Mostly they were caught up in the panic caused by the defaults in the private label MBS's which caused falling house prices and unemployment caused defaults, not because of the government insisting on the issuing of sub-prime mortgages. It was the unregulated private securitizers who were buying up the worst mortgages (they were not required to buy any) and the private mortgage writers, who got paid on volume and not quality, who caused the crisis.
Whereas the GSEs guaranteed the performance of their MBS, private securitizers generally did not, and might only retain a thin slice of risk. Often, banks would offload this risk to insurance companies or other counterparties through credit default swaps, making their actual risk exposures extremely difficult for investors and creditors to discern.
Freddie and Fannie also bought some Alt-A loans (these are loans to borrowers with good credit scores, but which are not as fully documented with respect to borrower income and assets as are prime loans) for their portfolios. They have lost money on these also. Despite their losses, their loss rate is less than one-third the loss rate of the 67 mortgage banks with assets of more than $10 bn
The charters of the GSEs preclude them from securitizing subprime loans. Thus, they were unable to support subprime lending by any commitment to funding or securitizing them. They were followers, not leaders. When Fannie and Freddie did buy was some higher-rated pieces of subprime MBSs created by Wall Street. The ratings on these securities fell when the subprime loans began to default in large numbers..
For those of you who think that Freddie and Fannie were at fault for the banking crisis either a: you don't understand what actually happened or are lying. See the next posts...
Wouldn't "child-labor laws" decrease the available labor in the market thereby increasing the income of the remaining workers? Isn't that the law of supply and demand?
Isn't it in the interest of every employer to have a better educated and physically mature employee than an illiterate child?
So, the Libertarian dogma would prefer government not regulate child labor and eliminate prohibitions on things like prostitution. See if you can guess what that would lead to.
@capemh Removing all work regulations and licensing would lead to the freedom for everyone to act in their own self-interest, but it would harm politicians greatly in their quest to buy votes.
Libertypen your the fucking man! i got here from milton friedman as an econ major and ive found SOOOO much good stuff. Thank you so much, im subscribed to your channel now btw.
@niriop Nice ad hominem...you further display your distaste for logic...didn't you take high school debate? Informal logical fallacies are not allowed.
@ProIndividual It's not an ad hom actually; its just an insult; I've not actually said your argument fails *because* you're a dumbass; however I can't actually attack your argument because you have yet to posit one.
"distaste for logic" Does any motherfucker on this site know what logic is? "logical fallacies" Fucking where?! Where are they? I've written nothing that could be miscontrued to be a logical fallacy whatsoever; you have no fucking idea what any of these terms mean at all; fuck off!
@niriop You asserted he setup a strawman in the first 30 seconds of the video, so you couldn't BEAR to watch it any further...this is flatly false, as he simply describes the usual attack made against the free market point of view. If you'd care to elaborate how in fact this is a strawman, this might be helpful, since no one else seems to agree that it is. Then you call me a name whn I point this out...ad hom. It was implicit that you disqualified my argument through this. Thx for playing.
@ProIndividual It is a strawman because NOBODY has ever said that, ever; its a ridiculous thing. Also, liberal critics of deregulation still want a market economy, but just a regulated one. Explain to me how to make shit up about your opponents is logical, or possibly link me to a statement similar to one he uses by an ACTUAL critic.
Watch this video on ad hom you fucking dumb piece of motherfucking cum-drenched shit (still not an ad hom, just an insult): watch?v=7GzXVqwYHVE
@niriop First of all, if you never heard a leftist say "free markets cause child labor" you're insane, or need to get out more.
Secondly, a regulated economy isn't a free market economy, it's a State dependent market economy. You obviously don't know that free market economics are defined as an economy without interference in ANY way by the govt, other than prosecuting harm or fraud. You also don't seem to know the difference between coercive State dependent markets economics and free markets.
@ProIndividual You're ignoring my criticism; Woods just rants off about how the supposed "leftist" wants to destroy the free market to stop child labour, and goes on about skipping and rivers of chocolate, a complete strawman of the liberal critics of deregulation.
Secondly, regulation in an economy does not negate its market features; it is still market capitalism. That's an ideological opinion, not objective economic theory. "Free" is also a subective ideological preffix.
@niriop I'm not ignoring it, it's false. Free markets are not regulated pre-emptively...they are only regulated in courts for harm and fraud. So you do destroy free markets to regulate child labor (which btw exists way more prevelantly in agrarian society, free markts stop child labor, noot regulations, PERIOD...same for starvation). So, READ what free market economics is definesd as, then you will understand regulating them in the sense you mean (pre-emptively) is making them non-free markets.
@niriop Free is not subjective in the meaning of free market economics...you obviously haven't read ANY free market economists. It is define as:
A free market is a market free from state intervention. However, the term is also commonly used for markets in which economic intervention and regulation by the state is limited to tax collection, and enforcement of private ownership and contracts.
@niriop So, what you're describing are not free markets, they are State dependent market economies, which are coercive and exploitative of the consumer public, for the engrandizement and benefit of the minority oligarchy and State caused monopolies:
Free market is the opposite of a controlled market, in which the state directly regulates how goods, services and labor may be used, priced, or distributed, rather than relying on the mechanism of supply and demand.
@niriop So, nothing he said was logically fallacious, or made up...nor was anything I said.
Third of all, you've shown yourself to be an unsophisticated cromagnon, both in economics and in discourse. Your name calling and cussing has clearly shown you lack intellectual merit. It's ad hominem if you IMPLY (which you did) that it disqualifies my argument.
Your last insult was just juvenile, and furthered my case, albeit not ad hom itself. Congrats, you're a mental midget without a point.
"cromagnon" You're descended from them too you know; a lot of self-projection here. "name calling and cussing" Which does not invalidate my points. "you IMPLY" I didn't; you're a twat with bad arguments; you could be a decent person with arguments, but sorry, you're a twat. Why should I not insult you? You're a piss poor arguer, a gibbering ideologue, you've misframed and strawmanned my criticism, and you prefer to focus on my attitude rather than my substance.
@niriop You are cromagnon, economically, and morally. You want force, and don't know what you're talking about economically...I used the word cromagnon because the more accurate word "ignorant" has a negative connotation...but to be fair, it was an ad hominem attack like yours (which you did imply, stop lying).
@niriop You said in the beginning: "Whatever you say dumbass..."
If you just said "dumbass", that would be an insult. Logically, when you start off with "Whatever you say", you are referring to what I said, and therefore logically attacking what I said...hence it's an implied ad hominem attack.
Please give up, and stop lying. You have been exposed, beaten, and are just sophistically continuing in order to not admit what you did.
@ProIndividual No, it's not; I never indicated it was an ad hom, just an insult, largely because I believed your response was not adequate for any further discussion, and was merely a shrug-off. "Free" is still subjective; Friedman and Hayek were doubtlessly "free marketeers", but still believed in some form of regulation, the former in a monetarist system. Admittedly, there is a degree of "state dependency", however, all markets rely on a state to function as a protection racket of sorts. [con]
Furthermore, a "controlled market" is still market capitalism, because there is, how can I put this, still a fucking market; as such, for Woods to declare liberal critics volleying for a "non-market" alternative in your own framing of the debate is disengenuous. The economists you keep poiting to are maligned religious demagogues: "KILL THE UNBELIEVERS!" they chant; that's not how modern academic economics work. I've read several of the books you indicate, and they collapse easily under critique
@niriop Reread the last comment I left you...you cannot logically dispute you ad hom'd, I broke it down clearly by quoting you, and explaining it concisely. Freidman was a monetarist; he beleived in coercive central banking, which is not free market. Also he believed a fallacy that "can't have open borders in a welfare State", which had been disproven with data. That's called appeal to authority, another logical fallacy. Hayek also had problems, as did David Ricardo.
@ProIndividual No, still didn't ad hom; I broke it down and explained it concisely. Well, he said he was, and most modern economists agree; surely this shows the "free" in free market is subjective. I don't know what that quote has to do with anything. No it isn't an appeal to authority you fucking idiot. Hayek and Ricardso are still free marketeers, no matter what the Mises Cult says; its a very intolerant, religious way of doing things.
@niriop These economists mistakes may not disqualify them as free market economists, but it certainly disqualifies their mistakes, logically. I can be for non-free market ideas and be a free market economist, just as I can be a philosophical pacifist, and make a mistake and punch an insulting person. It's a mistake, not logically indicative of the pure philsophical approach. So, no that doesn't change what it means, or make the definition subjective at all. Stop trying to get around it.
@niriop All markets are State dependent, this is Whitman's myth. A free market is defined as I stated, a market free from State intervention...therefore it is not State dependent, hence anarcho capitalism. Actually no economic system is State dependent, but all have State dependent forms. Philosophy is separate from economics. There is State socialism, and anarcho socialism (Chomsky is an anarchist socialist). Mercantilism and Keynesianism are State dependent forms of capitalism, fm aren't.
@ProIndividual Sorry, a market needs a state to exist, because capitalists need a protection racket; if you took away the state, the top end of the market would quickly create a new one, or the chaos would eventually lead to one arising.
"Philosophy is separate from economics." Complete and utter bullshit; that most economists are not also philosophers is a very recent thing. Mercantilism isn't capitalist, it's pre-capitalist (fucking idiot). But they still have markets.
@niriop Anarcho capitalism is free market economics with a private arbitration system, as opposed to a coerced monopoly on the court system by the State. Free market capitalism also can exist with a State as the court system. In both cases, the State doesn't interfere in the economy...all they do, private or State, is arbitrate and punish harm and fraud. They may or may not tax or have user fees instead of tax. No pre-emptive regulation exists. Read some of the free market economists, I have.
@ProIndividual This will lead to another state ultimately, as the rich will dominate this "private arbitration", and will very easily use their own private power when they want something; its all good saying at the beginning "Now everybody play nice", but history shows that that never works, and the wealthy get their claws dirty almost immediately. "They MAY or may not tax" Sounds coercive; you've just shot yourself in the foot. Very dogmatic: "*I* say who is free market! BWAH-HA-HAHAR!
@niriop BTW, Freidman aslo advocated a welfare system in his "negative income tax"...not free market. You should of used that as well. It still is fallacous to claim anything he believed is defined as free market, but still, it fit your argument (regardless of it's lack of validity).
@niriop I told you, I'm not responding until you go read. You don't what you're talking about. All you have is "blah blah blah, random cussword, random insult, blah blah blah, I'm an anti-capitalist hellbent on redefining free markets."
When you get Chomsky to say socialism requires a State then we'll admit free markets require a State. Clearly, logically, all economic systems are separate from all philosophies. They exist independent of each other, in all different forms. You need education.
@ProIndividual Yeah, I have to go read while you ignore my side of things and sit there waiting with your finger up your arse. Fucking pompous twat. Why the hell should I show nothing but contempt?
"When you get Chomsky to say socialism requires a State then we'll admit free markets require a State." Catergory error; markets require a protection racket i.e the stae; we see this in the colonisation of America, and in Somalia today where businessmen want a state back to protect their interests.
@ProIndividual "Clearly, logically, all economic systems are separate from all philosophies." Smith based his economics on his own ethical and political philosphy, and so did Hayek, Mises, Mill, Friedman, Sen and many more; most of them are valued as much as philosophers as they are economists; the disciplines are inseparable.
You're one of the most self-righteous bastards I've ever come across; I may still be learning, but its clear you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.
@niriop "You're one of the most self-righteous bastards I've ever come across; I may still be learning, but its clear you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about."
It's clear to anyone who has done the READING that I'm correct, and you are the dogmatic one, who has already made up their mind without any researching of facts. I'm not self-righteous...I'm just right. I used to be a leftist statist sadist like you, then I grew up, read some books, and opened my mind to critical thinking.
@ProIndividual the READING" So what you read COMPLETELY disolves the rest of the literature and facts; I'm not reading it the same way you have, just like the Baptist says the Catholic isn't reading the same Bible correctly; hence, I can say right back at you; you are a terrible arguer because your dogmatism blinds you.
I'm not a statist, and I don't why I'm a sadist either. "opened my mind to critical thinking" Bullshit; I'm happy to change my opinions I've just not met any good arguments yet
@niriop You haven't read any of the opposing views to your own, that's abundantly clear...so once you do that, and stop wasting time arguing with me, you might come to some realization. I mean you used Freidman...he famously said "we're all Keynesians now". That's not free market, although most of philsophy was. He also wasn't free market his whole life, to be clear. Hid early years were anything but. Your analogy shows your ignorance. And if you think the best way to organize ...
@niriop And if you think the best way to organize society is through a coercive State, you are by definition a statist...and statists are sadists, as it is defined; they take joy in the suffering of others (like wanting to tax and regulate others who haven't harmed or defrauded anyone else or their properties). It's logical, please think about it. I used to be one too. I have no dogma, as I have no faith. My conclusions are based in fact. If you reject good arguments and say there are none...
@niriop If you reject good arguments, and then say there are none, then you are the dogmatist...with faith in the State for the sake of preserving preconcieved notions and avoiding logic. Look, any attempt to redefine free market capitaliosm to mean pre-emptive regulation is bunk...read Adam Smith, David Reicardo, Frederic Bastiat, Menger, Coase, Boudreaux, Woods (the guy in the video), etc., etc. Sure, some favored non-free market ideas (like Freidman and Hayek to some degree), but that's rare.
@niriop TYPOS: That's not free market, although most of his economics were. (His philosophy was small government statism, like many free market economists).*
@niriop If your too lazy to read the free books online, or are too busy (many are, they have lives, jobs, etc.), then just go to Wikipedia, being sure to check your sources, and answer your questions or preconceived notions there.
I won't respond further...have a nice day (life).
I'd like to make this fucking scum bags kids work in a 18th century cotton scooper for 15 hours straight like in that episode of "worst jobs" hopefully he can see one of his kids lose a limb of get his skull crushed sweeping bits of fluff under a live moving machine and then say..."oh well, free markets, god given rights, at least isn't not socialism"
@MMZen so you are willing to subject innocent children of a man you disagree with, to torture and physical harm?
You morally bankrupt prick. i'd slit you throat if ever you did try to do that to any child, and i wouldn't dare treat any of your relatives for your failing.
@100CommonCents "You morally bankrupt prick. i'd slit you throat if ever you did try to do that to any child,"- 100cents
Gee talk about bizarre leaps of morality. You support the child labor apologist- Tom Woods! Somebody thinks his kids should have to go through what he condones and they are a monster? I guess that makes Michael Moore a child-killer because he lobbied Senators to send their kids to Iraq?
@iggerdanus notice the 'if you did ever did try' part.. if you saw someone physically harming a child, like what @MMZen says he would do, then i don't think it's so extreme. they put ppl to death by law in many countries, i'd only be saving the state some money by doing it myself (yes, this explanation would hold up in court, remember i was talking hypothetically, and only if by such and such circumstances)
micheal moore isn't a child killer by my logic, you overstepped.
He said he'd like to watch his kids get chopped up. he also said he'd make them work. if he MADE them work, and they get CHOPPED UP, he's RESPONSIBLE - duh. how the fuck can you be defending this?
You're willing to side with the guy whose ideology you like the most, despite the fact he chop up the kids of a person he disagrees with to make a point? Pathetic
plus T Woods is not defending child labor. he's given context to the situation.
@100CommonCents He said he'd like to watch his kids get chopped up? OK then, who in that sentence is "he"? The way I read it MMZen said "He" is TW, here is the quote: " hopefully he can see..".
Obviously you badly over reached here and now you are scrambling to try to save face, not likely you'll be able to manage it. Let me know if you want to dissect the exact quote some more, I'll be happy to help, clearly.
@iggerdanus i obviously hit a nerve since you brought it up again. . Sorry ol' timer, but youtube is the way it is, adapt. don't get so so worked up about it.
"I'd like to make this fucking scum bags kids work in a 18th century cotton scooper for 15 hours straight"
"hopefully he can see"
Isn't this proving my point? he wants to force his kids to work, and he hopes they get their skulls crushed. and so i said, if this were to occur, i'd slit his throat. wtf are you objecting to?
@100CommonCents "he wants to force his kids to work, and he hopes they get their skulls crushed. and so i said, if this were to occur, i'd slit his throat. wtf are you objecting to?" 100Cents
I am objecting to your assuming that he "hopes they get skulls crushed", I read something else entirely, I hear MMZen saying that he hopes the children of the elite experience what common folks children had/have to experience, which is the purest conception of justice I can imagine.
@100Cents It is in fact EXACTLY the form of justice Michael Moore was advocating when he (jokingly) asked Senators if they wanted their kids to go to Iraq. Did that mean he wanted their (Senator's") kids maimed, disfigured, or killed? NO- it meant he didn't want ANYONE'S kids maimed or killed! That is the meaning you are either too dense, or too dishonest to acknowledge.
One standard for the wealthy, another for the rest of us- that is what MMZen is pointing out and you ludicrously defend.
"I hear MMZen saying that he hopes the children of the elite experience what common folks children had/have to experience, which is the purest conception of justice I can imagine."
well i read the actual words he wrote.
But ok, how on earth can you possibly subject the children of the man you wish to punish, to harm, then call it justice?
do you not understand that the children are innocent?
you're morally on par with a pedophile right now. i'm not trying to exaggerate either.
@100CommonCents "you're morally on par with a pedophile right now. i'm not trying to exaggerate either."
Haha. Ridiculous! I understand about the innocence of children, ALL children, not just the pampered spawn of the monied blue bloods, and that is exactly what MMZen was defending!
You are being polemic and obtuse, clearly.
You remind me of Tom Woods actually- always looking for an opportunity to defend wealth, nevermind the atrocities it has commited. You disgust me!
Subject man A's children to same treatment that man A was supporting (supposably)
justice.
you are a morally bankrupt.
and wtf, whose wealth am i defending. i support what i do for the betterment of everyone. the mega rich could not exist under an actual free market. the regulatory protection/paperwork and unnessacary hoops = few companies and high profits.
@100CommonCents Whose wealth are you defending> No one's! What you are doing is carrying the wealthy's water in hopes they will look favorably upon you, a disgusting thing to see to be sure.
You will obviously contort yourself into any bizarre shape to continue this scam.
@iggerdanus How about i send you a short 10min clip of T Woods explaining his view of economics, and you can comment on that.
Try not to end up supporting a view that favors crushing the heads of his children; that was a pretty big fuck-up by you, you shouldn't play dead hands (excuse the pun)
but seriously, analyse this guys thoughts on something meaningful, other than your own misinterpretation of his view on child labour.
What is this assholes point exactly? he jumps around and tries to make connections between disconnected things..like his bullshit about "even a king didn't have plumbing"....it's so amazing how the right have been able to silver tongue brainwash people into believing freedom is the right to work for a more and more devalued labor system to help increase the profits of the super wealthy more and more because anything else would socialism that is 'even worse'
@MMZen - I'm sorry that you've been so brainwashed that you cannot realize the absolute prosperity that comes from the free market. I'm sorry that you can't realize that as a result of the free market, we no longer have child labor. That's the point.
He never says child labor is desirable, just the opposite.
Spreading wealth evenly makes everyone poorer, but freeing people to create wealth makes all richer.
@rusedorange - The overwhelming evidence is that the free market leads to prosperity. There is also a great deal of evidence that interfering with the market reduces prosperity.
The freer the market, the greater the prosperity. That may not be politically agreeable to you, but nonetheless, it is what history proves.
@rusedorange - I'm creating nothing out of thin air. You are. You are the one who lacks evidence. There is overwhelming proof that the free market causes prosperity. Why is South Korea rich and North Korea poor? Why has China's economy grown as their economy has been freed?
The past 200 years have seen world economies freed (in general) and life spans and incomes have greatly increased.
Why have incomes in this country increased consistently (even with inflation factored out)?
Tom Woods- unapologetic, revolting corporate shill and apologist for the ultra-rich... Well there is a good livin in that these days. Rush, Sean, Glenn, Ann, Bill, Michael, Michael, Jason, ... ahh well it could go on all day. These people are amoral!
Yes Tom, there has been widespread poverty but child labor arose as an issue with the industrial revolution. You are a professor?? Really? Sound like one more rightwing jackass to me! Your "points", Tom, are poorly conceived and unconvincing.
putting what right wing represents, and what T E Woods represents is like putting intelligent design advocates with evolution advocates because they both deal with the same subject matter.
again, you make it extremely obvious you only have a layman view of his theory, and you place him in the wrong category - the category rightwing and left are largely bogus anyway. you are an example of the effects of 'mass implicit propaganda' (see, E Bernays)
@100CommonCents I understand he is "Libertarian" these days aside from the imperialist efforts of the right-wingers which are wisely eschewed Libertarians, their platforms share many similarities. Laissez fairre economics looks like Conservative deregulation in a practical sense, either way it led to economic collapse. Perhaps I painted with too broad a brush, hopefully you can overlook that since I am a layman; but your initial statement: " you know nothing, clearly" is wrong, clearly.
@iggerdanus lol, ok the original free market supporters came from the left. see:
w w w . fff . org / freedom / fd0706b . asp
(an excellent article in its own right)
so technically he is extreme leftwing (kinda like Frederick Bastiat, or arguably Spooner)
but really, 'left and 'right' are bankrupt words now, only useful broadly
Actually, if you want to understand where Woods is coming from read 'Economics in one lesson'. it's hard to explain a point effectively on youtube, but i'm happy too?
@100CommonCents "the original free market supporters came from the left."- 100Cents
Lol, nice non sequitur. I was speaking in the context of recent history, not historically. It doesn't much matter what the originations were if TODAY the platforms gibe.
I do agree that "Left" and "Right" are misleading terms today, because the playing field has been so tilted that "Left" is Right and "Right" is Ultra Rightwing; there is no functional Leftwing, or Liberal, Class to balance the Right.
@iggerdanus well it still depends on what country you're in with a term like libertarian, even given the complications of history. i think the word has been abused to much to be useful
there is definitely a lot of left, today. both 'left' and 'right' of the past would see today as kind of victory for the 'left' and 'conservative' but def not free-markets.
they both have made progress of growing the US govt from 3% in 1890 to 40%? today.
plus fiat currency, FRBanking ect is not free-markets.
@100CommonCents *Yawns*... *Scratches ass*..*Wipes a failed Free marketer under chair after examining it curiously*...
The size of Government is not the problem today, if anything it has been weakened to the point of powerlessness in the face of an oppressive Corporate State. It you my friend who has bee propagandized, and bitching that gov't is too big is Right-Wing Conservative 101, they are programming you out of the Right's "Think Tanks", wind you up like a little toy, send you out....
@100Cents Think tanks.... That is where the pendulum swung out of control, where a level playing field lurched Rightward and gravity went askew. Hillary several years ago alluded to "a vast right-wing conspiracy"; she was mercilessly ridiculed, but she was right.
They (Conservatives) strongly influence ALL media, and CONTROL most media (that we see in the USA), owning AM radio and cowing the cable news stations (AEB: no American bodies shown, "insurgent" and "terrorist" labelling, etc.
@iggerdanus HILLARY!? shes a fucking tool. the biggest of all.
get over this left right paradigm. it's the way 8th graders see politics. it's the most obvious sign of a know-nothing when they bring it down to sides. eg "right wing does this and this". i am against every single US politician, except maybe ron paul and kucinich.
it's not left right, it's authoritarian or non-authoritarian.
i am anti-war, pro-drug, pro-gay marraige, pro state-church separation and NOT RIGHT WING !
@100CommonCents Hillary is a tool? Not sure what that means, but no matter- I wasn't making any moral judgement about her personally- I was referencing what she said and how it was received. Of course she is a product of this system, you are changing the subject dummy! Her husband signed NAFTA for crissakes! The biggest insult ever perpetrated on the American Middle Class!
Left and Right wing are insignificant inso far as, I already said- the entire spectrum is skewed Right! Left is dead!
@iggerdanus i am against republicans more than democrats in most cases. republicans are just as much for governments as democrats are. and since corporations have infested both side, why do you think the only thing the people can't get is budget cuts and less government?
hm, hint: corporation hate the free-market!
if for eg, the medicine corps can lock in customers with obamacare, or lobby for tarrifs, they will. anything but free-markets.
Read 'Economics in One Lesson' and educate yourself
Free-market libs attack the corporate state we live in, even more than that attack ignorant liberals! it is usually the mainstream conservatives(Teaparty) and liberals(yes-we-can drones) that support the shit-heap we have now. but actual conservatives see the corporate/free-markets more often than liberals
You are back to your broad strokes again. is your political outlook really that simplified? You don't seem to actually understand the debate.
@100CommonCents Free-market Libs attack the Corporate State? Not if they espouse the "Government too big, inept, ineffectual" nonsense they don't! That is a Corporate strategy! That is what got us where we are now, at the mercy of empowered, enriched, deregulated, entrenched (Lobbying) Corporations. Government, properly directed, is the only power that can/may deliver us from being evermore exploited by corporatism.
@100Cents OK, we don't have rent control where I'm from so I'll skip that one.
Obamacare- The term is actually a product of WHAT? Why do they "call" it Obamacare instead of Health Ins. Reform? All the cable news networks do that btw. Because it is a Think Tank label- from the Conservatives! Same as "Death Tax", "Insurgent", etc.. It is a terminology designed to frame an argument before it ever starts, and YOU are using it MR Not a Right Winger! Straight from the think tanks, this precisely
@100 illustrates what I was saying about the skewed playing field! Yeah I don't doubt Obama gave away way too much, that his plan resembles Romney's. He tried to negotiate with the Rt you dumbass! Public option was nixed by Sen Baucus, Big Pharma and Ins Co's made their campaign dollars count, their interests were protected, but those are RT-Wing values! As I said before, and you so disdainfully dismissed- there is no counter-balancing Left, it is all way over to the Right. Both sides corrupted.
@100 OK ..Central Banking, guess what we agree! FRB and "The Fed" are what is destroying our country. But it is not "fiat" currency that is the problem, it IS the loaning of money into the system at interest that dooms us ultimately. Do you want to talk about the Rothschilds? Rockefeller (TW defends them), The Illuminati (May have financed both sides in every war since Napolean, and determined the outcomes)? I am in favor of ending the Federal Reserve, glad we can agree about something!
@100 SO, obviously you are HEAVILY influenced by the Right-Wing think tank's propaganda machine; and, like most such victims you don't know it, deny it, reject the notion completely. That is just exactly the insidious nature of the mind control (infection?) that is going on here.
Minimum wage, Deregulation, "Obama"care, Labor laws,... it is no coincidence that your "views" align directly with Rt Wing Cons. Ideals, none whatsoever. They have you, and you don't even know it.
@iggerdanus stop talking about whose on what side. i am against mainstream republicans more than ever! it does not matter how i refer to it. that deosn't change if it is right or wrong.
if you can't see that punishing a mans child for his supposed immorality (not even wrong doings), then how can you see through the propaganda.
i came at economics and politics with left bias if any, anyway, and i still make sure i read just as many 'left' books as 'right' ..eg rudolf rocker, chomsky, marx etc
@iggerdanus ok, ill stick to one for now. The sub-prime disaster was due to government! fool
what occured was that the banks KNEW they'd be bailed out, and therefore were very risky since. if they won, they kept the money, and if they lost, they would be compensated. "too big to fail" (yeah right!)
Also! the government forced banks to lend to people with bad credit ratings 'the community reinvestment act' (actually read some legislature!)
also artificially lowered interest rates in 2001 =now
@100CommonCents *Snorting* AH HAHAHA! I knew it was coming!! I knew it people!! Never fails... Straight from the Sean Hannity Playbook- he rolls out the CRA!! DA DA DA DADA DADADADA!! You are only the 3rd Libertarian that has tried that tack on me pardner! But you AREN'T a RIGHT-WINGER!!?? Blaming Clinton and Carter Right!! Forgive me man, I gotta roll around on the floor awhile!! WHEEE... THE CRA!!!
Ahh, whew...OK I'm settling down, that so tickles me man when yall try that!......
@100Cents Ahh yes blame the old CRA. What a disingenuous IDIOT you are man, and I don't say that lightly.
Banks were deregulated as part of an empowered Conservative agenda, you do remember Phil Gramm, Nation of "whiners" fame? The Glass-Stegall Act, repealed in 1999, which limited the amount commercial banks could invest in securities?
It had nothing, absolutely NOTHING to do with the CRA assjackerson, the CRA actually encouraged sound lending practices. It had everything to do with..
@100cents ..deregulated banks creating financial instruments by bundling these loans, getting ludicrously rosy ratings from the rating agencies, and selling them down the river. SELLING THE RISK YOU FOOL! They made loans and then sold them so they didn't care AT ALL if they proved solvent! They were deregulated, regulators didn't blow the whistle because they could go to work for the thieves themselves, besides the regulatory agencies had been defunded and marginalized by... Dubya!
@100 So these CDO's were the hottest ticket in the history of investing! The Big Banks CLAMORED for more, they leveraged them many times over. "Mortgage Brokers" sprang up on every corner across the country- selling ARM's by pitching that "80% of people move within 5 years, so you'll never even see the rate reset!", "It's win win!". Wall Street paid MORE for the ARM's, there was actually a disincentive to sell legitimate loans (and refi's).
@100 ..but there again we see one more example of the influence of Right-Wing propaganda on you! I said it was insidious. I said it was pervasive. I said it skewed the entire playing field. You have unwittingly supplied abundant evidence of the cancer that is infecting us, malignancy, it corrupts formerly healthy cells.
So- The CRA, Minimum wage, Healthcare Reform, and Regulation are our problems according to you; but you're not a Right-Winger, oh heck no! Mere coincidence everything..
@100 ..everything rolling off your fingertips is right-wing propaganda!
I'll give you this much, grudgingly- The Big Banks MAY have known that they would be bailed out, they may have. But I saw the sick, terrified look on Hank Paulson's face for just a few minutes when he came out from behind the closed doors mtg where he sold Bush (and others) on the notion that we had to bail them out. I think there was doubt there, briefly. Maybe we did have to bail em out, but we can sure as hell..
@100..Change the rules of the game to prevent them doing it again!
Unfortunately we have legions of folks like you working feverishly to "spin" the problems that led us to the crisis in the first place, for entirely selfish reasons- as shallow as you don't believe you could have been as wrong as you obviously were!
Capitalism is a pretty good system 100, as long as it is tightly regulated. It can provide a basis for a strong economy and society if it is carefully controlled....
@iggerdanus this is worst than talking to a creationist about evolution. you are wrong on so many levels its unbelievable. morally pathetic, ignorant about economics, and now you clearly are not in for discussing anything but throwing insults.
Exactly! because of the shittiness of the system. NOT free-market capitalism.
do you even know what inflation is? or what a fiat currency is. because so far you've pushed the average leftist dribble. the sort that is USED to support the corporation supporting laws/reg, while pretending to do the opposite.
you still are morally bankrupt. but now you are also a confirmed shit-head know nothing layman on economics.
@100CommonCents Haha, now you are reduced to calling me a Leftist! I thought that was beneath you!
"shittiness of the system"- you go to school to hear that? Shitty system huh? That's putting it mildly! Conservative AND Libertarian agenda: De-regulate those markets, disencumber the financial speculators, deFUND government regulatory agencies. What happened? Wall Street (The Rich), Big banks constructed a pyramid scheme because they sold the RISK down the river! It fell! Sucks for you..
@100 Now with you Libertarians and Conservatives it becomes about trying to obfuscate the cause of the crisis, to salvage your FAILED belief systems! Guess what you amoral anus, I don't want your failed ideology! I can look at events and make an informed judgement. I don't want my kids victimized again just so you idiots can bolster the crumbling facade of your egos.
Yeah I am well aware of the definitions of "fiat" currency and inflation; also deflation and stagflation.
@iggerdanus - None of those things actually happened. We had more regulation, more regulators, more money for those regulators, more pressure from those regulators to make risky loans to bad banks, and on the flip side, we had a fed creating a moral hazard by reassuring banks that they would be taken care of if the people they would not normally have lent money to could not repay. The housing bubble was not a free market creation, but a gov't idea.
@mpc91 Au contraire mpc91! The deregulatory agenda was set in motion during Reagan's first term and was continued thereafter, it was during the first days of Bush 2 however that it was utterly abandoned. Recall Cheney's closed door meeting with industry heads in which regulations were actually revised by the polluters!
As far as the financial sector Gramm-Leach opened the door to the housing bubble- it is a Right-Wing talking point that GOVT required banks to make bad loans.
@iggerdanus - We have 80,000 pages of new regulation every year. And that's just from Federal Government agencies, not laws, but agency made regulation with the power of law. Most of the regulations are made in conjunction with the industry the are intended to regulate - they are intended to keep new competitors out of the market. It's crony capitalism, and it goes back to FDR.
Gramm-Leach had NOTHING to do with the housing bubble, it didn't create vast new credit, or imply bailout. The Fed did
@iggerdanus - Lobbying increases as the size of government increases - for a reason.
The corporate strategy is not small government. FAR from it. It's big government. Big government regulation keeps new competitors out of the market, subsidizes bad ideas, and provides bailouts when those bad ideas fail.
If lobbyists were seeking deregulation, we'd see it, wouldn't we? But the trend is exactly the opposite. We get 80,000 pages of new regulation every year.
@mpc91 The corporate strategy is weakened government. The corporate strategy is to control the government- and they are doing it as we speak. The corporate strategy is to subvert government of, and for, the people to government that is primarily concerned with shareholder dividends- that would be "the 1%" we've been hearing so much about. Deregulation is a strategy which directly benefits corporations, at least the most powerful ones, and of course their lobbying efforts are focused upon that.
@iggerdanus - If the strategy was to weaken government, then it should logically be shrinking at a rapid rate. Is it?
You assume fallacies, and make deductions based on them. They make sense only if your fallacy is true.
Existing companies benefit more from regulation than they do from deregulation. It is much easier for them to comply with mountains of paperwork than it is for a new entrant. That's why deregulation ISN'T happening. You seem to hate crony capitalism, but love its tools.
@mpc91 If weaken was synonymous with shrink I suppose it would, but in this complex situation weakening is accomplished by defunding- a deliberate NeoConservative tactic designed to cause a deficit "crisis" INTENTIONALLY and then use that "crisis" as justification for eliminating social safety nets such as Medicare, Social Security, etc.. The strategy is known as "Starve the Beast" and it originated around Reagan's first term and continues, escalating to this day.
@mpc91 That you are utterly ignorant of the "Starve the Beast" movement which has only gained momentum since Bush 2 points to the woeful extent of your propagandization. Recall that Cheney told Oneill that "deficits don't matter", and then ONeill was fired of course. Today in the face of huge deficits we see that since a Democrat occupies the White House they DO matter! More than ANY OTHER ISSUE! But the deficit must not be fixed the way it has always been done in the past! cont...
@mpc91 In years gone by it really wasn't much of an issue as to how to handle the deficit whether you were Repub. or Democrat it was simply fixed by adjusting the rates of taxation, Progressive Taxation, to be exact. Upper income tax rates would be as high as 70-90% for so long as necessary to balance the budget, under that system we had funded, maintained, public services such as schools; and it proved to be good for economic growth as well! cont 2....
@mpc91 So now all the Republicans have signed a pledge to Grover Norquist and our country may very well not survive as a result. If the past 30 years have shown anything, and they have, it is that the tax cuts for the rich strategy simply does not work to stimulate business growth AND only provides economic security to the rich- pure disaster if you are living in a consumer economy such as ours. Libertarians are simply Republicans by another name- which is why Ron Paul runs as Repub.
@iggerdanus - Tax cuts alone will not stimulate business. This is true. But they help. Some of the income tax rates have gone down. But a number of other new types of taxes has increased, as has the amount of regulation.
But the elephant in the living room is government spending. It sucks a tremendous amount of resources out of the voluntary economy, makes products more expensive, causes inflation (that hurts the poor more than the rich) and wastes MOST of what it spends.
@mpc91 If history is any guide it would seem that tax increases stimulate business.
You are correct that there are new types of taxes- they are called regressive taxes, and they are purely driven by the government's inability to draw funding from the traditional major source which is those who HAVE it! In desperation government has turned to trying to wring blood out of the turnip if you will, as opposed to squeezing a droplet from the leeches who are now strictly off limits.
@mpc91 Government spending too high huh? I think I already addressed the mistake inherent in that line of reasoning. Government spending is the last resort actually, it's very obvious that the private sector is sitting on hundreds of billions in profits which they have ZERO interest in investing in traditional American job producing businesses. OBVIOUS. Government spending is the only thing keeping our economy afloat, we need more stimulus spending. We can't recover without it.
You people who claim that higher taxes in the past was the reason for prosperity need to realize that nobody actually paid those 90% taxes in the 50's because there was so many deductions. In fact, the government got less of our money in 1950 than they do now as a percentage of the GDP, despite the current lower tax-rates. If anything, you are arguing against your own point.
@EliteKiller07 If that were true why would the Rich be against raising taxes now? There were deductions and loopholes but the PROGRESSIVE tax system funded the government and necessary system- which is not happening now with taxes lowered on the rich.
No, you're not understanding what i'm saying. The rich were paying LESS taxes back when the tax rates were up around 90%. And despite the high tax-rates, the government got less of our money back then than they do now. Right now, the government gets 15% of the GDP in taxes, in 1950 the government got 13%.
I'll PM the reason for the housing bubble too, which isn't "right-wing propaganda" because most right-wingers wont acknowledge the Fed being at the root of the problem.
@EliteKiller07 Well you didn't answer my question did you? Why would the rich be against a tax increase if they weren't going to have to pay it?
The GDP is a popular tactic Libertarians use to obfuscate that which is really very simple- this country has historically funded the government by taxing the rich, and IT WORKS!
You're still not understanding what I am saying. There are a lot less deductions for taxes right now, which means raising the tax-rates to the 1950's era would mean the rich would be paying VASTLY more taxes than they were back then. Under the 1950's taxes, the rich would actually get a tax cut. This is why rich people don't want their taxes raised.
Also, the "top 1%" pay 40% of all income taxes, much higher than the historical average. Stop pulling "facts" out of your ass.
@iggerdanus - So businesses do better the more of their money is taken away?
By that logic, robbery is good for business. Why don't you go help your local small business by breaking in and robbing the register. Clearly that would stimulate business. Make sure to break stuff while your in there to really get the local economy going. Whatever you do, don't look up Frederic Bastiat while your doing this.
@mpc91 "So businesses do better the more of their money is taken away?" No, I doubt one could say it that simply. Certainly businesses and our country as a whole do better when we tax the rich, and corporations, at a much higher rate. The situation we have now is caused by corporations sitting on huge profits completely disinterested in investing, and the ultra wealthy interested only in financial speculation which produces nothing and benefits only Wall St, and themselves...cont
@mpc91 This disinterest in traditional job-producing investment is driven by low capital gains taxes and a dearth of "confident" consumers. We will have a recovery ONLY when wealth redistribution to the ultra-rich is halted and the American middle-class begins to grow again with financial security. To go ahead and state the obvious we could not go wrong by putting money into the pockets of the American poor and Middle-Class because THEY WILL SPEND IT! THAT CREATES JOBS! The rich only hoard it.
@iggerdanus - It may be obvious to you, because you miss the forest for the trees. Taxation does not make the middle class or the poor wealthier. It makes the government and the bureaucracy wealthier. Just because a program says it helps the poor does not mean it helps the poor. The rich don't hoard their money; with inflation, they'd be foolish to do so. It is invested or lost. Regime uncertainty is the problem, Obamacare is a factor, as is the glut of new regulations coming out every day.
@iggerdanus Instead of just saying "Certainly such and such...", actually post proof. The facts are that there is no correlation between recessions and taxes. Another fact is that Tax revenue has maintained roughly 19.5 percent of gdp.
@david52875 Libertarians always cite the GDP. What makes you so certain it is a valid indicator? I think it is an intellectual crutch you guys use to avoid open discussion. Per capita for instance? If the GDP has shrunk due to a huge recession, and unemployment is high, expensive wars going on, population has risen, the rich have an exponentially larger percentage of the wealth, we've cut taxes on the rich... Maybe gov't is being asked to survive on 19% of a smaller pie.. cont
@david52875 As far as "Instead of just saying "Certainly such and such..."" With all due respect I'd appreciate you not telling me what to say. You get to control what you say, I'll control what I say!
I don't think as a percentage of GDP is a concrete indicator of what tax revenue should be. Commonsense would tell me that circumstances change and needs fluctuate. It was higher in WWII..?
@iggerdanus I don't think GDP is an indicator of what tax revenue should be, I think that tax revenue should be as high as reasonably possible. I don't think this is a purely libertarian opinion. So, if tax revenues are proportional to gdp, regardless of the tax rate, how do you increase tax revenue? Simple, you increase GDP. And I wasn't trying to control what you say, I was making a suggestion that in the future you post something substantial.
@iggerdanus Its not an intellectual crutch, If raising taxes decreases tax revenue, the whats the point of raising taxes? it's like charging consumers more for a product so that you make less money.
@iggerdanus Raising taxes decreases GDP. Tax revenue is directly proportional to GDP, always about 1/5th. So if your always taking one eighth of the pie, and the pie shrinks, you get less pie.
@iggerdanus - %GDP is just one way. Overall spending figures tell the same story, %GDP just makes it easier to account for inflation. I get that you don't like them, but they are what they are. In 2000, Federal Spending was at $1.78 trillion. In 2011, its at $3.6 trillion. That's more than double. In 2000, Federal Revenue was $2 trillion, in 2011, the number is $2.3 trillion. It's up, but it cannot keep up with the spending.
It's being asked to survive on twice as much as it spent 11 years ago
@iggerdanus - And as for the GDP shrinking massively, from it's height at $14.2 trillion in 2008, it did drop by almost 2% in 2009. But was back up to $14.5 trillion in 2010, and is projected to go over $15 trillion this year. We should pull out of the expensive wars, but that doesn't account for the deficit. If you wiped out 100% of defense spending, we'd still be running a deficit. Hmmm, facts as an intellectual crutch. How about that.
@iggerdanus - If you took all of the money from millionaires and billionaires in this country, you still wouldn't balance the budget. Those people got their millions and billions from growing the economy, employing other people, starting businesses, and investing their money. Tax rates have little effect on gov't income.
But annual federal government spending has DOUBLED over the past 10 years, with the greatest increase coming in the past two. You CANNOT tax your way out of this.
@mpc91 "If you took all of the money from millionaires and billionaires in this country, you still wouldn't balance the budget." Right-Wing propaganda tactic, I started to call it a "point" but it is no such thing, it is merely a trial balloon floated in desperation in an attempt to hide the truth.
Actually you could balance the budget quite easily over a matter of a decade or so AND, history proves, it is the best course of action for the country as a whole- INCLUDING THE RICH!
@iggerdanus - It's not hiding the truth... it is the truth. It's simple mathematics. They don't make enough money to tax them at 100% and balance the budget.
The only way to balance the budget is to CUT SPENDING. Everything else is a shell game. These wasteful, unconstitutional and ineffective programs have to go. We have to stop wasting resources.
You have bought so many outright lies and myths that fact is wasted on you. The spending is unsustainable.
@iggerdanus - Don't you get tired of yourself after a while? They said "Starve the Beast", but spending has increased. And yes, the deficit is an issue, but no, raising taxes won't fix it. You can't double spending and think a minor tax rate reducation will solve the problem. We don't have an income problem, we have a spending problem.
@mpc91 The Starve the Beast movement which is in power the past 30 years DID defund the government- THAT'S WHERE THE DEFICIT CAME FROM GENIUS! Social spending is not "wasteful, unconstitutional and ineffective" it is what a civilized society MUST do, without a minimum standard of living the poor will consume the rich eventually. The rich don't know it yet but they will... They'll need armored cars and Blackwater thugs to venture out of their gated communities.
@iggerdanus - So over the past 30 years, government revenue has gone down you say? Really. In 1980, government revenue was at 31.76% of GDP. In 1990, it was 33.23%. In 2000, it was 37.19%. In 2007, it was 37.01%. By the way, from 1950-68, it never got about 30%. Meanwhile, spending has gone from 33.7% in 1980 to 36% in 1990. By 2000 it had fallen to 32.7%, but by 2007 it was back up to 35%. By 2009, it was 42%. The numbers don't lie, both are going up, but spending is going up much faster.
@iggerdanus - And these measures are obviously wasteful, as they spend more on bureaucrats than they do on actual aid. They are clearly unconstitutional, unless you can show the clause in Article 1, Section 8 that says they are. And they are clearly also ineffective, as in the course of Johnson's "War on Poverty" in his Great Society, poverty numbers have not fallen, they flatlined, and even gone up a little. They were falling at about 1% per year BEFORE the "Great Society". They don't work.
@mpc91 "Has spending decreased, or increased? Do we have fewer social programs, or did Obamacare pass?"
The deficit has increased due to tax cuts for the rich, the wars, and the financial crisis. The mistake is to then look at the poor and Middle-Class and draw the conclusion that they caused it. It is utterly absurd, and immoral, to take the position that if only the poor weren't getting so many food stamps, or if unemployment hadn't been extended, we wouldn't be in this situation.
@mpc91 We cut taxes on the rich to get in this situation. The rich financial speculators built a fraudulent house of cards which collapsed to make the situation MUCH worse. The military/industrial complex and Right-Wing politicians colluded to sink us into the expensive quagmires of Iraq and Afghanistan (OK Obama has continued what was already in motion); the poor and middle-class send their flesh and blood to fight in the misguided battles! We can afford our poor, our rich are the problem!
I'm tempted to downvote this due to the dumb overdone effects.. But I can't downvote Tom Woods..
batmanthe 1 month ago
Mostly they were caught up in the panic caused by the defaults in the private label MBS's which caused falling house prices and unemployment caused defaults, not because of the government insisting on the issuing of sub-prime mortgages. It was the unregulated private securitizers who were buying up the worst mortgages (they were not required to buy any) and the private mortgage writers, who got paid on volume and not quality, who caused the crisis.
capemh 1 month ago
Whereas the GSEs guaranteed the performance of their MBS, private securitizers generally did not, and might only retain a thin slice of risk. Often, banks would offload this risk to insurance companies or other counterparties through credit default swaps, making their actual risk exposures extremely difficult for investors and creditors to discern.
capemh 1 month ago
Freddie and Fannie also bought some Alt-A loans (these are loans to borrowers with good credit scores, but which are not as fully documented with respect to borrower income and assets as are prime loans) for their portfolios. They have lost money on these also. Despite their losses, their loss rate is less than one-third the loss rate of the 67 mortgage banks with assets of more than $10 bn
capemh 1 month ago
The charters of the GSEs preclude them from securitizing subprime loans. Thus, they were unable to support subprime lending by any commitment to funding or securitizing them. They were followers, not leaders. When Fannie and Freddie did buy was some higher-rated pieces of subprime MBSs created by Wall Street. The ratings on these securities fell when the subprime loans began to default in large numbers..
capemh 1 month ago
For those of you who think that Freddie and Fannie were at fault for the banking crisis either a: you don't understand what actually happened or are lying. See the next posts...
capemh 1 month ago
Wouldn't "child-labor laws" decrease the available labor in the market thereby increasing the income of the remaining workers? Isn't that the law of supply and demand?
Isn't it in the interest of every employer to have a better educated and physically mature employee than an illiterate child?
So, the Libertarian dogma would prefer government not regulate child labor and eliminate prohibitions on things like prostitution. See if you can guess what that would lead to.
capemh 1 month ago
@capemh Removing all work regulations and licensing would lead to the freedom for everyone to act in their own self-interest, but it would harm politicians greatly in their quest to buy votes.
fzqlcs 1 month ago
Child labor was already at a decline when the child labor laws were passed. The government is useless at most things.
ElJefer 2 months ago
Libertypen your the fucking man! i got here from milton friedman as an econ major and ive found SOOOO much good stuff. Thank you so much, im subscribed to your channel now btw.
nigrah8ter 4 months ago
Some of these libs are just stupendous debators (sarcasm)...lol.
ProIndividual 5 months ago
The first 30 seconds are such the biggest strawman I have ever seen, I simply cannot finishing watching this video without the threat of vomiting
niriop 10 months ago
@niriop Glad to see you reject sound logic as "strawman"...lol.
ProIndividual 5 months ago 2
@ProIndividual Whatever you say dumbass...
niriop 5 months ago
@niriop Nice ad hominem...you further display your distaste for logic...didn't you take high school debate? Informal logical fallacies are not allowed.
ProIndividual 5 months ago
@ProIndividual It's not an ad hom actually; its just an insult; I've not actually said your argument fails *because* you're a dumbass; however I can't actually attack your argument because you have yet to posit one.
"distaste for logic" Does any motherfucker on this site know what logic is? "logical fallacies" Fucking where?! Where are they? I've written nothing that could be miscontrued to be a logical fallacy whatsoever; you have no fucking idea what any of these terms mean at all; fuck off!
niriop 5 months ago
@niriop You asserted he setup a strawman in the first 30 seconds of the video, so you couldn't BEAR to watch it any further...this is flatly false, as he simply describes the usual attack made against the free market point of view. If you'd care to elaborate how in fact this is a strawman, this might be helpful, since no one else seems to agree that it is. Then you call me a name whn I point this out...ad hom. It was implicit that you disqualified my argument through this. Thx for playing.
ProIndividual 5 months ago
@ProIndividual It is a strawman because NOBODY has ever said that, ever; its a ridiculous thing. Also, liberal critics of deregulation still want a market economy, but just a regulated one. Explain to me how to make shit up about your opponents is logical, or possibly link me to a statement similar to one he uses by an ACTUAL critic.
Watch this video on ad hom you fucking dumb piece of motherfucking cum-drenched shit (still not an ad hom, just an insult): watch?v=7GzXVqwYHVE
niriop 5 months ago
@niriop First of all, if you never heard a leftist say "free markets cause child labor" you're insane, or need to get out more.
Secondly, a regulated economy isn't a free market economy, it's a State dependent market economy. You obviously don't know that free market economics are defined as an economy without interference in ANY way by the govt, other than prosecuting harm or fraud. You also don't seem to know the difference between coercive State dependent markets economics and free markets.
ProIndividual 5 months ago
@ProIndividual You're ignoring my criticism; Woods just rants off about how the supposed "leftist" wants to destroy the free market to stop child labour, and goes on about skipping and rivers of chocolate, a complete strawman of the liberal critics of deregulation.
Secondly, regulation in an economy does not negate its market features; it is still market capitalism. That's an ideological opinion, not objective economic theory. "Free" is also a subective ideological preffix.
niriop 5 months ago
@niriop I'm not ignoring it, it's false. Free markets are not regulated pre-emptively...they are only regulated in courts for harm and fraud. So you do destroy free markets to regulate child labor (which btw exists way more prevelantly in agrarian society, free markts stop child labor, noot regulations, PERIOD...same for starvation). So, READ what free market economics is definesd as, then you will understand regulating them in the sense you mean (pre-emptively) is making them non-free markets.
ProIndividual 5 months ago
@niriop Free is not subjective in the meaning of free market economics...you obviously haven't read ANY free market economists. It is define as:
A free market is a market free from state intervention. However, the term is also commonly used for markets in which economic intervention and regulation by the state is limited to tax collection, and enforcement of private ownership and contracts.
ProIndividual 5 months ago
@niriop So, what you're describing are not free markets, they are State dependent market economies, which are coercive and exploitative of the consumer public, for the engrandizement and benefit of the minority oligarchy and State caused monopolies:
Free market is the opposite of a controlled market, in which the state directly regulates how goods, services and labor may be used, priced, or distributed, rather than relying on the mechanism of supply and demand.
ProIndividual 5 months ago
@niriop So, please go read some books (most you can find free online) on free market capitalism before you profess to what you are talking about.
ProIndividual 5 months ago
@niriop profess to know what you are talking about*
ProIndividual 5 months ago
@niriop So, nothing he said was logically fallacious, or made up...nor was anything I said.
Third of all, you've shown yourself to be an unsophisticated cromagnon, both in economics and in discourse. Your name calling and cussing has clearly shown you lack intellectual merit. It's ad hominem if you IMPLY (which you did) that it disqualifies my argument.
Your last insult was just juvenile, and furthered my case, albeit not ad hom itself. Congrats, you're a mental midget without a point.
ProIndividual 5 months ago
@ProIndividual Erm, it is.
"cromagnon" You're descended from them too you know; a lot of self-projection here. "name calling and cussing" Which does not invalidate my points. "you IMPLY" I didn't; you're a twat with bad arguments; you could be a decent person with arguments, but sorry, you're a twat. Why should I not insult you? You're a piss poor arguer, a gibbering ideologue, you've misframed and strawmanned my criticism, and you prefer to focus on my attitude rather than my substance.
niriop 5 months ago
@niriop *decent person with bad arguments
niriop 5 months ago
@niriop You are cromagnon, economically, and morally. You want force, and don't know what you're talking about economically...I used the word cromagnon because the more accurate word "ignorant" has a negative connotation...but to be fair, it was an ad hominem attack like yours (which you did imply, stop lying).
ProIndividual 5 months ago
@niriop You said in the beginning: "Whatever you say dumbass..."
If you just said "dumbass", that would be an insult. Logically, when you start off with "Whatever you say", you are referring to what I said, and therefore logically attacking what I said...hence it's an implied ad hominem attack.
Please give up, and stop lying. You have been exposed, beaten, and are just sophistically continuing in order to not admit what you did.
Good day sir. I said GOOD DAY SIR!...lol.
ProIndividual 5 months ago
@ProIndividual No, it's not; I never indicated it was an ad hom, just an insult, largely because I believed your response was not adequate for any further discussion, and was merely a shrug-off. "Free" is still subjective; Friedman and Hayek were doubtlessly "free marketeers", but still believed in some form of regulation, the former in a monetarist system. Admittedly, there is a degree of "state dependency", however, all markets rely on a state to function as a protection racket of sorts. [con]
niriop 5 months ago
Furthermore, a "controlled market" is still market capitalism, because there is, how can I put this, still a fucking market; as such, for Woods to declare liberal critics volleying for a "non-market" alternative in your own framing of the debate is disengenuous. The economists you keep poiting to are maligned religious demagogues: "KILL THE UNBELIEVERS!" they chant; that's not how modern academic economics work. I've read several of the books you indicate, and they collapse easily under critique
niriop 5 months ago
@niriop Reread the last comment I left you...you cannot logically dispute you ad hom'd, I broke it down clearly by quoting you, and explaining it concisely. Freidman was a monetarist; he beleived in coercive central banking, which is not free market. Also he believed a fallacy that "can't have open borders in a welfare State", which had been disproven with data. That's called appeal to authority, another logical fallacy. Hayek also had problems, as did David Ricardo.
ProIndividual 5 months ago
@ProIndividual No, still didn't ad hom; I broke it down and explained it concisely. Well, he said he was, and most modern economists agree; surely this shows the "free" in free market is subjective. I don't know what that quote has to do with anything. No it isn't an appeal to authority you fucking idiot. Hayek and Ricardso are still free marketeers, no matter what the Mises Cult says; its a very intolerant, religious way of doing things.
niriop 5 months ago
@niriop These economists mistakes may not disqualify them as free market economists, but it certainly disqualifies their mistakes, logically. I can be for non-free market ideas and be a free market economist, just as I can be a philosophical pacifist, and make a mistake and punch an insulting person. It's a mistake, not logically indicative of the pure philsophical approach. So, no that doesn't change what it means, or make the definition subjective at all. Stop trying to get around it.
ProIndividual 5 months ago
@niriop All markets are State dependent, this is Whitman's myth. A free market is defined as I stated, a market free from State intervention...therefore it is not State dependent, hence anarcho capitalism. Actually no economic system is State dependent, but all have State dependent forms. Philosophy is separate from economics. There is State socialism, and anarcho socialism (Chomsky is an anarchist socialist). Mercantilism and Keynesianism are State dependent forms of capitalism, fm aren't.
ProIndividual 5 months ago
@ProIndividual Sorry, a market needs a state to exist, because capitalists need a protection racket; if you took away the state, the top end of the market would quickly create a new one, or the chaos would eventually lead to one arising.
"Philosophy is separate from economics." Complete and utter bullshit; that most economists are not also philosophers is a very recent thing. Mercantilism isn't capitalist, it's pre-capitalist (fucking idiot). But they still have markets.
niriop 5 months ago
@niriop Anarcho capitalism is free market economics with a private arbitration system, as opposed to a coerced monopoly on the court system by the State. Free market capitalism also can exist with a State as the court system. In both cases, the State doesn't interfere in the economy...all they do, private or State, is arbitrate and punish harm and fraud. They may or may not tax or have user fees instead of tax. No pre-emptive regulation exists. Read some of the free market economists, I have.
ProIndividual 5 months ago
@ProIndividual This will lead to another state ultimately, as the rich will dominate this "private arbitration", and will very easily use their own private power when they want something; its all good saying at the beginning "Now everybody play nice", but history shows that that never works, and the wealthy get their claws dirty almost immediately. "They MAY or may not tax" Sounds coercive; you've just shot yourself in the foot. Very dogmatic: "*I* say who is free market! BWAH-HA-HAHAR!
niriop 5 months ago
@niriop "All markets are State dependent"*, this is Whitman's fallacy.
This is a corrected typo, I forgot the 'quotes'.
ProIndividual 5 months ago
@niriop BTW, Freidman aslo advocated a welfare system in his "negative income tax"...not free market. You should of used that as well. It still is fallacous to claim anything he believed is defined as free market, but still, it fit your argument (regardless of it's lack of validity).
ProIndividual 5 months ago
@ProIndividual Precisely how is this not free market? Is it simply because you and your Austrian overlords PERSONALLY disagree with it?
niriop 5 months ago
@niriop Look, go read free boks on the subject online...I'm not going to keep spending my time explaining to you what you go read for yourself.
ProIndividual 5 months ago
@ProIndividual Cop-out
niriop 5 months ago
@niriop I told you, I'm not responding until you go read. You don't what you're talking about. All you have is "blah blah blah, random cussword, random insult, blah blah blah, I'm an anti-capitalist hellbent on redefining free markets."
When you get Chomsky to say socialism requires a State then we'll admit free markets require a State. Clearly, logically, all economic systems are separate from all philosophies. They exist independent of each other, in all different forms. You need education.
ProIndividual 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ProIndividual You don't know what you're talking about.*
ProIndividual 5 months ago
@ProIndividual Yeah, I have to go read while you ignore my side of things and sit there waiting with your finger up your arse. Fucking pompous twat. Why the hell should I show nothing but contempt?
"When you get Chomsky to say socialism requires a State then we'll admit free markets require a State." Catergory error; markets require a protection racket i.e the stae; we see this in the colonisation of America, and in Somalia today where businessmen want a state back to protect their interests.
niriop 5 months ago
@niriop *the state
niriop 5 months ago
@ProIndividual "Clearly, logically, all economic systems are separate from all philosophies." Smith based his economics on his own ethical and political philosphy, and so did Hayek, Mises, Mill, Friedman, Sen and many more; most of them are valued as much as philosophers as they are economists; the disciplines are inseparable.
You're one of the most self-righteous bastards I've ever come across; I may still be learning, but its clear you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.
niriop 5 months ago
@niriop "You're one of the most self-righteous bastards I've ever come across; I may still be learning, but its clear you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about."
It's clear to anyone who has done the READING that I'm correct, and you are the dogmatic one, who has already made up their mind without any researching of facts. I'm not self-righteous...I'm just right. I used to be a leftist statist sadist like you, then I grew up, read some books, and opened my mind to critical thinking.
ProIndividual 5 months ago
@ProIndividual the READING" So what you read COMPLETELY disolves the rest of the literature and facts; I'm not reading it the same way you have, just like the Baptist says the Catholic isn't reading the same Bible correctly; hence, I can say right back at you; you are a terrible arguer because your dogmatism blinds you.
I'm not a statist, and I don't why I'm a sadist either. "opened my mind to critical thinking" Bullshit; I'm happy to change my opinions I've just not met any good arguments yet
niriop 5 months ago
@niriop You haven't read any of the opposing views to your own, that's abundantly clear...so once you do that, and stop wasting time arguing with me, you might come to some realization. I mean you used Freidman...he famously said "we're all Keynesians now". That's not free market, although most of philsophy was. He also wasn't free market his whole life, to be clear. Hid early years were anything but. Your analogy shows your ignorance. And if you think the best way to organize ...
ProIndividual 5 months ago
@niriop And if you think the best way to organize society is through a coercive State, you are by definition a statist...and statists are sadists, as it is defined; they take joy in the suffering of others (like wanting to tax and regulate others who haven't harmed or defrauded anyone else or their properties). It's logical, please think about it. I used to be one too. I have no dogma, as I have no faith. My conclusions are based in fact. If you reject good arguments and say there are none...
ProIndividual 5 months ago
@niriop If you reject good arguments, and then say there are none, then you are the dogmatist...with faith in the State for the sake of preserving preconcieved notions and avoiding logic. Look, any attempt to redefine free market capitaliosm to mean pre-emptive regulation is bunk...read Adam Smith, David Reicardo, Frederic Bastiat, Menger, Coase, Boudreaux, Woods (the guy in the video), etc., etc. Sure, some favored non-free market ideas (like Freidman and Hayek to some degree), but that's rare.
ProIndividual 5 months ago
@niriop TYPOS: That's not free market, although most of his economics were. (His philosophy was small government statism, like many free market economists).*
His* early years were anything but.
ProIndividual 5 months ago
@niriop And let me share the definitions for philosophy and economics since you keep asserting they are one thing:
Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.
Economics is the social science that analyzes the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services.
Economics is not a philosophy, nor is philosophy an economic style. They exist independent of each other in many forms
ProIndividual 5 months ago
@niriop If your too lazy to read the free books online, or are too busy (many are, they have lives, jobs, etc.), then just go to Wikipedia, being sure to check your sources, and answer your questions or preconceived notions there.
I won't respond further...have a nice day (life).
ProIndividual 5 months ago
@niriop you're*
ProIndividual 5 months ago
@niriop books*
ProIndividual 5 months ago
I'd like to make this fucking scum bags kids work in a 18th century cotton scooper for 15 hours straight like in that episode of "worst jobs" hopefully he can see one of his kids lose a limb of get his skull crushed sweeping bits of fluff under a live moving machine and then say..."oh well, free markets, god given rights, at least isn't not socialism"
MMZen 10 months ago
@MMZen so you are willing to subject innocent children of a man you disagree with, to torture and physical harm?
You morally bankrupt prick. i'd slit you throat if ever you did try to do that to any child, and i wouldn't dare treat any of your relatives for your failing.
100CommonCents 10 months ago
@100CommonCents "You morally bankrupt prick. i'd slit you throat if ever you did try to do that to any child,"- 100cents
Gee talk about bizarre leaps of morality. You support the child labor apologist- Tom Woods! Somebody thinks his kids should have to go through what he condones and they are a monster? I guess that makes Michael Moore a child-killer because he lobbied Senators to send their kids to Iraq?
You'll stoop to anything, clearly.
iggerdanus 10 months ago
@iggerdanus notice the 'if you did ever did try' part.. if you saw someone physically harming a child, like what @MMZen says he would do, then i don't think it's so extreme. they put ppl to death by law in many countries, i'd only be saving the state some money by doing it myself (yes, this explanation would hold up in court, remember i was talking hypothetically, and only if by such and such circumstances)
micheal moore isn't a child killer by my logic, you overstepped.
100CommonCents 10 months ago
@100CommonCents *would not
lol... *it would not hold up in court
100CommonCents 10 months ago
@100CommonCents Lol, dance 100cents, dance around your words, around the truth! The tune borne of your own idiocy, dance you sanctimonious shit you!
MMZen said he would like to make TW's kids work as so many "commoner's" children worked, he didn't say he would do ANYTHING other than have them work.
You overstepped, and in doing so stepped it "it", clearly.
iggerdanus 10 months ago
@iggerdanus Settle, Gretel. lol
He said he'd like to watch his kids get chopped up. he also said he'd make them work. if he MADE them work, and they get CHOPPED UP, he's RESPONSIBLE - duh. how the fuck can you be defending this?
You're willing to side with the guy whose ideology you like the most, despite the fact he chop up the kids of a person he disagrees with to make a point? Pathetic
plus T Woods is not defending child labor. he's given context to the situation.
100CommonCents 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@100CommonCents He said he'd like to watch his kids get chopped up? OK then, who in that sentence is "he"? The way I read it MMZen said "He" is TW, here is the quote: " hopefully he can see..".
Obviously you badly over reached here and now you are scrambling to try to save face, not likely you'll be able to manage it. Let me know if you want to dissect the exact quote some more, I'll be happy to help, clearly.
iggerdanus 10 months ago
@iggerdanus i obviously hit a nerve since you brought it up again. . Sorry ol' timer, but youtube is the way it is, adapt. don't get so so worked up about it.
"I'd like to make this fucking scum bags kids work in a 18th century cotton scooper for 15 hours straight"
"hopefully he can see"
Isn't this proving my point? he wants to force his kids to work, and he hopes they get their skulls crushed. and so i said, if this were to occur, i'd slit his throat. wtf are you objecting to?
100CommonCents 10 months ago
@100CommonCents "he wants to force his kids to work, and he hopes they get their skulls crushed. and so i said, if this were to occur, i'd slit his throat. wtf are you objecting to?" 100Cents
I am objecting to your assuming that he "hopes they get skulls crushed", I read something else entirely, I hear MMZen saying that he hopes the children of the elite experience what common folks children had/have to experience, which is the purest conception of justice I can imagine.
iggerdanus 10 months ago
@100Cents It is in fact EXACTLY the form of justice Michael Moore was advocating when he (jokingly) asked Senators if they wanted their kids to go to Iraq. Did that mean he wanted their (Senator's") kids maimed, disfigured, or killed? NO- it meant he didn't want ANYONE'S kids maimed or killed! That is the meaning you are either too dense, or too dishonest to acknowledge.
One standard for the wealthy, another for the rest of us- that is what MMZen is pointing out and you ludicrously defend.
iggerdanus 10 months ago
@iggerdanus
"I hear MMZen saying that he hopes the children of the elite experience what common folks children had/have to experience, which is the purest conception of justice I can imagine."
well i read the actual words he wrote.
But ok, how on earth can you possibly subject the children of the man you wish to punish, to harm, then call it justice?
do you not understand that the children are innocent?
you're morally on par with a pedophile right now. i'm not trying to exaggerate either.
100CommonCents 10 months ago
@100CommonCents "you're morally on par with a pedophile right now. i'm not trying to exaggerate either."
Haha. Ridiculous! I understand about the innocence of children, ALL children, not just the pampered spawn of the monied blue bloods, and that is exactly what MMZen was defending!
You are being polemic and obtuse, clearly.
You remind me of Tom Woods actually- always looking for an opportunity to defend wealth, nevermind the atrocities it has commited. You disgust me!
iggerdanus 10 months ago
@iggerdanus i am not.
your logic:
man A is bad (supposably supporting child labour)
Subject man A's children to same treatment that man A was supporting (supposably)
justice.
you are a morally bankrupt.
and wtf, whose wealth am i defending. i support what i do for the betterment of everyone. the mega rich could not exist under an actual free market. the regulatory protection/paperwork and unnessacary hoops = few companies and high profits.
FRB and fiat currency = mass poverty.
100CommonCents 10 months ago
@100CommonCents Whose wealth are you defending> No one's! What you are doing is carrying the wealthy's water in hopes they will look favorably upon you, a disgusting thing to see to be sure.
You will obviously contort yourself into any bizarre shape to continue this scam.
iggerdanus 10 months ago
@iggerdanus How about i send you a short 10min clip of T Woods explaining his view of economics, and you can comment on that.
Try not to end up supporting a view that favors crushing the heads of his children; that was a pretty big fuck-up by you, you shouldn't play dead hands (excuse the pun)
but seriously, analyse this guys thoughts on something meaningful, other than your own misinterpretation of his view on child labour.
watch?v=wCmwRN5gjOo
100CommonCents 10 months ago
What is this assholes point exactly? he jumps around and tries to make connections between disconnected things..like his bullshit about "even a king didn't have plumbing"....it's so amazing how the right have been able to silver tongue brainwash people into believing freedom is the right to work for a more and more devalued labor system to help increase the profits of the super wealthy more and more because anything else would socialism that is 'even worse'
MMZen 10 months ago
@MMZen - I'm sorry that you've been so brainwashed that you cannot realize the absolute prosperity that comes from the free market. I'm sorry that you can't realize that as a result of the free market, we no longer have child labor. That's the point.
He never says child labor is desirable, just the opposite.
Spreading wealth evenly makes everyone poorer, but freeing people to create wealth makes all richer.
mpc91 3 months ago
@mpc91 No proof historically that prosperity comes from a free market, actually history would disprove that assertion..
rusedorange 3 months ago
@rusedorange - The overwhelming evidence is that the free market leads to prosperity. There is also a great deal of evidence that interfering with the market reduces prosperity.
The freer the market, the greater the prosperity. That may not be politically agreeable to you, but nonetheless, it is what history proves.
mpc91 3 months ago
@mpc91 What are you doing- creating history out on thin air then calling it fact? No evidence at all of any truth in your assertion.
rusedorange 3 months ago
@rusedorange - I'm creating nothing out of thin air. You are. You are the one who lacks evidence. There is overwhelming proof that the free market causes prosperity. Why is South Korea rich and North Korea poor? Why has China's economy grown as their economy has been freed?
The past 200 years have seen world economies freed (in general) and life spans and incomes have greatly increased.
Why have incomes in this country increased consistently (even with inflation factored out)?
mpc91 3 months ago
So, is this economics on acid?
countchaos99 11 months ago
@countchaos99 - You want economics on acid, look up Keynes or Krugman.
This is the economics of reality.
mpc91 3 months ago
@mpc91 I was referring to the animation. Acid...nutty animation...get it?
countchaos99 3 months ago
Tom Woods- unapologetic, revolting corporate shill and apologist for the ultra-rich... Well there is a good livin in that these days. Rush, Sean, Glenn, Ann, Bill, Michael, Michael, Jason, ... ahh well it could go on all day. These people are amoral!
Yes Tom, there has been widespread poverty but child labor arose as an issue with the industrial revolution. You are a professor?? Really? Sound like one more rightwing jackass to me! Your "points", Tom, are poorly conceived and unconvincing.
iggerdanus 11 months ago
@iggerdanus you know nothing, clearly.
100CommonCents 10 months ago
@100CommonCents I disagree.
iggerdanus 10 months ago
@iggerdanus he's not rightwing...
putting what right wing represents, and what T E Woods represents is like putting intelligent design advocates with evolution advocates because they both deal with the same subject matter.
again, you make it extremely obvious you only have a layman view of his theory, and you place him in the wrong category - the category rightwing and left are largely bogus anyway. you are an example of the effects of 'mass implicit propaganda' (see, E Bernays)
100CommonCents 10 months ago
@100CommonCents I understand he is "Libertarian" these days aside from the imperialist efforts of the right-wingers which are wisely eschewed Libertarians, their platforms share many similarities. Laissez fairre economics looks like Conservative deregulation in a practical sense, either way it led to economic collapse. Perhaps I painted with too broad a brush, hopefully you can overlook that since I am a layman; but your initial statement: " you know nothing, clearly" is wrong, clearly.
iggerdanus 10 months ago
@iggerdanus lol, ok the original free market supporters came from the left. see:
w w w . fff . org / freedom / fd0706b . asp
(an excellent article in its own right)
so technically he is extreme leftwing (kinda like Frederick Bastiat, or arguably Spooner)
but really, 'left and 'right' are bankrupt words now, only useful broadly
Actually, if you want to understand where Woods is coming from read 'Economics in one lesson'. it's hard to explain a point effectively on youtube, but i'm happy too?
100CommonCents 10 months ago
@100CommonCents "the original free market supporters came from the left."- 100Cents
Lol, nice non sequitur. I was speaking in the context of recent history, not historically. It doesn't much matter what the originations were if TODAY the platforms gibe.
I do agree that "Left" and "Right" are misleading terms today, because the playing field has been so tilted that "Left" is Right and "Right" is Ultra Rightwing; there is no functional Leftwing, or Liberal, Class to balance the Right.
iggerdanus 10 months ago
@iggerdanus well it still depends on what country you're in with a term like libertarian, even given the complications of history. i think the word has been abused to much to be useful
there is definitely a lot of left, today. both 'left' and 'right' of the past would see today as kind of victory for the 'left' and 'conservative' but def not free-markets.
they both have made progress of growing the US govt from 3% in 1890 to 40%? today.
plus fiat currency, FRBanking ect is not free-markets.
100CommonCents 10 months ago
Comment removed
100CommonCents 10 months ago
@100CommonCents *Yawns*... *Scratches ass*..*Wipes a failed Free marketer under chair after examining it curiously*...
The size of Government is not the problem today, if anything it has been weakened to the point of powerlessness in the face of an oppressive Corporate State. It you my friend who has bee propagandized, and bitching that gov't is too big is Right-Wing Conservative 101, they are programming you out of the Right's "Think Tanks", wind you up like a little toy, send you out....
iggerdanus 10 months ago
@100Cents Think tanks.... That is where the pendulum swung out of control, where a level playing field lurched Rightward and gravity went askew. Hillary several years ago alluded to "a vast right-wing conspiracy"; she was mercilessly ridiculed, but she was right.
They (Conservatives) strongly influence ALL media, and CONTROL most media (that we see in the USA), owning AM radio and cowing the cable news stations (AEB: no American bodies shown, "insurgent" and "terrorist" labelling, etc.
iggerdanus 10 months ago
@iggerdanus HILLARY!? shes a fucking tool. the biggest of all.
get over this left right paradigm. it's the way 8th graders see politics. it's the most obvious sign of a know-nothing when they bring it down to sides. eg "right wing does this and this". i am against every single US politician, except maybe ron paul and kucinich.
it's not left right, it's authoritarian or non-authoritarian.
i am anti-war, pro-drug, pro-gay marraige, pro state-church separation and NOT RIGHT WING !
100CommonCents 10 months ago
@100CommonCents Hillary is a tool? Not sure what that means, but no matter- I wasn't making any moral judgement about her personally- I was referencing what she said and how it was received. Of course she is a product of this system, you are changing the subject dummy! Her husband signed NAFTA for crissakes! The biggest insult ever perpetrated on the American Middle Class!
Left and Right wing are insignificant inso far as, I already said- the entire spectrum is skewed Right! Left is dead!
iggerdanus 10 months ago
@iggerdanus i am against republicans more than democrats in most cases. republicans are just as much for governments as democrats are. and since corporations have infested both side, why do you think the only thing the people can't get is budget cuts and less government?
hm, hint: corporation hate the free-market!
if for eg, the medicine corps can lock in customers with obamacare, or lobby for tarrifs, they will. anything but free-markets.
Read 'Economics in One Lesson' and educate yourself
100CommonCents 10 months ago
@iggerdanus Wow, you're really saying that?
Free-market libs attack the corporate state we live in, even more than that attack ignorant liberals! it is usually the mainstream conservatives(Teaparty) and liberals(yes-we-can drones) that support the shit-heap we have now. but actual conservatives see the corporate/free-markets more often than liberals
You are back to your broad strokes again. is your political outlook really that simplified? You don't seem to actually understand the debate.
100CommonCents 10 months ago
@100CommonCents Free-market Libs attack the Corporate State? Not if they espouse the "Government too big, inept, ineffectual" nonsense they don't! That is a Corporate strategy! That is what got us where we are now, at the mercy of empowered, enriched, deregulated, entrenched (Lobbying) Corporations. Government, properly directed, is the only power that can/may deliver us from being evermore exploited by corporatism.
iggerdanus 10 months ago
@iggerdanus this is where ppl go wrong. they assume free-markets lead to monopolies/corps
NO
>min-wage laws.. sounds nice, but it actually causes unemployment
>redulation = only big companies can afford to get past intial paperwork (most unnecesary)
>rent control (sounds good, everyone can now afford?) = BAM - rent shortage.
>obamacare. err no. supported by corporations, and votes come from ignorant left. it has the exact same wording as romneycare, wonder why?
>central banking = core problem
100CommonCents 10 months ago
@100CommonCents Now this is interesting. A Libertarian crawls from under a rock and shows itself!
Min wage laws- Bad? Hmmm again Right-Wing Cons. 101...
I assume you meant reGulation- BAD? Deepwater Horizon Oil Rig ring a bel?, again Cons. 101 attack gov't reg. as overburdensome. SubPrime disaster- inneffective regulation, unencumbered market forces.. IT IMPLODED YOU JACKASS! You don't know squat man. People's retirement savings VANISHED!
You think I'M morally bankrupt? Man o man
iggerdanus 10 months ago
@100Cents OK, we don't have rent control where I'm from so I'll skip that one.
Obamacare- The term is actually a product of WHAT? Why do they "call" it Obamacare instead of Health Ins. Reform? All the cable news networks do that btw. Because it is a Think Tank label- from the Conservatives! Same as "Death Tax", "Insurgent", etc.. It is a terminology designed to frame an argument before it ever starts, and YOU are using it MR Not a Right Winger! Straight from the think tanks, this precisely
iggerdanus 10 months ago
@100 illustrates what I was saying about the skewed playing field! Yeah I don't doubt Obama gave away way too much, that his plan resembles Romney's. He tried to negotiate with the Rt you dumbass! Public option was nixed by Sen Baucus, Big Pharma and Ins Co's made their campaign dollars count, their interests were protected, but those are RT-Wing values! As I said before, and you so disdainfully dismissed- there is no counter-balancing Left, it is all way over to the Right. Both sides corrupted.
iggerdanus 10 months ago
@100 OK ..Central Banking, guess what we agree! FRB and "The Fed" are what is destroying our country. But it is not "fiat" currency that is the problem, it IS the loaning of money into the system at interest that dooms us ultimately. Do you want to talk about the Rothschilds? Rockefeller (TW defends them), The Illuminati (May have financed both sides in every war since Napolean, and determined the outcomes)? I am in favor of ending the Federal Reserve, glad we can agree about something!
iggerdanus 10 months ago
@100 SO, obviously you are HEAVILY influenced by the Right-Wing think tank's propaganda machine; and, like most such victims you don't know it, deny it, reject the notion completely. That is just exactly the insidious nature of the mind control (infection?) that is going on here.
Minimum wage, Deregulation, "Obama"care, Labor laws,... it is no coincidence that your "views" align directly with Rt Wing Cons. Ideals, none whatsoever. They have you, and you don't even know it.
iggerdanus 10 months ago
@100 So take this as a learning opportunity 100, free of charge. You cannot get it anywhere else!
iggerdanus 10 months ago
@iggerdanus stop talking about whose on what side. i am against mainstream republicans more than ever! it does not matter how i refer to it. that deosn't change if it is right or wrong.
if you can't see that punishing a mans child for his supposed immorality (not even wrong doings), then how can you see through the propaganda.
i came at economics and politics with left bias if any, anyway, and i still make sure i read just as many 'left' books as 'right' ..eg rudolf rocker, chomsky, marx etc
100CommonCents 10 months ago
@iggerdanus ok, ill stick to one for now. The sub-prime disaster was due to government! fool
what occured was that the banks KNEW they'd be bailed out, and therefore were very risky since. if they won, they kept the money, and if they lost, they would be compensated. "too big to fail" (yeah right!)
Also! the government forced banks to lend to people with bad credit ratings 'the community reinvestment act' (actually read some legislature!)
also artificially lowered interest rates in 2001 =now
100CommonCents 10 months ago
@100CommonCents *Snorting* AH HAHAHA! I knew it was coming!! I knew it people!! Never fails... Straight from the Sean Hannity Playbook- he rolls out the CRA!! DA DA DA DADA DADADADA!! You are only the 3rd Libertarian that has tried that tack on me pardner! But you AREN'T a RIGHT-WINGER!!?? Blaming Clinton and Carter Right!! Forgive me man, I gotta roll around on the floor awhile!! WHEEE... THE CRA!!!
Ahh, whew...OK I'm settling down, that so tickles me man when yall try that!......
iggerdanus 10 months ago
@100Cents Ahh yes blame the old CRA. What a disingenuous IDIOT you are man, and I don't say that lightly.
Banks were deregulated as part of an empowered Conservative agenda, you do remember Phil Gramm, Nation of "whiners" fame? The Glass-Stegall Act, repealed in 1999, which limited the amount commercial banks could invest in securities?
It had nothing, absolutely NOTHING to do with the CRA assjackerson, the CRA actually encouraged sound lending practices. It had everything to do with..
iggerdanus 10 months ago
@100cents ..deregulated banks creating financial instruments by bundling these loans, getting ludicrously rosy ratings from the rating agencies, and selling them down the river. SELLING THE RISK YOU FOOL! They made loans and then sold them so they didn't care AT ALL if they proved solvent! They were deregulated, regulators didn't blow the whistle because they could go to work for the thieves themselves, besides the regulatory agencies had been defunded and marginalized by... Dubya!
iggerdanus 10 months ago
@100 So these CDO's were the hottest ticket in the history of investing! The Big Banks CLAMORED for more, they leveraged them many times over. "Mortgage Brokers" sprang up on every corner across the country- selling ARM's by pitching that "80% of people move within 5 years, so you'll never even see the rate reset!", "It's win win!". Wall Street paid MORE for the ARM's, there was actually a disincentive to sell legitimate loans (and refi's).
Shame on you for saying it was the CRA! ...but
iggerdanus 10 months ago
@100 ..but there again we see one more example of the influence of Right-Wing propaganda on you! I said it was insidious. I said it was pervasive. I said it skewed the entire playing field. You have unwittingly supplied abundant evidence of the cancer that is infecting us, malignancy, it corrupts formerly healthy cells.
So- The CRA, Minimum wage, Healthcare Reform, and Regulation are our problems according to you; but you're not a Right-Winger, oh heck no! Mere coincidence everything..
iggerdanus 10 months ago
@100 ..everything rolling off your fingertips is right-wing propaganda!
I'll give you this much, grudgingly- The Big Banks MAY have known that they would be bailed out, they may have. But I saw the sick, terrified look on Hank Paulson's face for just a few minutes when he came out from behind the closed doors mtg where he sold Bush (and others) on the notion that we had to bail them out. I think there was doubt there, briefly. Maybe we did have to bail em out, but we can sure as hell..
iggerdanus 10 months ago
@100..Change the rules of the game to prevent them doing it again!
Unfortunately we have legions of folks like you working feverishly to "spin" the problems that led us to the crisis in the first place, for entirely selfish reasons- as shallow as you don't believe you could have been as wrong as you obviously were!
Capitalism is a pretty good system 100, as long as it is tightly regulated. It can provide a basis for a strong economy and society if it is carefully controlled....
iggerdanus 10 months ago
@100 Libertarianism is folly, and we have seen that proven just as recently as 2008.
iggerdanus 10 months ago
@iggerdanus this is worst than talking to a creationist about evolution. you are wrong on so many levels its unbelievable. morally pathetic, ignorant about economics, and now you clearly are not in for discussing anything but throwing insults.
don't waste my time
100CommonCents 10 months ago 5
@iggerdanus btw all free-market libertarians believe the min-wage laws are bad! they are!
watch?v=ca8Z__o52sk
you're the foolish well-meaning sponsor
100CommonCents 10 months ago
@iggerdanus "People's retirement savings VANISHED!"
Exactly! because of the shittiness of the system. NOT free-market capitalism.
do you even know what inflation is? or what a fiat currency is. because so far you've pushed the average leftist dribble. the sort that is USED to support the corporation supporting laws/reg, while pretending to do the opposite.
you still are morally bankrupt. but now you are also a confirmed shit-head know nothing layman on economics.
100CommonCents 10 months ago
@100CommonCents Haha, now you are reduced to calling me a Leftist! I thought that was beneath you!
"shittiness of the system"- you go to school to hear that? Shitty system huh? That's putting it mildly! Conservative AND Libertarian agenda: De-regulate those markets, disencumber the financial speculators, deFUND government regulatory agencies. What happened? Wall Street (The Rich), Big banks constructed a pyramid scheme because they sold the RISK down the river! It fell! Sucks for you..
iggerdanus 10 months ago
@100 Now with you Libertarians and Conservatives it becomes about trying to obfuscate the cause of the crisis, to salvage your FAILED belief systems! Guess what you amoral anus, I don't want your failed ideology! I can look at events and make an informed judgement. I don't want my kids victimized again just so you idiots can bolster the crumbling facade of your egos.
Yeah I am well aware of the definitions of "fiat" currency and inflation; also deflation and stagflation.
iggerdanus 10 months ago
@iggerdanus - None of those things actually happened. We had more regulation, more regulators, more money for those regulators, more pressure from those regulators to make risky loans to bad banks, and on the flip side, we had a fed creating a moral hazard by reassuring banks that they would be taken care of if the people they would not normally have lent money to could not repay. The housing bubble was not a free market creation, but a gov't idea.
mpc91 3 months ago
@mpc91 Au contraire mpc91! The deregulatory agenda was set in motion during Reagan's first term and was continued thereafter, it was during the first days of Bush 2 however that it was utterly abandoned. Recall Cheney's closed door meeting with industry heads in which regulations were actually revised by the polluters!
As far as the financial sector Gramm-Leach opened the door to the housing bubble- it is a Right-Wing talking point that GOVT required banks to make bad loans.
iggerdanus 2 months ago
@iggerdanus - We have 80,000 pages of new regulation every year. And that's just from Federal Government agencies, not laws, but agency made regulation with the power of law. Most of the regulations are made in conjunction with the industry the are intended to regulate - they are intended to keep new competitors out of the market. It's crony capitalism, and it goes back to FDR.
Gramm-Leach had NOTHING to do with the housing bubble, it didn't create vast new credit, or imply bailout. The Fed did
mpc91 2 months ago
@iggerdanus - Lobbying increases as the size of government increases - for a reason.
The corporate strategy is not small government. FAR from it. It's big government. Big government regulation keeps new competitors out of the market, subsidizes bad ideas, and provides bailouts when those bad ideas fail.
If lobbyists were seeking deregulation, we'd see it, wouldn't we? But the trend is exactly the opposite. We get 80,000 pages of new regulation every year.
mpc91 2 months ago
@mpc91 The corporate strategy is weakened government. The corporate strategy is to control the government- and they are doing it as we speak. The corporate strategy is to subvert government of, and for, the people to government that is primarily concerned with shareholder dividends- that would be "the 1%" we've been hearing so much about. Deregulation is a strategy which directly benefits corporations, at least the most powerful ones, and of course their lobbying efforts are focused upon that.
iggerdanus 2 months ago
@iggerdanus - If the strategy was to weaken government, then it should logically be shrinking at a rapid rate. Is it?
You assume fallacies, and make deductions based on them. They make sense only if your fallacy is true.
Existing companies benefit more from regulation than they do from deregulation. It is much easier for them to comply with mountains of paperwork than it is for a new entrant. That's why deregulation ISN'T happening. You seem to hate crony capitalism, but love its tools.
mpc91 2 months ago
@mpc91 If weaken was synonymous with shrink I suppose it would, but in this complex situation weakening is accomplished by defunding- a deliberate NeoConservative tactic designed to cause a deficit "crisis" INTENTIONALLY and then use that "crisis" as justification for eliminating social safety nets such as Medicare, Social Security, etc.. The strategy is known as "Starve the Beast" and it originated around Reagan's first term and continues, escalating to this day.
iggerdanus 2 months ago
@mpc91 That you are utterly ignorant of the "Starve the Beast" movement which has only gained momentum since Bush 2 points to the woeful extent of your propagandization. Recall that Cheney told Oneill that "deficits don't matter", and then ONeill was fired of course. Today in the face of huge deficits we see that since a Democrat occupies the White House they DO matter! More than ANY OTHER ISSUE! But the deficit must not be fixed the way it has always been done in the past! cont...
iggerdanus 2 months ago
@mpc91 In years gone by it really wasn't much of an issue as to how to handle the deficit whether you were Repub. or Democrat it was simply fixed by adjusting the rates of taxation, Progressive Taxation, to be exact. Upper income tax rates would be as high as 70-90% for so long as necessary to balance the budget, under that system we had funded, maintained, public services such as schools; and it proved to be good for economic growth as well! cont 2....
iggerdanus 2 months ago
@mpc91 So now all the Republicans have signed a pledge to Grover Norquist and our country may very well not survive as a result. If the past 30 years have shown anything, and they have, it is that the tax cuts for the rich strategy simply does not work to stimulate business growth AND only provides economic security to the rich- pure disaster if you are living in a consumer economy such as ours. Libertarians are simply Republicans by another name- which is why Ron Paul runs as Repub.
iggerdanus 2 months ago
@iggerdanus - Tax cuts alone will not stimulate business. This is true. But they help. Some of the income tax rates have gone down. But a number of other new types of taxes has increased, as has the amount of regulation.
But the elephant in the living room is government spending. It sucks a tremendous amount of resources out of the voluntary economy, makes products more expensive, causes inflation (that hurts the poor more than the rich) and wastes MOST of what it spends.
mpc91 2 months ago
@mpc91 If history is any guide it would seem that tax increases stimulate business.
You are correct that there are new types of taxes- they are called regressive taxes, and they are purely driven by the government's inability to draw funding from the traditional major source which is those who HAVE it! In desperation government has turned to trying to wring blood out of the turnip if you will, as opposed to squeezing a droplet from the leeches who are now strictly off limits.
iggerdanus 2 months ago
@mpc91 Government spending too high huh? I think I already addressed the mistake inherent in that line of reasoning. Government spending is the last resort actually, it's very obvious that the private sector is sitting on hundreds of billions in profits which they have ZERO interest in investing in traditional American job producing businesses. OBVIOUS. Government spending is the only thing keeping our economy afloat, we need more stimulus spending. We can't recover without it.
iggerdanus 2 months ago
@iggerdanus
You people who claim that higher taxes in the past was the reason for prosperity need to realize that nobody actually paid those 90% taxes in the 50's because there was so many deductions. In fact, the government got less of our money in 1950 than they do now as a percentage of the GDP, despite the current lower tax-rates. If anything, you are arguing against your own point.
EliteKiller07 2 months ago in playlist More videos from LibertyPen
@EliteKiller07 If that were true why would the Rich be against raising taxes now? There were deductions and loopholes but the PROGRESSIVE tax system funded the government and necessary system- which is not happening now with taxes lowered on the rich.
iggerdanus 2 months ago
@iggerdanus
No, you're not understanding what i'm saying. The rich were paying LESS taxes back when the tax rates were up around 90%. And despite the high tax-rates, the government got less of our money back then than they do now. Right now, the government gets 15% of the GDP in taxes, in 1950 the government got 13%.
I'll PM the reason for the housing bubble too, which isn't "right-wing propaganda" because most right-wingers wont acknowledge the Fed being at the root of the problem.
EliteKiller07 2 months ago
@EliteKiller07 Well you didn't answer my question did you? Why would the rich be against a tax increase if they weren't going to have to pay it?
The GDP is a popular tactic Libertarians use to obfuscate that which is really very simple- this country has historically funded the government by taxing the rich, and IT WORKS!
iggerdanus 2 months ago
@iggerdanus
You're still not understanding what I am saying. There are a lot less deductions for taxes right now, which means raising the tax-rates to the 1950's era would mean the rich would be paying VASTLY more taxes than they were back then. Under the 1950's taxes, the rich would actually get a tax cut. This is why rich people don't want their taxes raised.
Also, the "top 1%" pay 40% of all income taxes, much higher than the historical average. Stop pulling "facts" out of your ass.
EliteKiller07 2 months ago
@iggerdanus - So businesses do better the more of their money is taken away?
By that logic, robbery is good for business. Why don't you go help your local small business by breaking in and robbing the register. Clearly that would stimulate business. Make sure to break stuff while your in there to really get the local economy going. Whatever you do, don't look up Frederic Bastiat while your doing this.
mpc91 2 months ago
@mpc91 "So businesses do better the more of their money is taken away?" No, I doubt one could say it that simply. Certainly businesses and our country as a whole do better when we tax the rich, and corporations, at a much higher rate. The situation we have now is caused by corporations sitting on huge profits completely disinterested in investing, and the ultra wealthy interested only in financial speculation which produces nothing and benefits only Wall St, and themselves...cont
iggerdanus 2 months ago
@mpc91 This disinterest in traditional job-producing investment is driven by low capital gains taxes and a dearth of "confident" consumers. We will have a recovery ONLY when wealth redistribution to the ultra-rich is halted and the American middle-class begins to grow again with financial security. To go ahead and state the obvious we could not go wrong by putting money into the pockets of the American poor and Middle-Class because THEY WILL SPEND IT! THAT CREATES JOBS! The rich only hoard it.
iggerdanus 2 months ago
@iggerdanus - It may be obvious to you, because you miss the forest for the trees. Taxation does not make the middle class or the poor wealthier. It makes the government and the bureaucracy wealthier. Just because a program says it helps the poor does not mean it helps the poor. The rich don't hoard their money; with inflation, they'd be foolish to do so. It is invested or lost. Regime uncertainty is the problem, Obamacare is a factor, as is the glut of new regulations coming out every day.
mpc91 2 months ago
@iggerdanus Instead of just saying "Certainly such and such...", actually post proof. The facts are that there is no correlation between recessions and taxes. Another fact is that Tax revenue has maintained roughly 19.5 percent of gdp.
david52875 2 months ago
@david52875 Libertarians always cite the GDP. What makes you so certain it is a valid indicator? I think it is an intellectual crutch you guys use to avoid open discussion. Per capita for instance? If the GDP has shrunk due to a huge recession, and unemployment is high, expensive wars going on, population has risen, the rich have an exponentially larger percentage of the wealth, we've cut taxes on the rich... Maybe gov't is being asked to survive on 19% of a smaller pie.. cont
iggerdanus 2 months ago
@david52875 As far as "Instead of just saying "Certainly such and such..."" With all due respect I'd appreciate you not telling me what to say. You get to control what you say, I'll control what I say!
I don't think as a percentage of GDP is a concrete indicator of what tax revenue should be. Commonsense would tell me that circumstances change and needs fluctuate. It was higher in WWII..?
iggerdanus 2 months ago
@iggerdanus I don't think GDP is an indicator of what tax revenue should be, I think that tax revenue should be as high as reasonably possible. I don't think this is a purely libertarian opinion. So, if tax revenues are proportional to gdp, regardless of the tax rate, how do you increase tax revenue? Simple, you increase GDP. And I wasn't trying to control what you say, I was making a suggestion that in the future you post something substantial.
david52875 2 months ago
@iggerdanus Its not an intellectual crutch, If raising taxes decreases tax revenue, the whats the point of raising taxes? it's like charging consumers more for a product so that you make less money.
david52875 2 months ago
@david52875 Raising taxes does not decrease tax revenue actually.
iggerdanus 2 months ago
@iggerdanus Raising taxes decreases GDP. Tax revenue is directly proportional to GDP, always about 1/5th. So if your always taking one eighth of the pie, and the pie shrinks, you get less pie.
david52875 2 months ago
@iggerdanus - %GDP is just one way. Overall spending figures tell the same story, %GDP just makes it easier to account for inflation. I get that you don't like them, but they are what they are. In 2000, Federal Spending was at $1.78 trillion. In 2011, its at $3.6 trillion. That's more than double. In 2000, Federal Revenue was $2 trillion, in 2011, the number is $2.3 trillion. It's up, but it cannot keep up with the spending.
It's being asked to survive on twice as much as it spent 11 years ago
mpc91 2 months ago
@iggerdanus - And as for the GDP shrinking massively, from it's height at $14.2 trillion in 2008, it did drop by almost 2% in 2009. But was back up to $14.5 trillion in 2010, and is projected to go over $15 trillion this year. We should pull out of the expensive wars, but that doesn't account for the deficit. If you wiped out 100% of defense spending, we'd still be running a deficit. Hmmm, facts as an intellectual crutch. How about that.
mpc91 2 months ago
@iggerdanus - If you took all of the money from millionaires and billionaires in this country, you still wouldn't balance the budget. Those people got their millions and billions from growing the economy, employing other people, starting businesses, and investing their money. Tax rates have little effect on gov't income.
But annual federal government spending has DOUBLED over the past 10 years, with the greatest increase coming in the past two. You CANNOT tax your way out of this.
mpc91 2 months ago
@mpc91 "If you took all of the money from millionaires and billionaires in this country, you still wouldn't balance the budget." Right-Wing propaganda tactic, I started to call it a "point" but it is no such thing, it is merely a trial balloon floated in desperation in an attempt to hide the truth.
Actually you could balance the budget quite easily over a matter of a decade or so AND, history proves, it is the best course of action for the country as a whole- INCLUDING THE RICH!
iggerdanus 2 months ago
@iggerdanus - It's not hiding the truth... it is the truth. It's simple mathematics. They don't make enough money to tax them at 100% and balance the budget.
The only way to balance the budget is to CUT SPENDING. Everything else is a shell game. These wasteful, unconstitutional and ineffective programs have to go. We have to stop wasting resources.
You have bought so many outright lies and myths that fact is wasted on you. The spending is unsustainable.
mpc91 2 months ago
@iggerdanus - Don't you get tired of yourself after a while? They said "Starve the Beast", but spending has increased. And yes, the deficit is an issue, but no, raising taxes won't fix it. You can't double spending and think a minor tax rate reducation will solve the problem. We don't have an income problem, we have a spending problem.
mpc91 2 months ago
@mpc91 The Starve the Beast movement which is in power the past 30 years DID defund the government- THAT'S WHERE THE DEFICIT CAME FROM GENIUS! Social spending is not "wasteful, unconstitutional and ineffective" it is what a civilized society MUST do, without a minimum standard of living the poor will consume the rich eventually. The rich don't know it yet but they will... They'll need armored cars and Blackwater thugs to venture out of their gated communities.
iggerdanus 2 months ago
@iggerdanus - So over the past 30 years, government revenue has gone down you say? Really. In 1980, government revenue was at 31.76% of GDP. In 1990, it was 33.23%. In 2000, it was 37.19%. In 2007, it was 37.01%. By the way, from 1950-68, it never got about 30%. Meanwhile, spending has gone from 33.7% in 1980 to 36% in 1990. By 2000 it had fallen to 32.7%, but by 2007 it was back up to 35%. By 2009, it was 42%. The numbers don't lie, both are going up, but spending is going up much faster.
mpc91 2 months ago
@iggerdanus - And these measures are obviously wasteful, as they spend more on bureaucrats than they do on actual aid. They are clearly unconstitutional, unless you can show the clause in Article 1, Section 8 that says they are. And they are clearly also ineffective, as in the course of Johnson's "War on Poverty" in his Great Society, poverty numbers have not fallen, they flatlined, and even gone up a little. They were falling at about 1% per year BEFORE the "Great Society". They don't work.
mpc91 2 months ago
@iggerdanus - Social safety nets SHOULD be eliminated. They do far more harm than good. But that's beside the point.
Has spending decreased, or increased? Do we have fewer social programs, or did Obamacare pass?
What has been defunded? It's been increased!
mpc91 2 months ago
@mpc91 "Has spending decreased, or increased? Do we have fewer social programs, or did Obamacare pass?"
The deficit has increased due to tax cuts for the rich, the wars, and the financial crisis. The mistake is to then look at the poor and Middle-Class and draw the conclusion that they caused it. It is utterly absurd, and immoral, to take the position that if only the poor weren't getting so many food stamps, or if unemployment hadn't been extended, we wouldn't be in this situation.
iggerdanus 2 months ago
@mpc91 We cut taxes on the rich to get in this situation. The rich financial speculators built a fraudulent house of cards which collapsed to make the situation MUCH worse. The military/industrial complex and Right-Wing politicians colluded to sink us into the expensive quagmires of Iraq and Afghanistan (OK Obama has continued what was already in motion); the poor and middle-class send their flesh and blood to fight in the misguided battles! We can afford our poor, our rich are the problem!
iggerdanus 2 months ago