See you tube user gooohusa for a way to get real poeple in congress who are NOT beholden to the parties and/or their big donars. It's called Get Out Of Our House (GOOOH, pronounced 'go) goooh.com
I'm sorry your too much of an idiot to realize that i didn't add a question mark or add the word "and" after fat. And I'm glad your verb tenses are consistent. awesome.
@thecomputergurukid that's only if you want to balance the budget overnight. You could keep taxes the same, cut about 1 trillion(even though some people will say this means too many entitlement cuts). You must remember that revenue increases over time, even without raising taxes. With these cuts, the usa could probably balance the budget by 2013. And if you want my source, it's the CBO
Uh yeh. Good in principle but I'm for trimming a little quicker than that. We also have interest on those bits of fat. Don't want the pork to go rancid in the meantime.
In the years leading up to the American revolution, "conservative" meant royalist, religious, authoritarian. "Liberal" meant humanist, egalitarian, self-directed. "Right" and "left" referred to seating arrangements in the French parliament.
In current American political debate, "left" refers to moderate socialist leanings, aka "progressive". The left has basically stolen the term "liberal".
@50srefugee - No it didn't. You're dead wrong. Conservatives sought to "conserve their natural rights as free English men." Conservatives were NOT royalists. That's a revisionist, Liberal answer. You're being Liberal with reality. The father of Conservatism was Edmund Burke. He supported the American Revolution.
Regrettably, YouTube comments do not lend themselves to detailed discussion of matters like these.
I did not mean to impugn modern conservatives. Rather, I was trying to show that the terms "liberal", "conservative", "right", and "left" have drifted over time. Currently, socialists are in control of the vocabulary, and have hijacked the liberal label.
I prefer a collectivist—individualist spectrum, and lean individualist.
@thomaserossi: "" Conservatives were NOT royalists".
Thank you for the correction.
It's exactly confusion like this that makes me try to avoid the conservative/liberal labels. Right/left is even worse. They are all relative, rather than being leanings on a functionally defined scale (see my comment below).
It seems we may well share alignments, and I'm sorry my carelessness created an appearance of disagreement on principles that may not exist.
I'd like to see a parody video of "A day in the life of Nick" where he wears that leather jacket through all sorts of improbable scenarios. Sleeping, showering, sauna, pool party, etc.
Your countrs has taxation rate of just 20% of GDP. Sweden has a taxation rate over 50% and just Sweden has no significant child poverty. Even the taxation rate in Sweden is too low and you are talking about tax cuts.
@B190489 We're not Sweden. Sadly enough, you could have a taxation rate of 90% and still not cure poverty here in the US.
It's a culture thing. For example, last year there were more murders in the city of New Orleans (pop 336K) than your whole country (pop 9M). How could you possibly compare the two cultures?
The crime and poverty rate in your country is the result of a culture of anti-government.
I didn't know what western, northern Europe, China, Japan or South Korea has increasing overpopulation, out of control market prices on all goods, and terrible health care.
All your data about your "good" healthcare and university system shows that most of the americans have no access to it. What brings you the newest cancer treatment, if you have no access to it. No, i'm lucky to be a german
@B190489 All countries today are infected by the same Keynesian/socialistLight policies. Europe has the same problems as the US except they don't have the giant military machine to pay for. That is what bankrupted The Soviet Empire, and the British too back in the day. US problems can't be "a culture of anti-government since the goernment. controls everything: banks, money policy, taxes, regulates business and personal choice. Japan in recession forever, China facing inflation.
The keynesian policy has reduced our unemployment rate to one of the lowest level in the industrial world.
Even if you put the US military spendings into account, the overall US-government spendings in % of GDP are 10% lower than the german, austrian, dutch and 20% lower than the spendings of the swedish, finnish and danish government.
Your gov. controls everything? I thought your country is the example for the success of capitalism? Is not? Capitalism failed?!!
The chinese socialized market economy is working better than your capitalism.
I can say you why your economy is suffering, because it isn't competitive longer in the world. You have a big trade deficit like any other industrial state, except northern Europe. But you need a trade surplus to reduce your unemployment rate in a globalized world. Your problems are the same, just smaller than in Greece, Ireland or the UK. Without the resources even Australia oder Canada would have ...
... problems. Just western and northern Europe have a trade surplus. Why? Because they are more competitive through their social market economy. Their tax rates and wages are higher than in the US, but companies still prefer to produce in these countries than in Asia.
@B190489 Nazi are repressive, Communists are repressive, wouldn't you say. Socialist systems are transitory, which means that at some point they turn into one of the above, without exception. Europe has had the benefit of American subsidizing their socialist farce. When we stop subsidizing your socialism it will turn into one of the above. What I dont understand is why we sent our people to your county's to free them, Hitler had what you beg for, we should have left you to it.
Nazis are no socialists, but facists, which are the opposite of socialists. Millions of socialists died in nazi concentration camps, because they've opposed racism.
Europe is subsidizing european socialism? What? How do you mean that? That is ridiculous.
Your ww2 intervention was no charity, you have benefited from it. You were just here, because you wanted to pull back the soviets and you got our scientists.
@B190489 Nazi's are most certainly socialists. Your indoctrination has been thorough, you cant even recognize the obvious.
America is subsidizing European socialism, by providing military protection. I say let Russia have you. Socialism in all its forms leads to tyranny. Here is a list of names used for socialism, just so you know. Nazi's, Fascists, communists, socialists, anarchist as you describe them, progressives, liberals as we describe them, Maoists, and list goes on and on.
Nazis hate socialists or why they killed them? That is obvious. My grandfather was a socialist and was killed by Nazis in a concentration camp so shut up you fucking idiot!
The US ist just providing military protection to itself. They don't care about Europe and which countries are fighting for you in Afghanistan? Right european countries.
@B190489 Its called competing factions, the most aggressive responses come from ideology's that most resemble each other. I.E Nazi's hate communists, because the message is so similar that it must be crushed using any excuse it can fabricate.
I'm not talking about communists, communists are dangerous. I'm a socialist, i'm advocoting social democracy, which has never killed anybody, the Nazis have killed millions. You are comparing the most opposite ideologies in human history.
My father would cry if he would hear that people compare Obama with Hitler. These people are just stupid. They don't know nothing from history or Nazi terrorism. My grandfather has lost his life because of these motherfuckers and now people tell him that he is like they. These people shall visit a concentration camp before they call everybody a facist.
Libertarians are so stupid. Cutting the budget means less money for poor, education, health, police, fire department, etc. But for a libertarian the world is easy, just cutting the taxes, the rich need it, because owning 80% of the countries net worth isn't enough.
@B190489 We've never in any of our lifetimes spent MORE on your laundry list and we're getting less for it. The returns are in and it's a final, the Great Society has failed miserably. It's one thing for people who truly can't help themselves, but we can't afford to have one half of this country, paying for the the other half because they don't have everything they want.
The richest 20% have more than 85% of the american net worth. I'm sure that we have enough money for the people who have worked for it and few poor people.
What you want is to split the society, where everybody has to care about himself. But without coorporation a society doesn't work.
@B190489 The richest 1% also pay 39% of the taxes in the US. This isn't about rich vs. poor (though it seems to be a popular talking point amongst the simple-minded these days).
@B190489 Note that the top 1% also only constituted 21% of the gross income for the country, while paying 39% of the taxes for it.
Besides, who says that everyone has to be equally wealthy? If their wealth was gained legitimately, I don't begrudge them it one iota. If their wealth was gained illegitimately, I am against it regardless of how much wealth they actually have (rich or poor), so the actual amount is meaningless for the purposes of righteous indignation.
Means that the richest 1% pay 18% more taxes than 99% of the population and still have 40% of all financial net worth. That is a real disaster.
The richest 10% have 87% of all financial net worth. I'm not talking about equal wealthy, i'm talking about justice. I'm talking about the lower 50% of the population who have earned that money for the rich and having just 2.6% of all financial net worth. That's the biggest crime in human history.
YES, because the richest 1% have 40% of the financial net worth. That they pay 39% of all taxes is the evidence, that they have so much as they have. They are still paying too less percent of their total net worth.
The top quartile have 87.1% of all wealth in your country, of course everything is rich vs. poor. The lower 50% in your country (mainly the working class) have less than 2.6% of all net worth.
You know that the rich have the money the lower 50% have made. If you let one half living in poverty (or letting die) the rich will loose 100% of their wealth.
But beside that economic and justice idiocy you want kill people by cutting welfare?
@B190489 It's obvious no one is going to modify your leftist social engineering class warfare crap, but really you can't actually look at the progress this country has made in 250 years and suggest that it had nothing to do with freedom and democracy can you? If you can - you're simply another stuck in the echo chamber that can't see the obvious.
@admin3372 Well, your many comments show you believe passionately in socialism. I have no problem with that; possibly it may work out for small countries where there are homogeneous values and similar outlooks. The EU may have been a bad step, or perhaps you like more centralization despite the difficulties.
But in America we had a very diverse culture from the beginning; I like diversity and don't like forcing everyone into one mold. US socialism & centralization relied on force, failed
@leafwatch I think you have me confused with B190489 - I am diametrically opposed to socialism, communism and the like. They are repressive and historically dictatorial regimes that have killed their citizens. What I can't understand is why morons like B190 would still support this garbage as it crumbles in front of us in Europe in real time.
Socialism is not repressive. The northern and western european welfare states are the most democratic states in the world.
Socialism crumbles in Europe? Dude, there are big riots in Rome, Athens, London, Dublin, Lisbon, Madrid, Paris, etc.
In 2012 are elections in France, 2013 in Germany and 2015 in the UK. Currently in all three major countries socialist parties have a majority in polls. What do you think will happen in 2020? They will form the social democratic union of Europe.
@B190489 You need a serious history class. Explain to me how the Chinese aren't repressive? Or the Socialist utopia that is North Korea? Perhaps the cold war era Soviet Union isn't repressive to you. All of the places you just mentioned are places crumbling because of socialism not in spite of it. The grownups know there's no money left.
Thatcher said it best - "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money [to spend]." Good luck with your SDU of Europe.
If socialism is repressive, all socialist systems must be repressive, if just China and Cuba is repressive doesn't mean that all socialist states are automatically repressive.
The most democratic states are the biggest welfare states in western- and northern Europe. The SDU will still be called EU and the system we have now is not running out the money. The public debt of the EU is lower than yours. The ninth biggest welfare states have lower unemployment and higher growth than you
@admin3372 So sorry my comment was addressed to your nick instead of B's. I agree that freedom outperforms all forms of coerced economic systems. The biggest problem with socialists is that they nearly universally imagine they are entitled to impose their system on everyone else; naturally coercive systems, including the U.S. socialism, tends toward increasing totalitarianism to try to rescue the failures of top-down controls.
@leafwatch Sorry to but in, too your well made point, just for clarification. Socialists must impose their Utopian fantasy on the rest of us, because even cronies capitalism works better than all of their contrived economic nonsense. Imagine a truly free market, poverty would be eliminated from the globe. They couldn't have that now could they.
So what is your solution to the mounting national debt? Just let it go until the government defaults, crashes and burns. Then all your precious government welfare will surely end, and end suddenly and badly. Or would you rather a responsible government make the necessary cuts so that, while programs may be reduced in size, etc. they could still exist while the government gets its fiscal house in order.
Libertarians aren't stupid, they just live in the real world.
Always funny to see how americans try to understand what facism is.
Facism is the opposite corporate ideology of socialism. The Nazis never take money from the rich (except jews) to give it the poors. They have never build a welfare state. Poor people were killed from the Nazis like you would do it. The main part of the facist ideology is racism, jew-hate and social darwinism.
All these ideas are the opposite of statist socialism and more libertarian.
@B190489 funny how you act like you know anything about me. I would never kill anyone except in self defense. and also I hate racism. your world view is not based on reality but is based on emotion and jealousy
All people who support libertarians are facists. If you are not a racist, why you want take the right of life from the poor? Are they humans with lower values for you???
@B190489 Always funny when uneducated individuals try and separate fascism and socialism.
You can't have one without the other. Look at Nazi Germany, Mussolini and Italy, China, Stalin and the Soviet Union and Cuba. Without a central dictator socialism will fail. There will be controversy on who gets how much, what is "fair", and tough decisions in general. Without a central dictator who has a "what i say goes" personality, there is no socialist structure.
Nazi Germany was not socialist, but national socialist as part of the facist ideology. Facism is anti-statist and the opposite of the statist socialists. Both are corporate ideologies, but the corporate aspect is not killing, because also and especially in a non-corporate society people would kill. A world without corporatism/government would be automatically a world with many dictators = facism without corporatism.
@B190489 So increasing overpopulation, out of control market prices on all goods, and terrible health care is evidence of socialism working? No thank you, I like having access to great health care, manageable market prices, and living in underpopulated areas. And who is to say that it is really working? We are to believe everything Communist China throws out?
@B190489 What we believe is you should be men. Self sufficiency is your own responsibility, dependence is slavery. We want to free the servile, from that bondage. It's a low sum and ignorant view you espouse. I know it's hard for you to understand because you have always been a slave. I see you truly believe your own ignorant understanding of the world and so this is probably of no use to you. I will pray for your soul, because like your predecessors you desire to enslave others.
@B190489 no what I mean is the syntax doesn't work. The beliefs you expose are definitely wrong, but I was talking about your word usage. Socialism for win! means nothing. Socialism is for winners, works. socialism will win, works. just trying to help.
Do these budget cuts include privatizing the FDA, NASA, AmTrak, and the Postal Service? Red tape hurts the healthcare system, NASA is a relic of the space race, AmTrak is a subsidized failure, and the Postal Service needs to compete more freely with FedEx and UPS.
@B190489 I'm talking about privatizing certain things the government doesn't need to run. UL certifies the safety of consumer products just like the FDA does medicine, but as an NGO, its not clogged by bureaucratic bullshit. Judging by the Socialist International logo on your channel, I'm going to assume you're an ignorant leftist who thinks the government needs to run everything it can get its greased hands on.
@B190489 everything but law enforcement, military, courts, etc. Government is needed to protect the rights of the citizens, not run their lives. And by private military, are you referring to a militia or a mercenary firm?
Oh, and you can stop the straw man argument, you're fooling no one here.
@B190489 Don't get me started on Blackwater (they changed their name to Xe Services). I could care less that they do security consulting and offer outsourced tactical training for law enforcement, but there's a good chance that they do questionable things for the government and aren't held accountable for.
@B190489 Uh, no. If ex-military guys want to use their skills when their service contract is up, they should consider going into law enforcement or running a skydiving or SCUBA school. One of my dad's friends served in Desert Storm as a helicopter pilot, and a few years later started up his own flight school.
@B190489 Defense and law enforcement are the undoubtedly two main duties of government. Those are vital for every country, including Switzerland, which does in fact have a military.
@B190489 the only problem with healthcare in the US is the costs as a result of stupid policies.
1) Healthcare plans can't go over state lines (e.g. I can't get a plan in Utah because I live in Nevada.) This limits competition between insurance companies, enabling them to drive up the premiums without regard for free market forces.
2) Premiums are NOT tax deductible
3) The FDA pretty much ignores the drug certifications from its European counterparts and delays drugs from entering the market.
The problem is that private healthcare services are unefficient.
1. Privates have to spend money on advertising and financial management.
2. Privates make profit, which could better spend on healthcare itself.
3. Competition does not work in healthcare. It's a difference if you buy a smartphone or a inscrutable insurance. It's like buying a financial product with deadly results. Consumer protection = 0
@B190489 Private companies also have an incentive to cut costs, since they affect their bottom line. The government can just increase taxes when they want more cash.
Also, competition works fine for healthcare IF consumers are the ones doling out the cash. But they aren't. Right now, consumers have no idea how much a procedure costs because they aren't paying directly, so they don't shop around. This is a cultural problem caused by the government over-incentivizing work-based insurance.
Of course privates have an incentive to cut costs, for example by kicking sick people out. A private insurance company will never work for less money than socialized medicine. If you have to pay for advertising and profit, you always have to spent more money on it than without. That's an easy account. And i don't want to know what all these insurance company headquarters costs.
There are empirical data which shows that socialized medicine is the most efficient system.
And the main reason for universal healthcare is financial stability for the middle-class. Read: "standing on shaky Ground Americans' Experiences with economic Insecurity" !
@B190489 The problem with government healthcare is that it looks good only on paper. Your far-left dogma and straw man arguments aren't convincing anyone. I'm more than aware of the recent budget cuts and protests in Europe; the welfare system is unsustainable during times of economic downturn.
Yeah, if you have a taxation rate of just 20% of GDP for example in Greece and Ireland, of course your welfare system is unsustainable. By the way, it's the same rate like in the US. The real european welfare like Sweden, Germany, Austria, Netherlands, Finland, Denmark have no problems with the economic downturn. The current growth rate of Germany is 4%, yours is 3%, our deficit is -4%, yours more than -10%.
@B190489 Depends on the libertarian, really. We're not a completely homogeneous group (Yell "INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY!" into a room full of libertarians and stand back to watch the fireworks).
If you are looking for an attack angle to call libertarians "socialist", drop the private military argument and go with private police instead. Private military could be done, but I would argue (as a libertarian myself) that private police could not.
Thanks god someone is talking about balancing budget, and not concentrating in how much you tax or not, it is not an issue regarding taxing or not, is that you are spending in warfare what you don’t have.
Watch "The American Form of Government" at watch?v=DioQooFIcgE , which gives a functional definition of the political spectrum from tyranny, oligarchy, democracy, republic, anarchy; that is, from absolute government power on the left to absolute individualism on the right. (The two extremes are unstable and decay into oligarchy.)
"Liberalism" is a grossly distorted term, hijacked by the left, leaving "conservative" to their opponents.
Looks like another vid for retard conservatives. There's fat in the budget because Reason TV says so! Oh well, I know Drew Carey loves trailer trash conservatives making him richer swallowing this shit.
Do you have any intelligent arguments against? All I see is an ignoramus mouthing off about conservatives and Drew Carey. If you disagree with libertarian ideas, then please make a coherent argument against it, otherwise do yourself and everybody else a favor and f*ck off.
@myhipsi as if a dipshit in a leather coat and a chef's hat and apron has anything coherent to say. Libertarian ideas is an oxyumorn, I just wish they could be dying of TB, polio, yellow fever and other things that would be endemic in their utopian libertarian world.
I can't seem to understand why our government(liberals)think that we should be punished and made to pay for their out of control spending. If they want to do that then we should be able to force the government to pay off our credit cards and house that we couldn't afford.
@mcap52 Remove "liberals". Add, in its place "authoritarians".
Party politics is just another way our one-party system (The Big Government Party) keeps the rest of us fighting against each other instead of watching what they're doing.
Take much deeper cuts then he is talking about first place to start is end the war on drugs
then end all other wars cut military by 50% get rid of all the federal stuff that state and local can do better raise SS and medicare to age 70 sell off much of federal held land and use to pay down debt
He must be running for office to tell us so convincingly we only need to cut 3.6%, when in 2010 at least, the federal budget deficit is closer to 36% of revenues. Did he slip a decimal somewhere? On top of that, if you weigh his piece of fat, I'm afraid it's quite a bit smaller than one 30th of the total slice.
Those are all good points, Nick, and the presentation was outstanding. But good luck getting politicians to actually adhere (not just promise) to cut the budget. Voters evaluate politicians by what they judge is the current state of the economy, so natural selection tells us congress will be populated by irresponsible politicians. Only when the ability to borrow is severed will you see real change: and I am not sure that's too bad.
Just shut down the federal goverment for a year. Collect taxes same as before but, spend nothing for one year. Hit the reset button. Sure it would suck for many people during that year but, afterward we would be back on top.
@UtherPendragan Bad idea. First off there's terrorists, with no FBI or CIA or whatever around that'd give them a much better chance of a successful attack. And there's the local troublemakers.
@FatherTime89 Yeah how would we ever get by without federal law enforcement? After all they have done such a great job along our borders and keeping drugs out of our schools. You know I used to be in the department of homeland security, of course back then we called it the U.S. Army. We could keep military and law enforcement, however for that year we would pay them by selling off hardware. Toys like helocopters, and jet fighters. Bombs and bullets stockpiled since 1950. Maybe some real estate.
@FatherTime89 Oh yeah all those nations we are defending around the world. Start charging them the cost of all those soldiers and equipment. If they don't pay take what they have while we are there. Next time we go to war for oil, lets get some f**king oil.
To everyone who thinks you can solve the budget crisis by canceling foreign aid, arts funding, PBS, or NASA: you can't save trillions by cutting hundreds of millions. Put together, those programs are less than 1% of the budget. That's like an unemployed guy trying to save money by buying toothpaste at the dollar store. If you only spent $10 a year on toothpaste before, you can't possibly save more than $10.
@sharrynuk It'd be a good start though. Continue cutting for the Dept of Education, the FDA, Dept of Agriculture, stop the wars, bring the troops, et cetera. See. It's easy! :)
There are so many unnecessary and immoral spending programs out there that really must be abolished. The one thing you list that MUST go is foreign aid. None of it actually serves the people in need; it and it merely fills the pockets of corrupt international politicians.
We need a meat cleaver, not a butter knife into the deficit. And you're right, there are so many more important things that need to be cut...but, its smart to at least start somewhere...no?
@Buergs323 Hear hear. Egypt, which I think receives the 2nd most amount of Aid after Israel, has been essentially a dictatorship for the last 3 decades. And if we have learned anything about Africa, it is that business and property rights, not aid, solves social problems.
@bigsexyinsect "so the rich are paying their fare share." I keep hearing this statement. If you look at the numbers the top 5% pay more tax than the bottom 95% combined.
Legalize drugs and prostitution (light taxes on both), end farm subsidies, get rid of NASA, cut welfare, social security, and medicare, demand immedieate return of TARP funds, cancel stimulus...
i guess i should have said "imagine if we eliminate all the military" i didnt mean it as a course of action to be taken immediately. but seriously like to know what the repercussions would be if we actually did it. i doubt much would change.
@wolverineks: '"Imagine if we eliminate all the military" [I'd] seriously like to know what the repercussions would be."
The United States would cease to exist within a year, at the most.
And it would be an ugly, ugly fall. Tens of millions of Americans would die, and I wouldn't give a sick cat's fart for the continued liberty of the survivors.
Around the world, the Saddams, Pol Pots, Kim Il Jongs, and Idi Amins would rule.
That's too much meat for one person. Meat affects your carbon footprint. I heared they talked about rationing meat consumption in the industrialized countries at the Climate Conference in Cancun to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Mr Gillespie, your behaviour is irresponsible. You're melting the glaciers and killing baby seal with your nourishing habits.
1) End the war on drugs. Regulate like alcohol and tobacco.
2) End the war on guns. Period. "Shall not be infringed," means "don't even cut off the decorative strings around the edges." Shoot last 3 BATFX heads for treason, and as a warning to other domestic enemies.
3) Shut down the Department of Homeland Security, including TSA. Hang Napolitano and Pistole for treason,.
4) Shut down Depts of Education, Energy, EPA, and HUD.
@loathomar. Income tax is illegal all citizens should be allowed to keep what they earn. Let the gov't tax the movement of money as it currently does but let the people keep their hard earned money. Besides alot of the money from taxes goes to pay for interest on debts the people never agreed to take on in the first place. ie wars etc. The only" fair tax" is no tax! I'm no history major but wasn't one of the reasons the country was started because of "taxation w/out representation"
First, DO NOT CUT MEAT IN THE METAL PAN! you will screw up the edge of your blade.
Second. Cut it in bit sized cubes, salt and throw in a hot oiled pan. Make some Mole sauce and rice. You can throw out the really gross fatty chunks before you serve with hot corn tortillas.
@hesh2 Eliminating capital gains & all income tax would make any federal government non existent. That is over 50% of the federal budget income. It could be replaced with some thing like the "fair tax", but then the statement should be "Replace capital gains & all income taxes with a compositions tax".
I don't care for the title "indetured servant" for "illegal aliens", but giving them a legal status with a higher tax rate while giving them a path to citizenship seems reasonable.
Lmao and he still wears the leather jacket. Haha..
MRSketch09 2 weeks ago
See you tube user gooohusa for a way to get real poeple in congress who are NOT beholden to the parties and/or their big donars. It's called Get Out Of Our House (GOOOH, pronounced 'go) goooh.com
srqtad 3 months ago
Still wearing The Jacket. Awesome!
nilskp 5 months ago 2
How would this recipe change if the deficit is where it is now? We need an updated recipe or is it timeless.
akkrauta 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I wish to thank you so much in your help in this matte busizz4me.info
geratmathew 1 year ago
Yea but what's fat what do we cut you leather jacket wearing jerkoff?
thekidwiththefro 1 year ago
@thekidwiththefro It's at Reason.com.
Opinionator 1 year ago
@thekidwiththefro I love seeing someone call someone else a jerkoff and then can't wrote a coherent sentence. awesome.
jcruenv 1 year ago
Comment removed
thekidwiththefro 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jcruenv
I'm sorry your too much of an idiot to realize that i didn't add a question mark or add the word "and" after fat. And I'm glad your verb tenses are consistent. awesome.
thekidwiththefro 1 year ago
Urm no, you would need to cut by 42% to balance the budget without tax hikes, never gonna happen.
thecomputergurukid 1 year ago
@thecomputergurukid that's only if you want to balance the budget overnight. You could keep taxes the same, cut about 1 trillion(even though some people will say this means too many entitlement cuts). You must remember that revenue increases over time, even without raising taxes. With these cuts, the usa could probably balance the budget by 2013. And if you want my source, it's the CBO
Chaaarge 7 months ago
Uh yeh. Good in principle but I'm for trimming a little quicker than that. We also have interest on those bits of fat. Don't want the pork to go rancid in the meantime.
jeffmonc2 1 year ago
@jrspolitical So? Shouldn't he be allowed to whatever he wants?
bittergunowner12 1 year ago
Yum yum!
loszhor 1 year ago
Comment removed
jsabbott0 1 year ago
Math. It's delicious! =^[.]^=
Raycheetah 1 year ago
@ctminarchist: "How is our government liberal tho?"
How do you define "right", "left", "liberal"?
In the years leading up to the American revolution, "conservative" meant royalist, religious, authoritarian. "Liberal" meant humanist, egalitarian, self-directed. "Right" and "left" referred to seating arrangements in the French parliament.
In current American political debate, "left" refers to moderate socialist leanings, aka "progressive". The left has basically stolen the term "liberal".
50srefugee 1 year ago
@50srefugee Right you are. Liberal used to mean what we now call Libertarian.
averagejoe040 1 year ago
@50srefugee - No it didn't. You're dead wrong. Conservatives sought to "conserve their natural rights as free English men." Conservatives were NOT royalists. That's a revisionist, Liberal answer. You're being Liberal with reality. The father of Conservatism was Edmund Burke. He supported the American Revolution.
thomaserossi 1 year ago
@thomaserossi: "Conservatives were NOT royalists"
Regrettably, YouTube comments do not lend themselves to detailed discussion of matters like these.
I did not mean to impugn modern conservatives. Rather, I was trying to show that the terms "liberal", "conservative", "right", and "left" have drifted over time. Currently, socialists are in control of the vocabulary, and have hijacked the liberal label.
I prefer a collectivist—individualist spectrum, and lean individualist.
50srefugee 1 year ago
@thomaserossi: "" Conservatives were NOT royalists".
Thank you for the correction.
It's exactly confusion like this that makes me try to avoid the conservative/liberal labels. Right/left is even worse. They are all relative, rather than being leanings on a functionally defined scale (see my comment below).
It seems we may well share alignments, and I'm sorry my carelessness created an appearance of disagreement on principles that may not exist.
50srefugee 1 year ago
And he still has the leather jacket on....
Steve83B 1 year ago 2
@Steve83B For whatever reason, he likes to look like a turd.
mauman666 1 year ago
@jrspolitical,
I'd like to see a parody video of "A day in the life of Nick" where he wears that leather jacket through all sorts of improbable scenarios. Sleeping, showering, sauna, pool party, etc.
jokertim777 1 year ago
Why is this so hard for Congress to understand....oh yeah...power and money are involved.
DangerFamily 1 year ago
@ctminarchist yikes. probably an assassination while he's helpless in prison.
El3ctricPenguin 1 year ago
Even with Nick's cuts we'd still be spending and taxing way too much.
carcabe 1 year ago
@carcabe
Your countrs has taxation rate of just 20% of GDP. Sweden has a taxation rate over 50% and just Sweden has no significant child poverty. Even the taxation rate in Sweden is too low and you are talking about tax cuts.
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489 We're not Sweden. Sadly enough, you could have a taxation rate of 90% and still not cure poverty here in the US.
It's a culture thing. For example, last year there were more murders in the city of New Orleans (pop 336K) than your whole country (pop 9M). How could you possibly compare the two cultures?
nsu1997 1 year ago
@nsu1997
The crime and poverty rate in your country is the result of a culture of anti-government.
I didn't know what western, northern Europe, China, Japan or South Korea has increasing overpopulation, out of control market prices on all goods, and terrible health care.
All your data about your "good" healthcare and university system shows that most of the americans have no access to it. What brings you the newest cancer treatment, if you have no access to it. No, i'm lucky to be a german
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489 All countries today are infected by the same Keynesian/socialistLight policies. Europe has the same problems as the US except they don't have the giant military machine to pay for. That is what bankrupted The Soviet Empire, and the British too back in the day. US problems can't be "a culture of anti-government since the goernment. controls everything: banks, money policy, taxes, regulates business and personal choice. Japan in recession forever, China facing inflation.
leafwatch 1 year ago
@leafwatch
The keynesian policy has reduced our unemployment rate to one of the lowest level in the industrial world.
Even if you put the US military spendings into account, the overall US-government spendings in % of GDP are 10% lower than the german, austrian, dutch and 20% lower than the spendings of the swedish, finnish and danish government.
Your gov. controls everything? I thought your country is the example for the success of capitalism? Is not? Capitalism failed?!!
B190489 1 year ago
@leafwatch
The chinese socialized market economy is working better than your capitalism.
I can say you why your economy is suffering, because it isn't competitive longer in the world. You have a big trade deficit like any other industrial state, except northern Europe. But you need a trade surplus to reduce your unemployment rate in a globalized world. Your problems are the same, just smaller than in Greece, Ireland or the UK. Without the resources even Australia oder Canada would have ...
B190489 1 year ago
@leafwatch
... problems. Just western and northern Europe have a trade surplus. Why? Because they are more competitive through their social market economy. Their tax rates and wages are higher than in the US, but companies still prefer to produce in these countries than in Asia.
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489 Nazi are repressive, Communists are repressive, wouldn't you say. Socialist systems are transitory, which means that at some point they turn into one of the above, without exception. Europe has had the benefit of American subsidizing their socialist farce. When we stop subsidizing your socialism it will turn into one of the above. What I dont understand is why we sent our people to your county's to free them, Hitler had what you beg for, we should have left you to it.
hydin1 1 year ago
@hydin1
Nazis are no socialists, but facists, which are the opposite of socialists. Millions of socialists died in nazi concentration camps, because they've opposed racism.
Europe is subsidizing european socialism? What? How do you mean that? That is ridiculous.
Your ww2 intervention was no charity, you have benefited from it. You were just here, because you wanted to pull back the soviets and you got our scientists.
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489 Nazi's are most certainly socialists. Your indoctrination has been thorough, you cant even recognize the obvious.
America is subsidizing European socialism, by providing military protection. I say let Russia have you. Socialism in all its forms leads to tyranny. Here is a list of names used for socialism, just so you know. Nazi's, Fascists, communists, socialists, anarchist as you describe them, progressives, liberals as we describe them, Maoists, and list goes on and on.
hydin1 1 year ago
@hydin1
Nazis hate socialists or why they killed them? That is obvious. My grandfather was a socialist and was killed by Nazis in a concentration camp so shut up you fucking idiot!
The US ist just providing military protection to itself. They don't care about Europe and which countries are fighting for you in Afghanistan? Right european countries.
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489 Its called competing factions, the most aggressive responses come from ideology's that most resemble each other. I.E Nazi's hate communists, because the message is so similar that it must be crushed using any excuse it can fabricate.
hydin1 1 year ago
@hydin1
I'm not talking about communists, communists are dangerous. I'm a socialist, i'm advocoting social democracy, which has never killed anybody, the Nazis have killed millions. You are comparing the most opposite ideologies in human history.
B190489 1 year ago
@hydin1
My father would cry if he would hear that people compare Obama with Hitler. These people are just stupid. They don't know nothing from history or Nazi terrorism. My grandfather has lost his life because of these motherfuckers and now people tell him that he is like they. These people shall visit a concentration camp before they call everybody a facist.
B190489 1 year ago
Libertarians are so stupid. Cutting the budget means less money for poor, education, health, police, fire department, etc. But for a libertarian the world is easy, just cutting the taxes, the rich need it, because owning 80% of the countries net worth isn't enough.
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489 We've never in any of our lifetimes spent MORE on your laundry list and we're getting less for it. The returns are in and it's a final, the Great Society has failed miserably. It's one thing for people who truly can't help themselves, but we can't afford to have one half of this country, paying for the the other half because they don't have everything they want.
admin3372 1 year ago
@admin3372
The richest 20% have more than 85% of the american net worth. I'm sure that we have enough money for the people who have worked for it and few poor people.
What you want is to split the society, where everybody has to care about himself. But without coorporation a society doesn't work.
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489 The richest 1% also pay 39% of the taxes in the US. This isn't about rich vs. poor (though it seems to be a popular talking point amongst the simple-minded these days).
SaroDarksbane 1 year ago
Comment removed
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489 Note that the top 1% also only constituted 21% of the gross income for the country, while paying 39% of the taxes for it.
Besides, who says that everyone has to be equally wealthy? If their wealth was gained legitimately, I don't begrudge them it one iota. If their wealth was gained illegitimately, I am against it regardless of how much wealth they actually have (rich or poor), so the actual amount is meaningless for the purposes of righteous indignation.
SaroDarksbane 1 year ago
@SaroDarksbane
Means that the richest 1% pay 18% more taxes than 99% of the population and still have 40% of all financial net worth. That is a real disaster.
The richest 10% have 87% of all financial net worth. I'm not talking about equal wealthy, i'm talking about justice. I'm talking about the lower 50% of the population who have earned that money for the rich and having just 2.6% of all financial net worth. That's the biggest crime in human history.
B190489 1 year ago
@SaroDarksbane
YES, because the richest 1% have 40% of the financial net worth. That they pay 39% of all taxes is the evidence, that they have so much as they have. They are still paying too less percent of their total net worth.
The top quartile have 87.1% of all wealth in your country, of course everything is rich vs. poor. The lower 50% in your country (mainly the working class) have less than 2.6% of all net worth.
B190489 1 year ago
@admin3372
You know that the rich have the money the lower 50% have made. If you let one half living in poverty (or letting die) the rich will loose 100% of their wealth.
But beside that economic and justice idiocy you want kill people by cutting welfare?
That is social darwinism, a facist idea.
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489 It's obvious no one is going to modify your leftist social engineering class warfare crap, but really you can't actually look at the progress this country has made in 250 years and suggest that it had nothing to do with freedom and democracy can you? If you can - you're simply another stuck in the echo chamber that can't see the obvious.
admin3372 1 year ago
@admin3372 Well, your many comments show you believe passionately in socialism. I have no problem with that; possibly it may work out for small countries where there are homogeneous values and similar outlooks. The EU may have been a bad step, or perhaps you like more centralization despite the difficulties.
But in America we had a very diverse culture from the beginning; I like diversity and don't like forcing everyone into one mold. US socialism & centralization relied on force, failed
leafwatch 1 year ago
@leafwatch I think you have me confused with B190489 - I am diametrically opposed to socialism, communism and the like. They are repressive and historically dictatorial regimes that have killed their citizens. What I can't understand is why morons like B190 would still support this garbage as it crumbles in front of us in Europe in real time.
admin3372 1 year ago
@admin3372
Socialism is not repressive. The northern and western european welfare states are the most democratic states in the world.
Socialism crumbles in Europe? Dude, there are big riots in Rome, Athens, London, Dublin, Lisbon, Madrid, Paris, etc.
In 2012 are elections in France, 2013 in Germany and 2015 in the UK. Currently in all three major countries socialist parties have a majority in polls. What do you think will happen in 2020? They will form the social democratic union of Europe.
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489 You need a serious history class. Explain to me how the Chinese aren't repressive? Or the Socialist utopia that is North Korea? Perhaps the cold war era Soviet Union isn't repressive to you. All of the places you just mentioned are places crumbling because of socialism not in spite of it. The grownups know there's no money left.
Thatcher said it best - "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money [to spend]." Good luck with your SDU of Europe.
admin3372 1 year ago
@admin3372
If socialism is repressive, all socialist systems must be repressive, if just China and Cuba is repressive doesn't mean that all socialist states are automatically repressive.
The most democratic states are the biggest welfare states in western- and northern Europe. The SDU will still be called EU and the system we have now is not running out the money. The public debt of the EU is lower than yours. The ninth biggest welfare states have lower unemployment and higher growth than you
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489 He has been drinking the cool aid. Stay away from the brown acid.
hydin1 1 year ago
@admin3372 So sorry my comment was addressed to your nick instead of B's. I agree that freedom outperforms all forms of coerced economic systems. The biggest problem with socialists is that they nearly universally imagine they are entitled to impose their system on everyone else; naturally coercive systems, including the U.S. socialism, tends toward increasing totalitarianism to try to rescue the failures of top-down controls.
leafwatch 1 year ago
@leafwatch Sorry to but in, too your well made point, just for clarification. Socialists must impose their Utopian fantasy on the rest of us, because even cronies capitalism works better than all of their contrived economic nonsense. Imagine a truly free market, poverty would be eliminated from the globe. They couldn't have that now could they.
hydin1 1 year ago
@B190489
So what is your solution to the mounting national debt? Just let it go until the government defaults, crashes and burns. Then all your precious government welfare will surely end, and end suddenly and badly. Or would you rather a responsible government make the necessary cuts so that, while programs may be reduced in size, etc. they could still exist while the government gets its fiscal house in order.
Libertarians aren't stupid, they just live in the real world.
myhipsi 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@myhipsi
I don't think that government runs our life just because it guarantees access to healthcare.
B190489 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@myhipsi
I don't think that government runs our life just because it guarantees access to healthcare.
B190489 1 year ago
@myhipsi
To run a life and guaranteeing healthcare is a different, of course.
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489 you are fucking gay. socialism's for fags.
JBSCOLORADO2 1 year ago
@JBSCOLORADO2
Have you something against gays. Are you a fucking facist?
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489 obviously you're the fascist because you believe in socialism, fascism is an economic term as in government redistribution of wealth
JBSCOLORADO2 1 year ago
@JBSCOLORADO2
Always funny to see how americans try to understand what facism is.
Facism is the opposite corporate ideology of socialism. The Nazis never take money from the rich (except jews) to give it the poors. They have never build a welfare state. Poor people were killed from the Nazis like you would do it. The main part of the facist ideology is racism, jew-hate and social darwinism.
All these ideas are the opposite of statist socialism and more libertarian.
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489 funny how you act like you know anything about me. I would never kill anyone except in self defense. and also I hate racism. your world view is not based on reality but is based on emotion and jealousy
JBSCOLORADO2 1 year ago
@JBSCOLORADO2
Cutting welfare = killing poor people
All people who support libertarians are facists. If you are not a racist, why you want take the right of life from the poor? Are they humans with lower values for you???
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489 your stupid ass comments is proof of your faggy mindset. I'm done.
JBSCOLORADO2 1 year ago
@JBSCOLORADO2
Why do you hate gays? Hitler had hated gays too.
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489 Every cent you don't give to a starving child in Africa makes you a murderer? Better go turn yourself in, then.
SaroDarksbane 1 year ago
@SaroDarksbane
We have all complicity, but the real bad person in that game are the dictatorships in Africa which doesn't spent it's oil money on food programs.
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489 Always funny when uneducated individuals try and separate fascism and socialism.
You can't have one without the other. Look at Nazi Germany, Mussolini and Italy, China, Stalin and the Soviet Union and Cuba. Without a central dictator socialism will fail. There will be controversy on who gets how much, what is "fair", and tough decisions in general. Without a central dictator who has a "what i say goes" personality, there is no socialist structure.
brett2k07 1 year ago
@brett2k07
Nazi Germany was not socialist, but national socialist as part of the facist ideology. Facism is anti-statist and the opposite of the statist socialists. Both are corporate ideologies, but the corporate aspect is not killing, because also and especially in a non-corporate society people would kill. A world without corporatism/government would be automatically a world with many dictators = facism without corporatism.
B190489 1 year ago
@brett2k07
Socialism is working, not in Cuba or North Korea, but in Asia (china, Japan, South Korea) and western, northern Europe.
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489 So increasing overpopulation, out of control market prices on all goods, and terrible health care is evidence of socialism working? No thank you, I like having access to great health care, manageable market prices, and living in underpopulated areas. And who is to say that it is really working? We are to believe everything Communist China throws out?
brett2k07 1 year ago
@brett2k07
Answer in @nsu 1997 comment
B190489 1 year ago
Comment removed
brett2k07 1 year ago
@B190489 What we believe is you should be men. Self sufficiency is your own responsibility, dependence is slavery. We want to free the servile, from that bondage. It's a low sum and ignorant view you espouse. I know it's hard for you to understand because you have always been a slave. I see you truly believe your own ignorant understanding of the world and so this is probably of no use to you. I will pray for your soul, because like your predecessors you desire to enslave others.
hydin1 1 year ago
@hydin1
Non-dependancy is not possible as long as you live not alone on this planet.
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489 The response of a slave.
hydin1 1 year ago
@hydin1
Socialism for win!
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489 In English that makes no sense.
hydin1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hydin1
You make no sense too.
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489 no what I mean is the syntax doesn't work. The beliefs you expose are definitely wrong, but I was talking about your word usage. Socialism for win! means nothing. Socialism is for winners, works. socialism will win, works. just trying to help.
hydin1 1 year ago
@hydin1
I've understand that you have a problem with my grammar.
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489 No thats cool, I just didn't get what you where saying.
hydin1 1 year ago
@hydin1
*should
B190489 1 year ago
Do these budget cuts include privatizing the FDA, NASA, AmTrak, and the Postal Service? Red tape hurts the healthcare system, NASA is a relic of the space race, AmTrak is a subsidized failure, and the Postal Service needs to compete more freely with FedEx and UPS.
ThePyro3825 1 year ago
@ThePyro3825
Why not privatizing America? Who needs that country?
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489 I'm talking about privatizing certain things the government doesn't need to run. UL certifies the safety of consumer products just like the FDA does medicine, but as an NGO, its not clogged by bureaucratic bullshit. Judging by the Socialist International logo on your channel, I'm going to assume you're an ignorant leftist who thinks the government needs to run everything it can get its greased hands on.
ThePyro3825 1 year ago 2
@ThePyro3825
And i'm sure you are ignorant one who believe that privates needs to run everything it can gets greased hands on.
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489 everything but law enforcement, military, courts, etc. Government is needed to protect the rights of the citizens, not run their lives. And by private military, are you referring to a militia or a mercenary firm?
Oh, and you can stop the straw man argument, you're fooling no one here.
ThePyro3825 1 year ago
Comment removed
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489
Aw, comon' those guys in Blackwater were good shots.
btwall60 1 year ago
@btwall60
What do you want to tell me?
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489 Don't get me started on Blackwater (they changed their name to Xe Services). I could care less that they do security consulting and offer outsourced tactical training for law enforcement, but there's a good chance that they do questionable things for the government and aren't held accountable for.
ThePyro3825 1 year ago
@ThePyro3825
So you think that private military is a good idea?
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489 Uh, no. If ex-military guys want to use their skills when their service contract is up, they should consider going into law enforcement or running a skydiving or SCUBA school. One of my dad's friends served in Desert Storm as a helicopter pilot, and a few years later started up his own flight school.
ThePyro3825 1 year ago
@ThePyro3825
Ok, so you are a socialist, because you are supporting socialized military.
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489 Defense and law enforcement are the undoubtedly two main duties of government. Those are vital for every country, including Switzerland, which does in fact have a military.
ThePyro3825 1 year ago
@ThePyro3825
And healthcare, etc is a duty for the government too.
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489 the only problem with healthcare in the US is the costs as a result of stupid policies.
1) Healthcare plans can't go over state lines (e.g. I can't get a plan in Utah because I live in Nevada.) This limits competition between insurance companies, enabling them to drive up the premiums without regard for free market forces.
2) Premiums are NOT tax deductible
3) The FDA pretty much ignores the drug certifications from its European counterparts and delays drugs from entering the market.
ThePyro3825 1 year ago
@ThePyro3825
The problem is that private healthcare services are unefficient.
1. Privates have to spend money on advertising and financial management.
2. Privates make profit, which could better spend on healthcare itself.
3. Competition does not work in healthcare. It's a difference if you buy a smartphone or a inscrutable insurance. It's like buying a financial product with deadly results. Consumer protection = 0
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489 Private companies also have an incentive to cut costs, since they affect their bottom line. The government can just increase taxes when they want more cash.
Also, competition works fine for healthcare IF consumers are the ones doling out the cash. But they aren't. Right now, consumers have no idea how much a procedure costs because they aren't paying directly, so they don't shop around. This is a cultural problem caused by the government over-incentivizing work-based insurance.
SaroDarksbane 1 year ago
@SaroDarksbane
Of course privates have an incentive to cut costs, for example by kicking sick people out. A private insurance company will never work for less money than socialized medicine. If you have to pay for advertising and profit, you always have to spent more money on it than without. That's an easy account. And i don't want to know what all these insurance company headquarters costs.
There are empirical data which shows that socialized medicine is the most efficient system.
B190489 1 year ago
@ThePyro3825
And the main reason for universal healthcare is financial stability for the middle-class. Read: "standing on shaky Ground Americans' Experiences with economic Insecurity" !
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489 The problem with government healthcare is that it looks good only on paper. Your far-left dogma and straw man arguments aren't convincing anyone. I'm more than aware of the recent budget cuts and protests in Europe; the welfare system is unsustainable during times of economic downturn.
ThePyro3825 1 year ago
@ThePyro3825
Yeah, if you have a taxation rate of just 20% of GDP for example in Greece and Ireland, of course your welfare system is unsustainable. By the way, it's the same rate like in the US. The real european welfare like Sweden, Germany, Austria, Netherlands, Finland, Denmark have no problems with the economic downturn. The current growth rate of Germany is 4%, yours is 3%, our deficit is -4%, yours more than -10%.
B190489 1 year ago
Comment removed
B190489 1 year ago
@ThePyro3825
Is private military legal in a libertarian society?
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489 Depends on the libertarian, really. We're not a completely homogeneous group (Yell "INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY!" into a room full of libertarians and stand back to watch the fireworks).
If you are looking for an attack angle to call libertarians "socialist", drop the private military argument and go with private police instead. Private military could be done, but I would argue (as a libertarian myself) that private police could not.
SaroDarksbane 1 year ago
@SaroDarksbane
What would you do if i took my private military to form a socialist society?
B190489 1 year ago
Thanks god someone is talking about balancing budget, and not concentrating in how much you tax or not, it is not an issue regarding taxing or not, is that you are spending in warfare what you don’t have.
fitobcnfito 1 year ago
@ctminarchist: "How is our government liberals?"
Watch "The American Form of Government" at watch?v=DioQooFIcgE , which gives a functional definition of the political spectrum from tyranny, oligarchy, democracy, republic, anarchy; that is, from absolute government power on the left to absolute individualism on the right. (The two extremes are unstable and decay into oligarchy.)
"Liberalism" is a grossly distorted term, hijacked by the left, leaving "conservative" to their opponents.
50srefugee 1 year ago
This is how Clinton balanced the budget back in the 90's
dapperswindler 1 year ago
Looks like another vid for retard conservatives. There's fat in the budget because Reason TV says so! Oh well, I know Drew Carey loves trailer trash conservatives making him richer swallowing this shit.
robertmike57 1 year ago
@robertmike57: "Looks like another vid for retard conservatives."
Ah, yes, more of the left's favorite argument: "Shut up!". Always so enlightening.
See Andrew Klavan: watch?v=lWHgUE9AD4s
50srefugee 1 year ago
@50srefugee linking to a dickhead like Klavan, of wow.
robertmike57 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@robertmike57: "@50srefugee linking to a dickhead like Klavan, of wow." & "Asswipe conservatives".
Or, in other words: "Shut up!"
Thanks for proving Klavan's point.
Have a nice day!
50srefugee 1 year ago
@robertmike57 This is a Libertarian/Classic Liberal channel not a conservative one
Darkwizzrobe 1 year ago 7
@Darkwizzrobe I know that's what these asswipe conservatives of this channel want you to believe.
robertmike57 1 year ago
@robertmike57 Better than you asswipe ignorant libs that consistently fail the human nature test.
admin3372 1 year ago
@robertmike57
Do you have any intelligent arguments against? All I see is an ignoramus mouthing off about conservatives and Drew Carey. If you disagree with libertarian ideas, then please make a coherent argument against it, otherwise do yourself and everybody else a favor and f*ck off.
myhipsi 1 year ago
@myhipsi as if a dipshit in a leather coat and a chef's hat and apron has anything coherent to say. Libertarian ideas is an oxyumorn, I just wish they could be dying of TB, polio, yellow fever and other things that would be endemic in their utopian libertarian world.
robertmike57 1 year ago
Who thought this was a good idea? I laughed out loud.
voltagedrop 1 year ago
I can't seem to understand why our government(liberals)think that we should be punished and made to pay for their out of control spending. If they want to do that then we should be able to force the government to pay off our credit cards and house that we couldn't afford.
mcap52 1 year ago
@mcap52 Remove "liberals". Add, in its place "authoritarians".
Party politics is just another way our one-party system (The Big Government Party) keeps the rest of us fighting against each other instead of watching what they're doing.
SaroDarksbane 1 year ago
Take much deeper cuts then he is talking about first place to start is end the war on drugs
then end all other wars cut military by 50% get rid of all the federal stuff that state and local can do better raise SS and medicare to age 70 sell off much of federal held land and use to pay down debt
bilpayne 1 year ago
He must be running for office to tell us so convincingly we only need to cut 3.6%, when in 2010 at least, the federal budget deficit is closer to 36% of revenues. Did he slip a decimal somewhere? On top of that, if you weigh his piece of fat, I'm afraid it's quite a bit smaller than one 30th of the total slice.
kzoknight 1 year ago
Those are all good points, Nick, and the presentation was outstanding. But good luck getting politicians to actually adhere (not just promise) to cut the budget. Voters evaluate politicians by what they judge is the current state of the economy, so natural selection tells us congress will be populated by irresponsible politicians. Only when the ability to borrow is severed will you see real change: and I am not sure that's too bad.
UnconformistSheep 1 year ago
Just shut down the federal goverment for a year. Collect taxes same as before but, spend nothing for one year. Hit the reset button. Sure it would suck for many people during that year but, afterward we would be back on top.
UtherPendragan 1 year ago
@UtherPendragan Bad idea. First off there's terrorists, with no FBI or CIA or whatever around that'd give them a much better chance of a successful attack. And there's the local troublemakers.
FatherTime89 1 year ago
@FatherTime89 Yeah how would we ever get by without federal law enforcement? After all they have done such a great job along our borders and keeping drugs out of our schools. You know I used to be in the department of homeland security, of course back then we called it the U.S. Army. We could keep military and law enforcement, however for that year we would pay them by selling off hardware. Toys like helocopters, and jet fighters. Bombs and bullets stockpiled since 1950. Maybe some real estate.
UtherPendragan 1 year ago
@FatherTime89 Oh yeah all those nations we are defending around the world. Start charging them the cost of all those soldiers and equipment. If they don't pay take what they have while we are there. Next time we go to war for oil, lets get some f**king oil.
UtherPendragan 1 year ago
@FatherTime89 You have to remember dumbasses on this channel are dumber than shit.
robertmike57 1 year ago
@robertmike57
If that's the case, based on your callow insipid comment, you must be borderline retarded.
myhipsi 1 year ago
This is great
Fidokrab 1 year ago
To everyone who thinks you can solve the budget crisis by canceling foreign aid, arts funding, PBS, or NASA: you can't save trillions by cutting hundreds of millions. Put together, those programs are less than 1% of the budget. That's like an unemployed guy trying to save money by buying toothpaste at the dollar store. If you only spent $10 a year on toothpaste before, you can't possibly save more than $10.
sharrynuk 1 year ago
@sharrynuk It'd be a good start though. Continue cutting for the Dept of Education, the FDA, Dept of Agriculture, stop the wars, bring the troops, et cetera. See. It's easy! :)
iheartdd4eva 1 year ago
@sharrynuk
There are so many unnecessary and immoral spending programs out there that really must be abolished. The one thing you list that MUST go is foreign aid. None of it actually serves the people in need; it and it merely fills the pockets of corrupt international politicians.
We need a meat cleaver, not a butter knife into the deficit. And you're right, there are so many more important things that need to be cut...but, its smart to at least start somewhere...no?
Buergs323 1 year ago 9
@Buergs323 Hear hear. Egypt, which I think receives the 2nd most amount of Aid after Israel, has been essentially a dictatorship for the last 3 decades. And if we have learned anything about Africa, it is that business and property rights, not aid, solves social problems.
kev3d 1 year ago
@kev3d
Google:
Andrew Mwdena and foreign aid. That's a brave journalist right there.
Buergs323 1 year ago
Yeah, but that plate that's left represents stolen money.
furyofbongos 1 year ago
More taxes will definately make the dish too spicey. Make sure to blend evenly so the rich are paying their fare share.
bigsexyinsect 1 year ago
@bigsexyinsect "so the rich are paying their fare share." I keep hearing this statement. If you look at the numbers the top 5% pay more tax than the bottom 95% combined.
whippoorwillss 1 year ago
@bigsexyinsect The rich are paying their fare share, but it's not exactly a fair share.
heyniceaddress 1 year ago
Legalize drugs and prostitution (light taxes on both), end farm subsidies, get rid of NASA, cut welfare, social security, and medicare, demand immedieate return of TARP funds, cancel stimulus...
RadioFreeWisconsin 1 year ago
i guess i should have said "imagine if we eliminate all the military" i didnt mean it as a course of action to be taken immediately. but seriously like to know what the repercussions would be if we actually did it. i doubt much would change.
wolverineks 1 year ago
@wolverineks: '"Imagine if we eliminate all the military" [I'd] seriously like to know what the repercussions would be."
The United States would cease to exist within a year, at the most.
And it would be an ugly, ugly fall. Tens of millions of Americans would die, and I wouldn't give a sick cat's fart for the continued liberty of the survivors.
Around the world, the Saddams, Pol Pots, Kim Il Jongs, and Idi Amins would rule.
It would be a dark ages of unparalleled misery.
50srefugee 1 year ago
That's too much meat for one person. Meat affects your carbon footprint. I heared they talked about rationing meat consumption in the industrialized countries at the Climate Conference in Cancun to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Mr Gillespie, your behaviour is irresponsible. You're melting the glaciers and killing baby seal with your nourishing habits.
ExternalServerError 1 year ago
@ExternalServerError Good we must do what we can to combat the evils of baby seals.
The baseball bats just weren't working.
morcova 1 year ago
My specific recipe?
1) End the war on drugs. Regulate like alcohol and tobacco.
2) End the war on guns. Period. "Shall not be infringed," means "don't even cut off the decorative strings around the edges." Shoot last 3 BATFX heads for treason, and as a warning to other domestic enemies.
3) Shut down the Department of Homeland Security, including TSA. Hang Napolitano and Pistole for treason,.
4) Shut down Depts of Education, Energy, EPA, and HUD.
5) FCC only assigns RF Spectrum.
50srefugee 1 year ago
with this dish you'll wow your trading partners and foreign and domestic investors...hahahahahaha
andristic 1 year ago
@andristic Ya I LOLed at that too. :D
shampoovta 1 year ago
@loathomar. Income tax is illegal all citizens should be allowed to keep what they earn. Let the gov't tax the movement of money as it currently does but let the people keep their hard earned money. Besides alot of the money from taxes goes to pay for interest on debts the people never agreed to take on in the first place. ie wars etc. The only" fair tax" is no tax! I'm no history major but wasn't one of the reasons the country was started because of "taxation w/out representation"
hesh2 1 year ago
50srefugee and SrgGoofy are on to something.
First, DO NOT CUT MEAT IN THE METAL PAN! you will screw up the edge of your blade.
Second. Cut it in bit sized cubes, salt and throw in a hot oiled pan. Make some Mole sauce and rice. You can throw out the really gross fatty chunks before you serve with hot corn tortillas.
rlpederson 1 year ago
I don't eat pork or any meat for that matter but here's my idea
1). Open borders to Cuba get tax revenues from importing & exporting goods to our neighbor.
2). Legalize & tax prostitution u can't criminalize human behavior
3). Legalize & decriminalize & tax all drugs
4). Allow "illegal aliens" giving them an "indetured servant" status taxing them significantly
5). End all foreign wars
6). End war on drugs
7). Eliminate capital gains & all income tax
& thats just the appetizer
hesh2 1 year ago
@hesh2 Eliminating capital gains & all income tax would make any federal government non existent. That is over 50% of the federal budget income. It could be replaced with some thing like the "fair tax", but then the statement should be "Replace capital gains & all income taxes with a compositions tax".
I don't care for the title "indetured servant" for "illegal aliens", but giving them a legal status with a higher tax rate while giving them a path to citizenship seems reasonable.
Loathomar 1 year ago
@hesh2 That just makes too much sense (or reason). It would also cut into the welfare elite's pork.
saadasim 1 year ago
Fuck that, we need to take a cleaver to that budget.
bajoverga 1 year ago 2
This recipe results in dry, tasteless pork.
Instead of cutting out just the fat, which adds juicy flavor, you should trim off actual meat.
This has the added advantage of depriving The Beast of some of its power, always a laudable goal.
50srefugee 1 year ago 3
End the military industrial complex, end the war on drugs & the prison industrial complex. THATS IS, NO TRICKS OR STUPID COOKING VIDEOS! ಠ_ಠ
depro9 1 year ago