@gshooting Here you fucking little establishment troll. Picking all your information from the Hawkish Faux propaganda station. Needs an antagonist to make you feel better about yourself as you play Xbox and mommy is watching Faux. You are a disgrace, you and your family should have your citizenship rescinded and sent to Iraq to fight instead of all the soldiers who all want Ron Paul as their president.
Since Social Scurity's inception the Congress of the United States of America has been taking endless amounts of money from Social Security, so far leaving American Citizens with:
$36 trillion in IOUs
If they had done what they said they were going to do with that money, we would be out of debt, and have a HUGE surplus for Social Security.
PINK Slips for everyone in Congress. Mandatory Term Limits for any elected office.
Great video, Merry Christmas and a Happy, Healthy, Prosperous New Year!
I like the idea of Social Security for the elderly, as they are no longer in a position (or at least a very plausible one) to continue working, and thus deserve a source of income through Social Security.
Not to say that this is a particularly efficient system, but yes I believe we should have it. It might literally be the only idea that Libertarians and myself would disagree upon.
@ChuckMcChip Social Security was first set up when far fewer people reached the age to collect. It was more or less supposed to guarantee some income for old people that outlived their savings and were to old to work(elderly safety net) Now it is viewed as a retirement plan & people end up not planning or under planning for retirement. Most people reach 65 still fully capable of working nowadays. This is far from what SS was originally intended for.Like any gov program, it got twisted & abused.
@ChuckMcChip I am ok with a safety net for those that can't work at all but have a problem with perfectly healthy people collecting gov money. People that have been working for yrs have been paying in with the promise of SS at 65 so that complicates things but getting back to the original spirit of SS just being a safety net for the elderly & not a retirement plan would be a good thing.
One of the most obviously flawed arguments about social security is that it's "insurance". This lie has been exposed for over 50 years, since Flemming V Nestor in 1960.
@stazandjeve Margaret Thatcher made that statement about socialism. And one day it will come true unless, we elect Ron Paul for president and a whole lot of real conservatives to congress.
LEX: Correct me if I'm wrong, but Ron Paul is the only candidate for President who doesn't want to reform the United Nations, he wants to end it and send it away from these United States. I mention this because Lee mentioned it in the vid, the U.N. is worthless. Another reason to pull the lever for Ron.
WILL: I never said RP was a conservative, point out where I did. He's certainly more of a Libertarian. In addition, if one takes a gander at Article I Section VIII, the Const. doesn't condone standing armies into perpetuity, the Founders did this because it's more likely then, that people will go to war for good and bad reasons. Nice try though.
@UTubekookdetector Ron Paul says he is a conservative. If Ron Paul is not a conservative, rather, a libertarian, then why not run as a libertarian. We do not need a Neville Chamberlain we need a conservative.
He is a registered republican... And Yes he is a Libertarian, hes running republican so he could actually get a chance to win. The way its looking with the media blackouts on him, he can still win, it will be harder, that's it.
You ever watch his videos? Your relying on me to talk to you about him. Why dont you go watch all of his videos and make an honest opinion on him. You do that, then people will take you seriously. Also, i never said he was conservative. i said republican. Not all republicans are conservative. you got libertarian ones as well.
@TheDuvalMilitia I have watched Paul's videos. I have heard him speak. I have read some of his writings. He states he is a conservative, he is not a conservative. I will not vote for him. Plus, he loves earmarks, yet he claims not to. He is not an honest person.
WILL: Beautifully-executed generalization little man. Read Article I Section VIII, you tell me if the Const. condones standing armies perpetually. The answer is no. Next...
@UTubekookdetector "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;" Article 1 sec 8
@UTubekookdetector Although the money can only be apportioned for two years at a time, the constitution does not condemn having the armies standing for longer than that. They simply cannot be financed indefinitely with no further congressional debate. The founders actions agree with what is written in the constitution. Stop generalizing, and read the constitution for yourself.
WILL: It certainly does NOT condone troops in 130+ countries (didn't someone say something about "entangling alliances"?). If we are legitimately invaded, we can raise up an Army (although there probably wouldn't be time for that) or our National Guard can take care of it. The Navy is a diff. story, it's supposed to be maintained perpetually, we have the most powerful Navy in the world. The militia is not the same as the Army.
@UTubekookdetector That is not what we were arguing. We were not arguing the constitutionality of having troops in other countries, although that is not unconstitutional either. Looking back at the founders, one will see that they oftentimes had naval troops in other places. They also had standing armies at various points during the Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison administrations. It is constitutional to have a standing army.I wonder if you have read the document.
WILL: I do believe I did bring up the constitutionality of troops in other countries several times. The Founders warned us against "entangling alliances" & if appropriations for a standing Army are only supposed to be for 2 years, then it would be pretty difficult to maintain troops in 130+ countries. You brought up the Navy, I was referring to the Army. Apples-to-oranges. Any invasion of the U.S. can be repelled by the state militias. I don't think you've read the Const.
WILL: In addition, if the U.S. is to have troops in other countries, it should be only when the national security of this country is in danger and would require a declaration of war by Congress. Even you can understand that.
@UTubekookdetector This conversation has become monotonous. I gave you the lines in the constitution that stated we can have a standing Army and Navy. The founders supported a robust defense and made alliances, look it up. The founders sent troops to quasi-wars with foreign forces and had them fighting outside the country. All of this is constitutional.
WILL: I distinguished between the Navy's duties and the Army's. Appropriations for a standing Army are only to be for 2 years, period. This was supposed to keep the US from becoming the globe's policeman. We have militias and the Navy (which appropriations are continuous) to repel enemy attacks. Pointing out the Founders made alliances and then using that to condone troops in 130 countries is disingenous. It's also fallacious to use abuses of the Const. to condone further abuses of the Const
@UTubekookdetector Read the constitution. Appropriations, for a standing army, can be made every two years. The the funds can constitutionally be re-appropriated. I know this is a hard concept for you because it interferes with your RP worship. Take a minute, read, then come back. Stop trying to create Red Herrings and Straw men and try to address the argument.
WILL: You seem frustrated. I think you're trying to utilize some ambiguous language. If they wanted approps. to be perpetual, why mention the 2-year time frame. Did they waste all that ink just to say they wanted Defense approps. to be passed every other year? "but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years." You've also avoided my point--how can the US have troops in 130 countries with no declaration of war? RP worship? Are you trying segue again?
The UN doesnt care about humanity, they care about building up countries so they can watch em fall, I believe the UN is parasitic and a cancer on countries that perform well so the ones that dont get hand outs, its globalized BS. I could say ALOT more but just read what they put out, it's outrageous.
People who actualy believe their is an SS account with their name on it are morons. All this pay roll tax holiday does is reduce the ammount of money going in SS. But people are too stupid to see that. All for a whopping 20 or 40 bucks. How did people afford family pizza night before the pay roll tax holiday?
the funny thing about arguing that the rich should pay their fair share, in regards to social security, is that after adjusting for inflation, those who make in excess of about 100k - at the age of retirement - receive about 80 cents for every dollar they paid in, i believe. those making about 50k/yr at retirement break even. and those making about 10k/yr receive nearly 3 times what they paid into the system.
I'd like to thank you for providing links to all your images
It's given me SO much more validity with others, since they always think I'm going extreme
Once, i argued with friend that there's been more money in education from before yet it's going downhill because it operates almost as a gov subsidy. He honestly laughed me off for saying an "oxymoron". Then I emailed him a graph you provided about money spent vs graduation rates for the past 30 years.
don't forget about the sanctions that are imposed by the UN on N. Korea also lead to people starving. ;-) Look how many hundreds of thousands of people that died in Iraq during the 90's due to sanctions.
HowTheWorldWorks, why aren't you supporting Ron Paul? You like free market economics, you know that it does not work with the concept of wars and imperialism, because you have to borrow the money and print it to pay for the cost. All Austrian economists argued that precisely. You're an Austrian school thinker and a neocon? How do you square that circle?!
@Otzmatron He's never said he's an Austrian, just that he's studied both the Austrian and Monetarist schools of thought. He's no neocon and I predict that he won't support Ron Paul because he doesn't see Iran as a threat. I'm thinking he'll probably vote for Perry or Hunstman.You think Thomas Sowell would support Ron Paul?
@Otzmatron It's an empty honour. Krugman is also a "nobel prize winning" economist. So what? Friedman's monetary economics was atrocious. He was as much as deflation-phobe as any keynesian economist. He also helped inaugurate measures like tax-withholding. He is equally terrible on epistemology, resorting to advocating crude positivism for economics. He made some brilliant arguments on certain policy issues but his monetary economics continues to deflect many libertarians from -
@Moragauth - focusing on the crucuail issue of credit expansion and its effects on the economy. He even admitted he was wrong on the gold standard near his death. As a libertarian he was amazing. As an economist, there are far better.
@Moragauth 'He was as much as deflation-phobe as any keynesian economist'
He renounced that later on, said the Federal Reserve should be dissolved.
'He even admitted he was wrong on the gold standard near his death.'
Well there you go. He gave the best arguments for capitalism against any other economic system. Listen to interviews with Hayek or read anything by Mises, it's insipid and monochromatic. His arguments are superior.
@Otzmatron The important part here is that the system does not work as long as the government is spread wide around the world and spends trillions of dollars on militarism expenditure which forces them to borrow and print money, and the citizenry to pay both higher taxes and the inflation tax. Being subscribed to Lee and being a neocon simultaneously is a paradox. If you want war, you need the Fed, you need big government. So the neocons here, reconsider Ron Paul.
@Otzmatron The combined welfare bill paid for by debt exceeds military spending. Add in the unfunded liabilities to government pensions and the proportion of welfare vs military spending grows even further. The military cuts of the Clinton government were permanent, the spending on the Iraq war was temporary. Obviously military spending has limits and should be minimised where possible, but it is not the largest cost issue facing your country.
@Siegetower It doesn't matter, if you don't get rid of the debt completely, you cannot begin afresh with laissez-faire economics. Both military and welfare should be liquidated and a new currency that is either gold or silver or simply debt free (like Lincoln printed after the war) should be established. Liberals want welfare, neocons want war, neither can have these exotic luxuries.
@Otzmatron Friedman had the vast advantage that English was his mother language. You are arguing for presentation over substance. Hayek and Mises also both had far superior arguments to him, and as far as Mises's writing goes, I'd say it is of a superior quality to Friedman's as it clearly showed he was a master of several fields of knowledge. It's to his credit that he renounced his prior positions, but his arguments were hardly superior. The two Austrians had a much better -
@Moragauth - understanding of monetary economics than he couldve hoped for. I'm not sayjng Friedman was a poor scholar but that it takes an astounding amount of ignorance these days for a libertarian to still cling to his economics particularly with respect to monetary policy.
@Moragauth Fair enough. Just vote Ron Paul if you truly care about these ideas, Romney and Gingrich will give you more big government and endless regulations just like Bush.
@Otzmatron I can't vote but I support Ron Paul. I hope Lee does too. I think in part it is because he doesn't comprehend the full effects of the Fed that he doesn't. Most other GOP candidates have not even been aware of the massive threat it poses. While I respect Friedman, this is in part because they've bought into the notion that the fed is needed to manage the economy. In truth it's as bad as any other federal agency, if not far worse a makes deficit financing possible.
@Otzmatron A country with a leader who says death to Zionism, death/down (really doesn't matter which one, they're both bad) to Isreal, who is a 9/11 truther, a Holocaust-denier, with a bunch of Ayotollahs surrounding him who want to create world-wide chaos to bring the 12th Imam, is not a threat? If you truly believe that, I'm sorry, but you're a nut.
Perry is the only real conservative with a chance. Yes, I know he sucks at debates. Huntsman has a better chance than Paul.
@Otzmatron Thomas Sowell would never vote for Ron Paul, because he would think it would be extremely dangerous for America to let Iran have nukes. Look at one of his videos on the HooverInstitution's YT channel. I think it's called Dismantling America. He talks about Iran at the end.
i support the payroll tax cut. the argument against it is that the money should be going to social security and the payroll tax would cheat the retirees, but the money isn't going into social security. so it is a matter of allowing people to keep their money or have it wasted on non-social security programs.
Unbelievable! We have way too many far- left Liberals in positions of power.
This is pretty much the Obama doctrine. Kneel at the feet of dictators, and appease enemies of liberty worldwide. Our generation is nothing, compared to one's that aided Europe in their Great War struggle and defeated Hitler and Tojo in WW2.
So, in conclusion, the workings of the Modern Monetary System clearly stipulate that taxes MUST decline during a recession, spending MUST rise, and FEDERAL DEFICITS must rise as well, if the private sector is to be restored to an expansion of output. The economy's current woes could be ascribed to (a) spending on the wrong things (not enough infrastructure repair) and (b) persistent calls for higher taxation, which put a damper on future expectations. Email me via YouTube w/ any questions.
The ideal set of economic circumstances would be the expansion of GDP (rising production) that is greater than the growth in government spending. Oddly enough a balanced budget is neither necessary nor desirable - there is a 100% correlation between Federal Surpluses and economic downturns - this is because Federal surpluses are the same as a private sector deficits. The private sector NEEDS a surplus, to pay for private-sector expansion.
Which is not to say that 'deficits don't matter' > they do. Federal deficits are a symptom of spending and a measure of the health of the private sector. When the deficit rises during an economic downturn, this is an addition of liquidity to the economy. When deficits are rising it tells owners of dollars that future taxes are likely going up, and therefore it is sensible to hoard them now. When the deficit is declining, it is usually due to an expanding economy.
I wish more conservatives focused on the issues that matter like you. It seems like most conservatives in the mainstream media just try to delude people by spinning social issues in their favor. Your channel is truly refreshing. Thank you.
When the US Government spends more than it taxes (or, creates more currency than it retires) the Treasury will issue fixed income instruments to absorb that excess liquidity. When people use the phrase 'Federal Deficit' they are also talking about the 'Private Sector Surplus' which amounts to savings. Debt for the US Government does not 'matter' in the same way that debt does for a household or a business.
The implications of this (which I believe is known as Modern Monetary Theory, or MMT) is that it is operationally (though not completely) impossible for the US Government to run out of money. Payroll taxes (or any other taxes for that matter) can go to ZERO and stay there; Social Security checks will still go out, as will payments to doctors for Medicare and Medicaid. The inflationary implications of this make taxation necessary, as it maintains a balance to the monetary base.
If this is not entirely clear, it is important to avoid looking at the US Federal Government as a household (which has to EARN before it can SPEND). The Federal Government, via the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve issue currency (and enforce its usage) via spending. Those same institutions delete currency from existence via taxation; the objective is to keep the monetary base consistent w/ needs for growth, as well as its use as a medium of exchange
the majority of economist say that the stimulus did help unemployment. thank god we have a genius like you to educate us and protect us from the economists and their evil ivy league degrees
Taxation, on the other hand. removes dollars from existence. Not just the paper dollars in your wallet but the dollars in the banking system. This is how the monetary system works. Taxes do not pay for anything; they only serve to remove dollars from the system to balance against dollars that are created via spending.
Lee, I always view your YouTube postings, and you are generally on target. There is one important detail to keep in mind. Whenever the government spends money, it creates it out of thin air. There is NO operational need to collect taxes so that the government can spend. Spending precedes taxation. This is how the government provides liquidity to the economy.
yes.. govt jobs lead to nothing but an account emptied, and worse our search for the green economy is taking talent from real innovation. The length of a economic depression/recession is directly proportional to the amount out govt intervention to shorten it..
Free markets and Austrian economics do not work without the abolition of war and imperialism. You seem a bit hawkish about Iran and other countries. Support Ron Paul if you have your wits about you.
@gshooting Pakistan has nuclear weapons, they've harbored Bin Laden, why not go after them? Stop watching Faux news. Before the dollar is completely worthless and you won't be able to afford watching cable news anymore. HowTheWorldWorks advocates free market economics, it does not work if you start wars, because in order to fight these wars the government has to print the money (like they did in the civil war, removed the gold standard).
@Otzmatron Pakistan don't have a theocracy with a complete lunatic for a leader vowing to wipe Israel of the face of the earth. That's why America isn't going after them.
And for goodness sake, would you liberals/fanatical Paulbot stop saying I should stop watching "Faux News"? These are reported facts on every major news channel, not just Fox. What would you have me do? Watch MSLSD? Sometimes war is neccessary. Sometimes, you can't just bury your head in the sand.
@gshooting 'Pakistan don't have a theocracy with a complete lunatic for a leader vowing to wipe Israel of the face of the earth.'
Watch interviews of Ahmedinajad with CNN, the media in America needs an antagonist to start another war (which Ameica can't afford), you're sadly misinformed.
'"Faux News"?'
Stay here on YouTube, stay away from the MSM. They're full of shit.
'Sometimes war is neccessary'
It isn't necessary with Iran amidst a financial crisis. We're broke.
@Otzmatron Ahmedinajad is a nut. Nothing tells me otherwise. YouTube is not a place for credible and verified information. The "MSM" are. IRAN CANNOT GET NUKES.
@gshooting I guess you never heard there speeches on Iran they want genocide in Israel and America yeah we should give are enemy a device that can do that.
Hey Lee! When are you going to tell us that you're not going to vote for Ron Paul because he's a conspiracy kook, blame America firster, anti-Semitic, racist bigot who's best buddies with Ahmnehimnijad? Which war-mongering neocon are you going to vote for Lee? Look forward to your answer! :D
@gshooting I think Lee realizes a lot of those idiots hate Dr. Paul thanks to the big government neocon stooges like Limbaugh and not so stupid, but kinda crazy Beck.
What gets me about Social Security taxes (aka FICA) is that it is one of the most REGRESSIVE tax systems in America. More significantly, it is one that poor people pay more than the wealthy in terms of proportion to their income.
I'm not saying I support income taxes either (I think the idea is stupid), but if you want to see a "tax the poor" system, look no further than Social Security and how it is funded. For myself, I would only hope that FICA as a tax is completely eliminated.
This goes not only to this heartless man but to every republican in the world. You guys are like that complaining kid crying cause his dad did not get him a benz just a volvo for christmas. PAY TAXES, even if you think their high!
@eef5510 1% Pay for in taxes 70% and then you want more guess what even if you want to take all the money the rich make you still can not pay for are debt. 45 % I think don't pay taxes because they either don't have jobs or that they work so little in there job.
You can say one good thing about Il. He was great at looking at things.
thewakkydude 3 weeks ago
You're very intelligent, I can see that, but it might not hurt to put the brakes on your spoken words, you're going like 235 mph as you read your script.
cashin1243 1 month ago
@sirtorment I would argue that we don't need any of those things.
TheDerpable 1 month ago
You really bring up a good point; just how is it that there isn't enough money in the Social Security system to pay out all the checks? Sure, they probably came up short when the system first started, as all of a sudden there was this huge expense without any previous income intended to fund it, but over the years, the rate of population growth should have created a surplus of funding to support retirees. So how are we not able to afford to give our retirees their pension checks?
Dowski2882 1 month ago
@Dowski2882 It's an easier answer than you would think, and one that actually should scare us. The government raids the funds for pet projects and such.
KittenKoder 1 month ago
Hi my name is hugh and what you say is exactly right, I have worked on the books since I was 15 yrs old and I have paid into this system and now im 53 and disabled I have no quality medical insurance The doctors I see are Quacks and I tried to get my SS and all they can tell me is they need more info stalling the process and if you miss one appointment or don't do something right they Deny you and you have to start all over again. they hope you die before you collect . They are NAZIS
Hugh983 1 month ago
So, do I see that correct that the stimulus package (mostly taxcuts for people and companies) did not do anything positive for the economy, but that, based on republican rhetoric, in general taxcuts promote job growth? But if you are right that these short term tax cuts from the Obama stimulus are not helping, why not stop the Bush-tax cuts, too?
usertripppleA 1 month ago
@usertripppleA Which taxes has Obama cut?
willden15 1 month ago
We as Americans, created 1.5 million jobs this year
jonnygotz2343 1 month ago
One thing we all know about American history, Wherever we land we don't leave. We got 3 bases in Iraq, we are still in Vietnam, and still in Korea, and still got a base in Japan. Wherever we land we don't leave. I thought this was the United States of America, Not the United Empire of Earth! You wanna cut spending close all them bases and cut foreign aid to all of the countries we support and we will save some Money
jonnygotz2343 1 month ago
On Social Security:
Social security is in part backed by Bonds yes but that's not an I.O.U no more than China using US bonds to build bridges is an I.O.U, they are fully funded and paid for.
You might as well claim all Bonds are useless if that's your argument.
And all "welfare" is paid for by everyone's taxes, if someone becomes poor their taxes are used to pay for their welfare as well.
That aside, stop dancing around the issue, we know you don't like social security but won't admit it
sassypantz676 1 month ago
@sassypantz676 I do not like a system that uses coercion to compel people to pay money into it, with no guarantee that they will get that money back. I do not like Ponzi schemes, which is want social security is. How about that?
willden15 1 month ago
@willden15
It's not coercion it's a social contract, if people come together and agree on resources, (police, defense etc.) you are benefiting off the resources so you pitch in via taxes.
You can convince the people to change their minds or leave. This applies even in stateless societies.
Social Security gives out 100% benefits until 2035, then it gives out 75% benefits for another 50 years, I don't see a ponzi scheme here and with some tinkering it could function for centuries.
sassypantz676 1 month ago
@sassypantz676 Actually, according to Lockean principles, the social contract would not hold if government imposes social security. Have you read the Second Treatise? Furthermore, social security is no where to be found in our constitution which is the embodiment of the social contract in America. You are a fool, my friend.
willden15 1 month ago
@willden15
Social contracts exist whether or not states exist and social security is a textbook example of that, the overwhelming majority of people agreed to social security and everyone benefits from it which is why everyone pays via taxes.
I don't remember "firefighters" to be in the constitution either.
The $700 billion stimulus was trying to fill an $8 trillion hole of course the economy has not recovered.
sassypantz676 1 month ago
@sassypantz676 Which philosophical paradigm are you using to define "social contract"? I know of no philosopher who would support the idea that a contract exists without a state. Furthermore, there is such a thing as tyranny of the majority; hence there are protections and enumerated powers outline in the constitution. Lastly, the federal government does not supply firefighters. That is a power delegated to the states, which in turn, the state gives to the municipalities.
willden15 1 month ago
For any of the stimulus deniers out there look at "Did the stimulus work? A review of the nine best studies on the subject." The studies show the stimulus did work and one showed that in 50 states, the ones that got the most stimulus had the best results.
The reason why that chart shows that (which the studies look at) is because the Obama administration underestimated how bad the recession was and if you push the charts up they would match all the studies.
sassypantz676 1 month ago
@sassypantz676 bullshit. Go suck Obama's dick you idiot. Big government is the problem, not the answer
biggerturtle 1 month ago 3
@biggerturtle
Wanna actually argue anything I said or keeping acting like a retard?
sassypantz676 1 month ago
@sassypantz676 The so called stimulus was/is an abysmal failure; Obama has no understanding of the real world let alone real life economics. The social democratic European model that he loves has been a total failure; he lives in an abstract Keynesian bubble and he will ultimately destroy this country if he is allowed to continue - many say that is his underlying goal
biggerturtle 1 month ago
@biggerturtle
The Stimulus did reduce unemployment by a couple million but your right, it's hard to fill an $8 trillion hole with $700 billion.
Europe has lower unemployment and vastly lower poverty than the US and there's no correlation between welfare states and debt crises, the biggest welfare states like Sweden and Switzerland are doing fine.
If anything Europe is doing better and the Stimulus still helped make things not as bad.
sassypantz676 1 month ago
@sassypantz676 You really are an idiot The unemployment rate in most countries in Europe is over 20% i.e Greece , U.K. , Italy , Spain, Portugal, Ireland, France, etc. Sweden and Switzerland arte TINY countries compared to the rest . gGet your facts strAight . That's in part why there is an
ECONOMIC CRISIS in Europe . Don't you read the news?!!
biggerturtle 1 month ago
@biggerturtle
Acclamatar 1 month ago
@sassypantz676 Yeah the stimulus worked really well! Look at how great the economy is today! Life is wonderful. You are a fool.
willden15 1 month ago
The FICA tax funds the checks sent to those who collect SS with the surplus going to the OASDI Trust. No expense accounts. Money is invested in safe treasuries.
sinecurve9999 1 month ago in playlist More videos from HowTheWorldWorks
You have to talk a bit slower …. I can't catch everything you are saying some of the time. I do like you messages though.
CaptainPisshard1 1 month ago
It's called respect for the dead osama bin laden recieved the same care after he was shot.
Acclamatar 1 month ago
Your the man Lee. keep it going. Happy new year
abbasjafiya21 1 month ago
I never understood why people wanted to tax the rich more. What do we get out of it? It goes from the rich, who don't do what *We* want with it, to the govt who still doesn't do what *We* want with it.
PsychologicalCynic 1 month ago
When are You going to debunk this idea that the administration has about a intellectual property economy being more profitable than an industrial economy. I'd like to see something on newer Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors over Coal and Green Energy as well if it's something You'd be willing to do.
TheAetherspeak 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
sensational lying :)
AnthroBiologist 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Anybody see the MSNBC commercial with Rachel Maddow saying 'social security works, it's not a ponzi sceme and how despite the economy the elderly are doing ok? funny how she forgot to mention it's the youth that are supposed to be putting into that right now, you know all the unemployed youth?
weseyedwalk 1 month ago
So,, the question is, was the stimulus a big mistake on Obama's part or a calculated move with an alternative motive behind it? Is Obama stupid, or does he mean to screw us up?
weseyedwalk 1 month ago
Keynesians like Paul Krugman have said from the start that the stimulus needed to be MUCH larger if it was to be truly effective!
asphyxiafeeling 1 month ago
@asphyxiafeeling yes because what we need is more debt...
PatriotNotGovernment 1 month ago
Oh, not to mention, you are protected from overly coercive government.
culdesachero 1 month ago
@CommunistCritic, that is a laughable theory. Under communism, everyone is a slave to the big government elite. At least with Capitalism, people have the ability to work to earn their own share.
culdesachero 1 month ago
Of course it's everyone's right to save instead of investing, and no one's right to force him to do what's best for himself. And the government can hardly be trusted to make wise investments, given that they're not spending their own money, and most of a politician's activities can be split between buying votes and buying campaign funding. And class warfare is something that will continue to escalate until someone signs a peace treaty. But both sides desire conquest.
eggory 1 month ago
It's pretty simple by the sounds of it. Keynsian economics dictates that saving is detrimental to the economy, so they tax away what would otherwise be personal savings accounts for retirement, "invest" it on everyone's behalf, and then return it at retirement age. Then of course there's wealth redistribution involved, because when is there not? Everyone's so sick of the government taking from them and giving to someone else, so they demand it needs to take more from others and give to them.
eggory 1 month ago
Lee can't be taken seriously anymore. He just keeps giving Republican talking points. He's pretty much lying through his teeth. Also did you see that stupid graph he gave. The recovery would have been better if there was no stimulus. That is absolutely absurd. Lee works for a right wing think tank. It's his job to spread right wing talking points.
issagc 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@issagc yeah those graph and FACTS don't matter...
PatriotNotGovernment 1 month ago
@issagc Uhm.. the data for that stupid graph comes from the administration's predictions and the actual unemployment numbers. It was not invented by some "right wing think tank". Get yer head out of yer butt dude.
sm3llyc4t 1 month ago
What is bad with wanting welfare?
CommunistCritic 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@CommunistCritic You are basically a slave owner when you receive Welfare. People who work are paying for your work less lifestyle. It is unfair and disgusting.
Politico37 1 month ago
@Politico37 I know very close friends who collect welfare and work 40+ hours a week at minimum wage jobs. Is this unfair and disgusting to you? Is there a person in the world who makes their money with no help from anyone? Do they not drive on public roads? Protected by Public Police, and Firefighters, go to Public Hospitals, pay into Social Security and Medicare, use student subsidized loans, send their kids to public schools. Where are the isolationists you speak of?
CommunistCritic 1 month ago
@CommunistCritic It is not a matter of isolationism. It is a matter of independence within society, if I may put it a bit strangely, meaning earning all that you get other people to give you by making it in their rational self interest to give it to you. The only way this is done is by a two sided exchange. However the matter of charity is special, where it may be in his interest to give you something for nothing, but that does not mean that you earned it. As to welfare? It is an act of force.
eggory 1 month ago
@eggory And private property is not an act of force? I own this, you do not, if you try to take it you die. It does not matter how much I use it, if ever, I can speculate it, destroy it, or whatever, if you try to use it you die. That is real coercion the accumulation of the means of production which is held over the workers head. Self-reliance, indepndance, etc. are all made up by the bourgeois, they don't want the proletariat to unite or cooperate they want us to compete and forever be slaves
CommunistCritic 1 month ago
@CommunistCritic Communists. Because 100 million dead just isn't enough.
Atreus21 1 month ago
@Atreus21 Of course, that is what really happened. Believe everything you hear and see on TV from the Capitalist media.
CommunistCritic 1 month ago
@CommunistCritic
Because the communists dont lie... smh...
TheDuvalMilitia 1 month ago
You don't take into account, that North Korea is in total trade embargo. How do you expect them to expand their economy?
D3adtrap 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Well what do you want bad economics is politically correct, safety nets only gives relevance to government and makes no sense in the long term unless you want to settle for less in life and say this is all we as a people are capable of. The government does a piss poor job of creating actual prosperity and it always will. For once it would be nice to hear an actual solution or end goal of government's master plan instead of your lot sucks in life because of someone else. Very productive thinking.
LokiScoutSniper 1 month ago
@gshooting Here you fucking little establishment troll. Picking all your information from the Hawkish Faux propaganda station. Needs an antagonist to make you feel better about yourself as you play Xbox and mommy is watching Faux. You are a disgrace, you and your family should have your citizenship rescinded and sent to Iraq to fight instead of all the soldiers who all want Ron Paul as their president.
watch?v=XKfuS6gfxPY
Otzmatron 1 month ago
Since Social Scurity's inception the Congress of the United States of America has been taking endless amounts of money from Social Security, so far leaving American Citizens with:
$36 trillion in IOUs
If they had done what they said they were going to do with that money, we would be out of debt, and have a HUGE surplus for Social Security.
PINK Slips for everyone in Congress. Mandatory Term Limits for any elected office.
Great video, Merry Christmas and a Happy, Healthy, Prosperous New Year!
scifiak 1 month ago
I like the idea of Social Security for the elderly, as they are no longer in a position (or at least a very plausible one) to continue working, and thus deserve a source of income through Social Security.
Not to say that this is a particularly efficient system, but yes I believe we should have it. It might literally be the only idea that Libertarians and myself would disagree upon.
ChuckMcChip 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@ChuckMcChip Social Security was first set up when far fewer people reached the age to collect. It was more or less supposed to guarantee some income for old people that outlived their savings and were to old to work(elderly safety net) Now it is viewed as a retirement plan & people end up not planning or under planning for retirement. Most people reach 65 still fully capable of working nowadays. This is far from what SS was originally intended for.Like any gov program, it got twisted & abused.
shananagans5 1 month ago
@ChuckMcChip I am ok with a safety net for those that can't work at all but have a problem with perfectly healthy people collecting gov money. People that have been working for yrs have been paying in with the promise of SS at 65 so that complicates things but getting back to the original spirit of SS just being a safety net for the elderly & not a retirement plan would be a good thing.
shananagans5 1 month ago
All true
scorpy6331 1 month ago
Fool! U.S. runs the UN and Republicans LOVE the UN!
THEGLASSOFMILK2 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@THEGLASSOFMILK2 since when?
theultimaterockr 1 month ago
@THEGLASSOFMILK2 So does Barack Obama.
hotfudgemoney 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@THEGLASSOFMILK2 Really? The UN opposed our involvement in Kosovo in 1999. If we run them, why didn't they support it? Also Iraq in 2003?
BDRProject 1 month ago
@THEGLASSOFMILK2 What do republicans have to do with anything?
TheStrangerInTheRye 1 month ago
wow. did they have a moment of silence for the thousands that die needlessly of starvation in north korea
shuhouse25 1 month ago
I dont think I could have described social security better myself.
realworldbycj 1 month ago
One of the most obviously flawed arguments about social security is that it's "insurance". This lie has been exposed for over 50 years, since Flemming V Nestor in 1960.
Slipknotyk06 1 month ago
Ahh, the Social Security issues that Mark Levin's been talking about for a month. Nice to see someone else is finally talking about this.
buckybone89 1 month ago
I had a moment of silence...as i took a deep breath....in order to sing "Ding Dong the Witch is dead" at full blast.
aarondirebear 1 month ago
"the problem with socialism is sooner or later you run out of other peoples money"
stazandjeve 1 month ago
@stazandjeve Margaret Thatcher made that statement about socialism. And one day it will come true unless, we elect Ron Paul for president and a whole lot of real conservatives to congress.
lexrex3 1 month ago 2
LEX: Correct me if I'm wrong, but Ron Paul is the only candidate for President who doesn't want to reform the United Nations, he wants to end it and send it away from these United States. I mention this because Lee mentioned it in the vid, the U.N. is worthless. Another reason to pull the lever for Ron.
UTubekookdetector 1 month ago 5
@UTubekookdetector Appeasement is not conservative and neither is Ron Paul
willden15 1 month ago
WILL: I never said RP was a conservative, point out where I did. He's certainly more of a Libertarian. In addition, if one takes a gander at Article I Section VIII, the Const. doesn't condone standing armies into perpetuity, the Founders did this because it's more likely then, that people will go to war for good and bad reasons. Nice try though.
UTubekookdetector 1 month ago
@UTubekookdetector Ron Paul says he is a conservative. If Ron Paul is not a conservative, rather, a libertarian, then why not run as a libertarian. We do not need a Neville Chamberlain we need a conservative.
willden15 1 month ago
@willden15
He is a registered republican... And Yes he is a Libertarian, hes running republican so he could actually get a chance to win. The way its looking with the media blackouts on him, he can still win, it will be harder, that's it.
TheDuvalMilitia 1 month ago
@TheDuvalMilitia So that tells me that Ron Paul is a liar. He says he is a conservative yet he is a libertarian. Why should i vote for a liar?
willden15 1 month ago
@willden15
You ever watch his videos? Your relying on me to talk to you about him. Why dont you go watch all of his videos and make an honest opinion on him. You do that, then people will take you seriously. Also, i never said he was conservative. i said republican. Not all republicans are conservative. you got libertarian ones as well.
TheDuvalMilitia 1 month ago
@TheDuvalMilitia I have watched Paul's videos. I have heard him speak. I have read some of his writings. He states he is a conservative, he is not a conservative. I will not vote for him. Plus, he loves earmarks, yet he claims not to. He is not an honest person.
willden15 1 month ago
@UTubekookdetector P.S you have very little understanding of the constitution based on this post.
willden15 1 month ago
WILL: Beautifully-executed generalization little man. Read Article I Section VIII, you tell me if the Const. condones standing armies perpetually. The answer is no. Next...
UTubekookdetector 1 month ago
@UTubekookdetector "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions" Article 1 sec 8
willden15 1 month ago
@UTubekookdetector "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;" Article 1 sec 8
Pretty clear if you ask me
willden15 1 month ago
@UTubekookdetector Although the money can only be apportioned for two years at a time, the constitution does not condemn having the armies standing for longer than that. They simply cannot be financed indefinitely with no further congressional debate. The founders actions agree with what is written in the constitution. Stop generalizing, and read the constitution for yourself.
willden15 1 month ago
WILL: It certainly does NOT condone troops in 130+ countries (didn't someone say something about "entangling alliances"?). If we are legitimately invaded, we can raise up an Army (although there probably wouldn't be time for that) or our National Guard can take care of it. The Navy is a diff. story, it's supposed to be maintained perpetually, we have the most powerful Navy in the world. The militia is not the same as the Army.
UTubekookdetector 1 month ago
@UTubekookdetector That is not what we were arguing. We were not arguing the constitutionality of having troops in other countries, although that is not unconstitutional either. Looking back at the founders, one will see that they oftentimes had naval troops in other places. They also had standing armies at various points during the Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison administrations. It is constitutional to have a standing army.I wonder if you have read the document.
willden15 1 month ago
WILL: I do believe I did bring up the constitutionality of troops in other countries several times. The Founders warned us against "entangling alliances" & if appropriations for a standing Army are only supposed to be for 2 years, then it would be pretty difficult to maintain troops in 130+ countries. You brought up the Navy, I was referring to the Army. Apples-to-oranges. Any invasion of the U.S. can be repelled by the state militias. I don't think you've read the Const.
UTubekookdetector 1 month ago
WILL: In addition, if the U.S. is to have troops in other countries, it should be only when the national security of this country is in danger and would require a declaration of war by Congress. Even you can understand that.
UTubekookdetector 1 month ago
@UTubekookdetector This conversation has become monotonous. I gave you the lines in the constitution that stated we can have a standing Army and Navy. The founders supported a robust defense and made alliances, look it up. The founders sent troops to quasi-wars with foreign forces and had them fighting outside the country. All of this is constitutional.
willden15 1 month ago
WILL: I distinguished between the Navy's duties and the Army's. Appropriations for a standing Army are only to be for 2 years, period. This was supposed to keep the US from becoming the globe's policeman. We have militias and the Navy (which appropriations are continuous) to repel enemy attacks. Pointing out the Founders made alliances and then using that to condone troops in 130 countries is disingenous. It's also fallacious to use abuses of the Const. to condone further abuses of the Const
UTubekookdetector 1 month ago
@UTubekookdetector Read the constitution. Appropriations, for a standing army, can be made every two years. The the funds can constitutionally be re-appropriated. I know this is a hard concept for you because it interferes with your RP worship. Take a minute, read, then come back. Stop trying to create Red Herrings and Straw men and try to address the argument.
willden15 1 month ago
WILL: You seem frustrated. I think you're trying to utilize some ambiguous language. If they wanted approps. to be perpetual, why mention the 2-year time frame. Did they waste all that ink just to say they wanted Defense approps. to be passed every other year? "but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years." You've also avoided my point--how can the US have troops in 130 countries with no declaration of war? RP worship? Are you trying segue again?
UTubekookdetector 1 month ago
The UN doesnt care about humanity, they care about building up countries so they can watch em fall, I believe the UN is parasitic and a cancer on countries that perform well so the ones that dont get hand outs, its globalized BS. I could say ALOT more but just read what they put out, it's outrageous.
WoodlandRavah 1 month ago
People who actualy believe their is an SS account with their name on it are morons. All this pay roll tax holiday does is reduce the ammount of money going in SS. But people are too stupid to see that. All for a whopping 20 or 40 bucks. How did people afford family pizza night before the pay roll tax holiday?
9971explorer 1 month ago
the funny thing about arguing that the rich should pay their fair share, in regards to social security, is that after adjusting for inflation, those who make in excess of about 100k - at the age of retirement - receive about 80 cents for every dollar they paid in, i believe. those making about 50k/yr at retirement break even. and those making about 10k/yr receive nearly 3 times what they paid into the system.
cristoballs 1 month ago
stop you war propaganda
optionsupdate 1 month ago
i will not believe jong is dead until the US Navy dumps his body into the sea
optionsupdate 1 month ago
Hey Lee,
As one who has a firm understanding of economics, what do you think about the Fair Tax?
Thanks.
Ninjax2000 1 month ago
Lee Doren for president!
screechkid116 1 month ago
Lee,
I'd like to thank you for providing links to all your images
It's given me SO much more validity with others, since they always think I'm going extreme
Once, i argued with friend that there's been more money in education from before yet it's going downhill because it operates almost as a gov subsidy. He honestly laughed me off for saying an "oxymoron". Then I emailed him a graph you provided about money spent vs graduation rates for the past 30 years.
He lost.
also Happy New Year.
teapot55 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Lee - great editorial as usual. Off topic - how do you get that warm, "vasoline on the lens" soft look to your videos?
RocktheStageNYC 1 month ago
Comment removed
RocktheStageNYC 1 month ago
Everyone try to become president...
then make this guy your prime consultant
keysle 1 month ago
don't forget about the sanctions that are imposed by the UN on N. Korea also lead to people starving. ;-) Look how many hundreds of thousands of people that died in Iraq during the 90's due to sanctions.
john25rs2001 1 month ago
Your best video so far! No doubt about it.
russelltreadway 1 month ago
They should have a moment of silence for the people that Kim Jong Il killed.
vtc193 1 month ago
Lee, it's not the united nations, its the united ABOMINATIONS, lol. (thank Dave Mustane of Megadeath for that).
TeslaDRay 1 month ago
HowTheWorldWorks, why aren't you supporting Ron Paul? You like free market economics, you know that it does not work with the concept of wars and imperialism, because you have to borrow the money and print it to pay for the cost. All Austrian economists argued that precisely. You're an Austrian school thinker and a neocon? How do you square that circle?!
Otzmatron 1 month ago
@Otzmatron He's never said he's an Austrian, just that he's studied both the Austrian and Monetarist schools of thought. He's no neocon and I predict that he won't support Ron Paul because he doesn't see Iran as a threat. I'm thinking he'll probably vote for Perry or Hunstman.You think Thomas Sowell would support Ron Paul?
gshooting 1 month ago
@gshooting 'He's never said he's an Austrian, just that he's studied both the Austrian and Monetarist schools of thought.'
He obviously believes in Milton Friedman economics.
'Ron Paul because he doesn't see Iran as a threat.'
They aren't a threat. Military industrial complex wants to go to war. Don't be their dupe, 15 trillion dollars in debt.
'Perry or Hunstman'
Perry is a clown. Huntsman has zero chance.
'Thomas Sowell would support Ron Paul?'
Yes he would.
Otzmatron 1 month ago
@Otzmatron Which is sad, since Friedman was horrid on economics, even if he was good on most policy issues.
Moragauth 1 month ago
@Moragauth Friedman was a Nobel prize winning free market economist. What exactly was horrid about his economics?
Otzmatron 1 month ago
@Otzmatron It's an empty honour. Krugman is also a "nobel prize winning" economist. So what? Friedman's monetary economics was atrocious. He was as much as deflation-phobe as any keynesian economist. He also helped inaugurate measures like tax-withholding. He is equally terrible on epistemology, resorting to advocating crude positivism for economics. He made some brilliant arguments on certain policy issues but his monetary economics continues to deflect many libertarians from -
Moragauth 1 month ago
@Moragauth - focusing on the crucuail issue of credit expansion and its effects on the economy. He even admitted he was wrong on the gold standard near his death. As a libertarian he was amazing. As an economist, there are far better.
Moragauth 1 month ago
@Moragauth 'He was as much as deflation-phobe as any keynesian economist'
He renounced that later on, said the Federal Reserve should be dissolved.
'He even admitted he was wrong on the gold standard near his death.'
Well there you go. He gave the best arguments for capitalism against any other economic system. Listen to interviews with Hayek or read anything by Mises, it's insipid and monochromatic. His arguments are superior.
Otzmatron 1 month ago
@Otzmatron The important part here is that the system does not work as long as the government is spread wide around the world and spends trillions of dollars on militarism expenditure which forces them to borrow and print money, and the citizenry to pay both higher taxes and the inflation tax. Being subscribed to Lee and being a neocon simultaneously is a paradox. If you want war, you need the Fed, you need big government. So the neocons here, reconsider Ron Paul.
Otzmatron 1 month ago
@Otzmatron The combined welfare bill paid for by debt exceeds military spending. Add in the unfunded liabilities to government pensions and the proportion of welfare vs military spending grows even further. The military cuts of the Clinton government were permanent, the spending on the Iraq war was temporary. Obviously military spending has limits and should be minimised where possible, but it is not the largest cost issue facing your country.
Siegetower 1 month ago
@Siegetower It doesn't matter, if you don't get rid of the debt completely, you cannot begin afresh with laissez-faire economics. Both military and welfare should be liquidated and a new currency that is either gold or silver or simply debt free (like Lincoln printed after the war) should be established. Liberals want welfare, neocons want war, neither can have these exotic luxuries.
Otzmatron 1 month ago
@Otzmatron Friedman had the vast advantage that English was his mother language. You are arguing for presentation over substance. Hayek and Mises also both had far superior arguments to him, and as far as Mises's writing goes, I'd say it is of a superior quality to Friedman's as it clearly showed he was a master of several fields of knowledge. It's to his credit that he renounced his prior positions, but his arguments were hardly superior. The two Austrians had a much better -
Moragauth 1 month ago
@Moragauth - understanding of monetary economics than he couldve hoped for. I'm not sayjng Friedman was a poor scholar but that it takes an astounding amount of ignorance these days for a libertarian to still cling to his economics particularly with respect to monetary policy.
Moragauth 1 month ago
@Moragauth And I'll state that I think Lee is just so and so on economics,
Moragauth 1 month ago
@Moragauth Fair enough. Just vote Ron Paul if you truly care about these ideas, Romney and Gingrich will give you more big government and endless regulations just like Bush.
Otzmatron 1 month ago
@Otzmatron I can't vote but I support Ron Paul. I hope Lee does too. I think in part it is because he doesn't comprehend the full effects of the Fed that he doesn't. Most other GOP candidates have not even been aware of the massive threat it poses. While I respect Friedman, this is in part because they've bought into the notion that the fed is needed to manage the economy. In truth it's as bad as any other federal agency, if not far worse a makes deficit financing possible.
Moragauth 1 month ago
@Moragauth Ron Paul has been the loudest advocate abolishing the criminal fed. The others are mimics at best.
Moragauth 1 month ago
@Otzmatron A country with a leader who says death to Zionism, death/down (really doesn't matter which one, they're both bad) to Isreal, who is a 9/11 truther, a Holocaust-denier, with a bunch of Ayotollahs surrounding him who want to create world-wide chaos to bring the 12th Imam, is not a threat? If you truly believe that, I'm sorry, but you're a nut.
Perry is the only real conservative with a chance. Yes, I know he sucks at debates. Huntsman has a better chance than Paul.
gshooting 1 month ago
@Otzmatron Thomas Sowell would never vote for Ron Paul, because he would think it would be extremely dangerous for America to let Iran have nukes. Look at one of his videos on the HooverInstitution's YT channel. I think it's called Dismantling America. He talks about Iran at the end.
gshooting 1 month ago
i support the payroll tax cut. the argument against it is that the money should be going to social security and the payroll tax would cheat the retirees, but the money isn't going into social security. so it is a matter of allowing people to keep their money or have it wasted on non-social security programs.
df393 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Unbelievable! We have way too many far- left Liberals in positions of power.
This is pretty much the Obama doctrine. Kneel at the feet of dictators, and appease enemies of liberty worldwide. Our generation is nothing, compared to one's that aided Europe in their Great War struggle and defeated Hitler and Tojo in WW2.
StonewallJackson26 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Comment removed
StonewallJackson26 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
If there are more folks like him, i believe america has hope
JDPKRevolution 1 month ago
Right on point as always! Thanks for the updates! :-)
BlessedPrincess81 1 month ago
So, in conclusion, the workings of the Modern Monetary System clearly stipulate that taxes MUST decline during a recession, spending MUST rise, and FEDERAL DEFICITS must rise as well, if the private sector is to be restored to an expansion of output. The economy's current woes could be ascribed to (a) spending on the wrong things (not enough infrastructure repair) and (b) persistent calls for higher taxation, which put a damper on future expectations. Email me via YouTube w/ any questions.
moneybagzz 1 month ago
The ideal set of economic circumstances would be the expansion of GDP (rising production) that is greater than the growth in government spending. Oddly enough a balanced budget is neither necessary nor desirable - there is a 100% correlation between Federal Surpluses and economic downturns - this is because Federal surpluses are the same as a private sector deficits. The private sector NEEDS a surplus, to pay for private-sector expansion.
moneybagzz 1 month ago
Which is not to say that 'deficits don't matter' > they do. Federal deficits are a symptom of spending and a measure of the health of the private sector. When the deficit rises during an economic downturn, this is an addition of liquidity to the economy. When deficits are rising it tells owners of dollars that future taxes are likely going up, and therefore it is sensible to hoard them now. When the deficit is declining, it is usually due to an expanding economy.
moneybagzz 1 month ago
I wish more conservatives focused on the issues that matter like you. It seems like most conservatives in the mainstream media just try to delude people by spinning social issues in their favor. Your channel is truly refreshing. Thank you.
CODYAYW 1 month ago
When the US Government spends more than it taxes (or, creates more currency than it retires) the Treasury will issue fixed income instruments to absorb that excess liquidity. When people use the phrase 'Federal Deficit' they are also talking about the 'Private Sector Surplus' which amounts to savings. Debt for the US Government does not 'matter' in the same way that debt does for a household or a business.
moneybagzz 1 month ago
The implications of this (which I believe is known as Modern Monetary Theory, or MMT) is that it is operationally (though not completely) impossible for the US Government to run out of money. Payroll taxes (or any other taxes for that matter) can go to ZERO and stay there; Social Security checks will still go out, as will payments to doctors for Medicare and Medicaid. The inflationary implications of this make taxation necessary, as it maintains a balance to the monetary base.
moneybagzz 1 month ago
If this is not entirely clear, it is important to avoid looking at the US Federal Government as a household (which has to EARN before it can SPEND). The Federal Government, via the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve issue currency (and enforce its usage) via spending. Those same institutions delete currency from existence via taxation; the objective is to keep the monetary base consistent w/ needs for growth, as well as its use as a medium of exchange
moneybagzz 1 month ago
the majority of economist say that the stimulus did help unemployment. thank god we have a genius like you to educate us and protect us from the economists and their evil ivy league degrees
Mrinebriation 1 month ago
Taxation, on the other hand. removes dollars from existence. Not just the paper dollars in your wallet but the dollars in the banking system. This is how the monetary system works. Taxes do not pay for anything; they only serve to remove dollars from the system to balance against dollars that are created via spending.
moneybagzz 1 month ago
Lee, I always view your YouTube postings, and you are generally on target. There is one important detail to keep in mind. Whenever the government spends money, it creates it out of thin air. There is NO operational need to collect taxes so that the government can spend. Spending precedes taxation. This is how the government provides liquidity to the economy.
moneybagzz 1 month ago
yes.. govt jobs lead to nothing but an account emptied, and worse our search for the green economy is taking talent from real innovation. The length of a economic depression/recession is directly proportional to the amount out govt intervention to shorten it..
rolin600 1 month ago
Free markets and Austrian economics do not work without the abolition of war and imperialism. You seem a bit hawkish about Iran and other countries. Support Ron Paul if you have your wits about you.
Otzmatron 1 month ago
@Otzmatron Yeah! Why not let IRAN have a NUCLEAR WEAPON?
gshooting 1 month ago
@gshooting Pakistan has nuclear weapons, they've harbored Bin Laden, why not go after them? Stop watching Faux news. Before the dollar is completely worthless and you won't be able to afford watching cable news anymore. HowTheWorldWorks advocates free market economics, it does not work if you start wars, because in order to fight these wars the government has to print the money (like they did in the civil war, removed the gold standard).
Otzmatron 1 month ago
@Otzmatron Pakistan don't have a theocracy with a complete lunatic for a leader vowing to wipe Israel of the face of the earth. That's why America isn't going after them.
And for goodness sake, would you liberals/fanatical Paulbot stop saying I should stop watching "Faux News"? These are reported facts on every major news channel, not just Fox. What would you have me do? Watch MSLSD? Sometimes war is neccessary. Sometimes, you can't just bury your head in the sand.
gshooting 1 month ago
@gshooting 'Pakistan don't have a theocracy with a complete lunatic for a leader vowing to wipe Israel of the face of the earth.'
Watch interviews of Ahmedinajad with CNN, the media in America needs an antagonist to start another war (which Ameica can't afford), you're sadly misinformed.
'"Faux News"?'
Stay here on YouTube, stay away from the MSM. They're full of shit.
'Sometimes war is neccessary'
It isn't necessary with Iran amidst a financial crisis. We're broke.
Otzmatron 1 month ago
@Otzmatron Ahmedinajad is a nut. Nothing tells me otherwise. YouTube is not a place for credible and verified information. The "MSM" are. IRAN CANNOT GET NUKES.
gshooting 1 month ago
@gshooting there is no such thing as credible and verified information. Have you ever worked in video?
elysianfury 1 month ago
@gshooting I guess you never heard there speeches on Iran they want genocide in Israel and America yeah we should give are enemy a device that can do that.
jp3711nc1 1 month ago
@jp3711nc1 That's exactly what I said...
gshooting 1 month ago
Hey Lee! When are you going to tell us that you're not going to vote for Ron Paul because he's a conspiracy kook, blame America firster, anti-Semitic, racist bigot who's best buddies with Ahmnehimnijad? Which war-mongering neocon are you going to vote for Lee? Look forward to your answer! :D
gshooting 1 month ago
@gshooting I think Lee realizes a lot of those idiots hate Dr. Paul thanks to the big government neocon stooges like Limbaugh and not so stupid, but kinda crazy Beck.
nurbSoldier 1 month ago
@nurbSoldier you're gonna be disappointed by Lee then...
gshooting 1 month ago
What gets me about Social Security taxes (aka FICA) is that it is one of the most REGRESSIVE tax systems in America. More significantly, it is one that poor people pay more than the wealthy in terms of proportion to their income.
I'm not saying I support income taxes either (I think the idea is stupid), but if you want to see a "tax the poor" system, look no further than Social Security and how it is funded. For myself, I would only hope that FICA as a tax is completely eliminated.
GlanderBrondurg 1 month ago
Always great videos! Well done!
AndrewH432 1 month ago
The UN "He may be a brutal idiot that thinks he can run everyone's lives, but he's one if us."
Okay not a direct quote, but you get the point. ;-)
ronwandell 1 month ago
@ronwandell I think it's more like; The U.N.- "Kim Jong Il hates America so he's one of us"
zoomerlawns 1 month ago
This goes not only to this heartless man but to every republican in the world. You guys are like that complaining kid crying cause his dad did not get him a benz just a volvo for christmas. PAY TAXES, even if you think their high!
eef5510 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@eef5510
You're just like the mafioso, getting mad at the store owners complaining about being forced to pay him.
NativeNewMexican 1 month ago
@eef5510 you know half of the people in America don't even pay Taxes right do you research before you call people heartless.
jp3711nc1 1 month ago
@jp3711nc1 lol... did you know that 1% of americans have enough money to wipe out the debt?
eef5510 1 month ago
@eef5510 LOL, I hope that's a joke.
something01992 1 month ago
@something01992 lol I hope your legally retarded and I don't have to tell you what's wrong with you and what you wrote
eef5510 1 month ago
@eef5510 LOOOOOOOOOOOOL such a tough guy you are.
something01992 1 month ago
@eef5510 1% Pay for in taxes 70% and then you want more guess what even if you want to take all the money the rich make you still can not pay for are debt. 45 % I think don't pay taxes because they either don't have jobs or that they work so little in there job.
jp3711nc1 1 month ago