While I agree with Ryan that a debt crisis is possible if the US spends indefinitely, could someone explain to me why using large fiscal spending isn't the answer to the current crisis? Liberals supporting fiscal stimulus usually argue that they are adopting the same Keynesian policy that got us out of the Great Depression, could someone explain to me what's so different about today and the Great Depression that such measures won't work? Just wondering.
All I see from liberals is name calling and no facts. I don't think they understand how serious this problem is. What we have going on now is unsustainable in the long run. 40% of annual budget is paid for in borrowing money we can't pay back. What happens when we can't borrow anymore? We will either need to cut spending, print money or raise taxes severely on EVERYONE not just the top 10%. Do you see what is going on in Greece right now? That is coming to America if we don't do something soon.
funny how he says we all will have to suffer. when his plan has 1 trillion in tax cuts the the wealthy and the elderly will not be able to get health care.
what suffering do the wealthy have to go through in this plan
That dirtbag republican whore would not be considered a multi cell organism in the lab; but some type of haunted protoplasm from the bottom of the septic tank he drinks from.
Recent survey said 54% of republicans aren't happy with their candidates. "Gee" can't imagine why? Mr.999 Herman the magnificent. Hey Herman how those genital warts doing??? Rick see ya later damaged brain Perry. Mitt the cult leader Romney baptising the dead again. Mr. frothy sntorum of google Santorum fame ,or was it scrotum, Mr. KKK incognito Ronny boy. Last but not least That pillar of virtue and chastity orator of all things fascist Gengrinch
Only someone who is ignorant of history and economics thinks we have dont have a revenue problem. The problem is revenue as this year govt revenue will be 14% of GDP -- the lowest in many yrs & this is b/c the rich, like Romnney, are paying a lower overall tax rate than the middle class.
This guy is turning a monetary issue into a spending issue... the key to GOP politics...since when does the lesser of two liberals make a conservative
Shut up Paul Ryan... this is the internet you cant get anything past us figure that out yet??
We know it is a monetary issue, there is no group of programs you can target to bring us to prosperity, it is YOU Paul Ryan who continues to sit there and say nothing about a private banking system that is legally allowed to issue out 10 times what it has on reserves to whomever they choose and for whatever reason they choose... that is corruption at its core... and only RON PAUL is speaking up
Republican super heroes Reagan,and Bush raised spending more than all other administrations combined.Top marginal tax rate in the 50's under Eisenhower was 91% our debt as a portion of GDP after WWII was much higher than today. We grew our way out of it.These whores Issa, Cantor, Ryan, are despicable liars and cheep carnival tricksters whoring for the giant multinationals,oil companies and big coal. We need an infrastructure bank right now. NO INVESTMENT IN PEOPLE NO JOBS NO FUTURE. WAKE UP!
@geezerdombroadcast More ramblings and babbling from a koolaide drinkin librool. Barack Odumbo, the nappy headed Muslim said it was "irresponsible" and "unpatriotic" when GH added 4 trillion to the National Debt in four years while this Muslim added 6 trillion in four years. Yeah, keep drinkin koolaide, Mr. Geezer.
@geezerdombroadcast Let's look at Odumbo's campaigh promises. Odumbo said he would transcend DC politics and then turned around and rammed Odumbocare down our thorats using the very tactics he siad he would not use like backroom deals with lobbysist, unions, businesses and members of Congress. Keep in mind HCR ranked no. 4 on issues Americans were most concerned about witht he economy and jobs at no's. 1 and 2. Yet this idiot went after HCR.
@geezerdombroadcast Furthermore, Barack Odumbo gave over 1000 waivers to his own Odumbocare to unions. Odumbo said he would end the wars in 18 months and we are still in Iraq and Odumbo had his own Surge in Afghanistan. You stinkin librools whined about GW waterboarding a few terrorist buy say nuthin about Odumbo using predator drones. Then Odumbo had his own little war in Libya. You stinkin librools sure know how to hold your noses.
@geezerdombroadcast Dear koolide drinker, we'll see how you feel when gas hits $5/gallon. Yeah, I know you librools would get out of your car and laugh at the price of gas but when you get home you fall on your livingroom floor and throw a fit a five year old would be proud.
@geezerdombroadcast What about Gitmo, Mr. koolaide drinker. Gitmo is still open for business. No terrorist have been brought to trial on our shores neither. What about that koolaide drinker?
I'm mostly a liberal leaning person when it comes to politics, and I think Rep. Ryan makes some valid points. No matter what actions we take as a nation, we must understand that you cannot live with mountains of debt and expect the economy to continue to function. That's just bad economics. I also appreciate the fact that he is using a YouTube channel to communicate effectively with the American people. Seriously, why is this guy not running for president?
I was lucky enough to buy Ford stock when it was down around $1 & sell for around a $45k Cap Gain
It's wrong that I can work at clicking a few keys & end up paying 1/2 the tax rate of someone who sweated on a construction job ALLYEAR LONG to earn the same money...
especially since many of my Cap Gains through the yrs have been totally tax free
Considering the average rich person pays about 16% of their income to taxes and the average middle class and poor person pays around 23% of their pay to total taxes and the rich have far more disposable income it's safe to say that it most definitely isn't fair as a whole as is. Labeling people as deadbeats for wanting something more fair in this regard doesn't really change the facts nor is a reasonable argument.
@garith21 Not sure if you are lying, mis-informed, or clueless. The average "rich person" pays 30%+ of their income to federal income tax and 40%+ to combined taxes. The average poor person pays ZERO in federal income taxes. You need to quit spreading that nonsense. I will ask agian, if you want higher taxes, how much more do YOU want top pay? Or are you just a greedy person who wants others to pay your way for what you should pay for yourself?
2) A majority of other taxes are largely regressive especially when you factor in state and local taxes which is why I said "ALL taxes" and not federal income taxes
3) Considering many rich people make most of their money that would be covered in other taxes which are far lower than income tax this claim is false.
4) Only about as much as they were paying during the Clinton years, cutting out loopholes would be nice to.
@garith21 Federal income tax is not all taxes, but by far the biggest collection at the federal level. You clearly have no clue how "rich people make their money." Rich people pay about 40%+ of their income in taxes and then selfish, greedy people like yourself want them to pay even higher Clinton-Era rates because you have some fascination with them. YOU should pay 5% more of YOUR income if it is such a good idea. Anyone if free to gift to the treasury, see their website. I doubt you will.
"Rich people pay about 40%+ of their income in taxes"
Some do, some do not, many can in fact put off paying taxes almost indefinitely because of the way certain taxes are processed with various loopholes and deductions are applied
@garith21 There are few individual tax shelters and in fact the bottom and middle class have far more tax credits available than the upper class. (eg: EIC, child care, etc.) Perhaps you should take your Occupy Wall Steet nonsense somewhere else, I am not as stupid as the average Obama voter. But again. quit being greedy and selfish and tell me how much more YOU want to pay in taxes. I doubt I will get an answer.
Personally speaking I simply want the loopholes gone. When the top rung income has increased by 400% (when taking inflation into account) and the bottom 90% have increased 1% (when taking inflation into account) since 1980 and they pay less by percentage of income than the middle class in overall taxes it's safe to say the current status quo isn't equal.
Considering the middle class is shrinking, the gap between everyone else and the rich is widening and you're more likely to live out the American dream in Denmark why should the laborers of America pay more when the rich control over 80% of the wealth in America, so much in fact that the top 400 control more than the bottom 150 million.
@garith21 Yes, again you do not answer, because YOU don't want to pay more, you want some mythical rich person to pay your way. Here is a news flash for you. "the rich" are not a static group as though the same people earn the same amounts over 40 years. People move in and out of the top 10% all the time, often because they sell a business or other asset that did well. But again, HOW MUCH MORE DO YOU PERSONALLY WANT TO PAY???
"because YOU don't want to pay more, you want some mythical rich person to pay your way."
Actually I just want all rich people to pay the same amount as the average person in the united states as far as a share of their overall income. It's cute that you want to avoid all of the tax haven talk or anything else that points out how your simplistic understanding is utterly flawed, but not terribly convincing.
""the rich" are not a static group as though the same people earn the same amounts over 40 years."
Right, according to studies factoring in inflation the super rich have only had a 400% increase in income while 90% of Americans have only had a 1% increase in income (factoring in inflation) over the last 3 decades.
When will you address everything else that's said in this regard that points out that the average person is paying more of a share of their income in total taxes and has not had a notable increase in income over the last 3 decades? Why do you only base your arguments on income taxes (with a narrow view) rather than all taxes and factoring in what does happen.
If the tax havens, subsidies, deductions, etc etc were removed I would even advocate their taxes be lowered, but some people don't want them removed so a raise in taxes needs to be advocated to balance it out. As 90% of Americans pay more of a share of their non moving income than the moving super rich, I don't see why 90% should be paying more as long as we're talking about funding government.
@garith21 The top 10% are paying more than the bottom 90% combined, we have a spending problem with spending as % of GDP 25% higher under Obama. And yet again, HOW MUCH MORE DO *YOU* WANT TO PAY? Quit being selfish and greedy, tell me how much more you want YOUR rate raised.
Most of those are one shot stimulus or actually counting the wars that weren't originally counted in the general budget of the previous administration. One shot stimulus is quite different from subjects like medicare plan D or the bush tax cuts. If you simply got rid of the bush tax cuts CBO states that the deficit would be gone in a few years.
Even the wsj, apparently a socialist source now has an article that states that because of the widening divide between the super rich and the majority of the population that America should consider raising taxes on the super rich so shorten the gulf.
why should there be any? Especially to the extent that 2 trillion dollars in wealth can be hidden in off shore accounts to evade taxes, which clearly aren't going to helping the American economy.
"Of course the bottom 47% would then have to start paying taxes."
The bottom 47% only don't pay income tax due to credits, they however pay a large portion of their income to taxes on all levels of government. more so than the average rich person anyways.
@garith21 please cite some sources for this nonsense. The lower classes do not pay near even the top federal rate alone for taxes. You need to get your information from a more fair and balanced source and not OWS camps.
@garith21 Now we see the problem--you think the top 400 is representative of all "rich people." The top 1% equates to 3 million people, say 2 million removing children. You would need to take a random sample of that group where each member had an equal and nonzero chance to be sampled. So you are starting with flawed logic (common among liberals.) BTW: the fair tax rate for divadends and cap gains is zero as tax was already paid at the corp level. Write back when you take a stat101 class.
"Now we see the problem--you think the top 400 is representative of all "rich people.""
Actually it's a simple demonstration that your knowledge on the topic is flat out wrong. If "every" rich person pays 30-40% of their income to taxes, demonstrating that even the top 400 pay closer to 16% indicates your statement is absolutely wrong. My argument is that they should all be paying a fair rate.
The degrees of difference in the rich and super rich are also quite wide gaps, there's large differences even between the top 1% and the top .01% of the population.
Factoring in for inflation the bottom 90% have had an increase of 1% total income, 90-95 a 30% increase, 95-99% a 51% increase, 99-99.5 a 81% increase this rise in difference increases all the way to the top .01% with a 403% increase in income over the last 3 decades.
I actually aced statistics, it is however amusing that you'll continue to argue something isn't statistically significant because by definition the topic that's being discussed is a very very small minority to begin with. My original point is that not "every" rich person pays their fair share, the top 400 is merely a demonstration that your assumption that they all do is wrong, I only cited the top 400 because it's freely available.
"Fox News Channel has a reputation and ratings to indicate a fair and balanced newscast."
K, you're so far off the deep end that there's no reason to continue a conversation. Fox news is so well known to display such a bias that it actually distorts news to the point that comedy shows result in a better understanding of reality than fox news does.
Asshole. Tax the fucking rich. you smarmy little scumbag. You'd rather kill grandma's social security and have people dying in The streets ( which they are. And quietly, at home,too) .. And you'd rather all the un-rich just died out anyway, wouldn't you? You are a bad person. And a liar.
Fellow Americans, we must deal with this vile individual & totally expose him.
IRS tells us that the top 10% derives most of their income from Capital Gains, Dividends & Interest
Bush reduced the taxes on these to 15%
Because of this some of the richest people are now paying a much lower tax rate than their employees & the top 10% now has 90% of the FINANCIAL WEALTH of the nation
RYAN NOW WANTS TO REDUCE THE TAX RATE ON CAPITAL GAINS, DIVIDENDS & INTEREST TO ZERO!!
@DillonDee1 Clinton lowered the capital gains tax,they still pay way more taxes than their workers, reducing capital gains will bring jobs to america.
Fellow Democrats, we must deal with this oncoming disaster with Republicans because they are our fellow Americans. Let's take Ryan's offer seriously and if we have a better idea to solve our debt crisis, let's offer a plan. Until then, we better get on board with his plan and stop demanding that someone else pay. It's time for us to not only quote JFK's "Ask not...", but that we all pitch in & start to live it by working together with all Americans to end the debt crisis before it destroys US
~~^~^Since GOP Clown god, Ronald Reagan, Republicans have been waging CLASS WARFARE on the working people of America. The EFFECTIVE TAX RATE for the wealthest individuals & for corporations is the lowest in 50 yrs. Almost all Republicans have signed on to the GROVER NORQUIST no tax increase PLEDGE. Because of these COWARDLY TREASONOUS REPUBLICANS we now have a serious REVENUE problem which should be a matter of NATIONAL SECURITY. ~~~~^^^^^Is there not ONE REAL MAN IN THE LOT?
@poindexterwitkowsky Only someone who is ignorant of history and economics thinks we have a revenue problem. The problem is spending. Entitlement spending is flawed and must be curtailed drastically.
It was a small part of what was done after WWII, and no one did pay so high taxes, the higher brackets started on much higher incomes. If you look at revenue it was almost the same when the top bracket was 90 or 30%. But lets grant you that it increased revenue What is your logic? How did it cause growth? Its just money. Or you think the fact that you take it from the rich has some special value? How come when under Obama spending rose by 30-40% and growth of the economy is none existent.
You seriously think that 10% increase on one bracket could spur growth, and 30-40% higher spending does not?
And Germany has the biggest economy, not the strongest. It is relatively strong because it has strong industry but it also has enormous debt. You know what kind of growth this economy experience between 1993-2010? 2,3%.
Can someone posting negative comments about this video please argue some facts and lay off the ad hominem attacks? Attacking someone's motivations, associations, and character is not an argument and brands the author as ignorant or malicious. There is not enough wealthy peoples' money to solve the present and projected deficit problems if we can't rein in spending. It's the math, stupid!
@bgwms52 Coming from Scandinavia, where (effective) taxes on corporations and wealthy individuals is astronomical compared to in the US, I can certainly say that a significant proportion of your problems could be solved by increasing (effective) taxes on said groups.
I can't see it happening though, the state of mind regarding these things is different in Scandinavia. Over here it is regarded as logical, in the US it is regarded as evil, stifling, economy destroying communism.
@bgwms52 let me ask you a question, do you understand the impacts of these numbers? yeah its so easy to say yeah lets reduce this number, make this one larger. you say its easy when you dont see the physical impact on people and their families. i do. if you go along with this person and what they wish to do then you will get some serious karma. every politician has a plan and now they are have been corrupt. follow none of them its all smoke and mirrors now.
Great video. I can't believe people want something as costly as medicare run on the federal and not state level or back into the private sector, which needs to happen if we will ever even have a serious attempt at reducing the size of our deficit and debt
@DillonDee1 ...yell at democrats then...giving money to many companies like solyndra....lol corporations have no power over you ....they can only sell you a product or service...and they can fire you or Hire you..if you believe otherwise then you sr. are delusional ...ohh and by the way im a mainstream republican
@DillonDee1 They waste their time and money on Congress, and the courts only because the govt insists on regulating them, making life and death decisions over their efforts. By wanting govt to be involved with business, business must be involved with govt. I assure you, reduce govt involvement, and you will see corresponding reductions in corp involvement. Allow free people to enter into mutually beneficial economic transactions. Or not. Let people decide.
@luvcheney1 "Allow free people to enter into mutually beneficial economic transactions." Bernie Madoff and the Goldman Sachs folks would love you! Why would we want regulators looking over THEIR shoulders?
I suppose an alternative to regulations is tougher criminal laws. If a company is found to have taken advantage of one of The People, those responsible are put to death. We can start with making examples of Madoff, Blankenfein, Milken, Skilling,etc. No regulations, just executions.
@plynth2 Chevron is found to be contaminating drinking water by fracking in Wyoming.? Someone at Chevron will be put to death. Chevron not sure what the threshold is for what is considered safe? Oh well, there's no impartial judge to set the threshold. Do you want lethal injection or hanging?
@plynth2 You want a reasonable discussion? Executions? Goldman accused of selling mortgage based derivatives to a HEDGE FUND, with Goldman money, NOT investors!0 "Proprietary trading". Goldman`s position profits, if value of mortgages fell. Hedge fund would profit, if they didnt. Hedge funds are the most sophisticated investors, and they believed their trade was smart. They can do their own "due diligence". They bet, they lost. So? EVERY investment has someone selling, so another can buy. DUH!
@luvcheney1 Oh so you are saying that Goldman Sachs never deceives their customers and if they do they should have known better? Goldman is not responsible for any collateral economic damage? Wrong. What about taxpayers who had a gun pointed at their heads by Goldman that we either pay with our tax dollars or pay with the loss of our jobs and homes?
You don't want regulations but you want a serious discussion???
@plynth2 I am stating a fact, that the issue of illegality about Goldman has nothing to do at all with your other ridiculous points, that somehow Goldman CREATED collateral damage, and that somehow Goldman writes itself a check from the Federal Govt, in terms of TARP (bailouts). Go look up the vote on TARP, by political Party, to see conservatives more opposed to bailouts than Libs. I will debate any subject, but dont keep adding multiple issues. Finish defending Hedge Funds first.
@luvcheney1 I'm sure Goldman was involved in many investments that only hurt their sophisticated investors. Jeffrey Dalmer probably gave money to charities too. Its what Goldman and Dalmer did wrong that is the issue. If you only are interested in discussing those investments that did not cause harm to the economy, I'm am not. Who voted for TARP is a multiple issues you broached. The issues I raised revolved around the need for regulation. What reg made Moody rate shit instruments as AAA?
@plynth2 YOU mentioned Goldman, Blankfein. The Justice Dept is looking at Goldman, on the issue I was talking about. That made it relevant, it was YOUR subject. Then you mentioned taxpayers, that we pay them with our tax dollars, which is the bailout issue, again YOU brought it up. You object to me talking about subjects YOU bring up? Moody rated "shit" instruments as AAA, because for 75 yrs, the US home mortgage was one of safest investments around. AND Feds back up Fannie and Freddie, dunce!
@luvcheney1 I picked on yourj line "Allow free people to enter into mutually beneficial economic transactions." It implied that you are against all regulations.. Then I delved into the need for regulationson banks and investments and employed some hyperbole on a alternatve to regulation. Everything I've brought up had to do with the need for regulations - that includes the impact that a lack of adequate regs (including Chevron) has on taxpayers. Your problem is you just can't see the connection
@luvcheney1 As I indicated, Moody rated them AAA because of any regulation. It was because firms like Goldman pressured Moody into overstating their quality. If financiers aren't smart enough to be able to recognize the good from the bad and rate them accordingly then they need to be regulated.
@plynth2 Preposterous! Rating a mortgage isnt like a corp bond that could go bad because of a bankruptcy. Why? Because a fucking mortgage has a home as collateral. If buyer doesnt pay, the house is foreclosed, and sold. No harm, no foul. What crashed the the banks, was the collapse of home values. Had values remained as always,more stable, crap loans wouldnt crash the banking system, because the homes would be resold. In order to see mortgages would go bad meant to see housing value to crash.
@luvcheney1 I agree with everything you've said and so what I said is NOT preposterous. First, I will address the last point you made. I know for a fact that they DID foresee the housing bubble bursting years before it happened. My brother is a day trader and he advise his daughter and me to delay buying property (her first and I had relocated and so was between houses) because of the sub-prime problem. She and I saved tens of thousands on our eventual purchases. ALL investors were aware.
@luvcheney1 The rest of what you said points at EXACTLY what the real reason for the near financial collapse. It was NOT that there were sub-prime mortgages issued. Like you stated: owner doesn't pay, there's foreclosure, no harm-no foul. Foreclosures do NOT result from house prices going down. If values go down, homeowners pay the same mortgage. More are underwater and lose wealth on paper, but life goes on as usual. Foreclosures are the result of homeowners losing there jobs.
@plynth2 Do a little research. Home prices were falling before the unemployment rate soared higher. Unemployment rate very steady until 12/07 went to 5%, but home prices began falling after 1/06, really faster 1/07. Homes falling 1 yr before unemployment rose. People were buying homes with mortgages that were too difficult to pay off, but they thought they could refinance, or sell and make money, but when prices fell they couldnt refinance. MOST people didnt see it coming, or they would be rich
@luvcheney1 The dotcom bubble bursting and other recessions with their resulting drop in home prices, drop in stock prices and unemployment did not cause a near financial collapses. People have always taken mortgages that overextended them such that they could not afford them when they lost their jobs. The fall in home prices in 2006 was not a historically unique event. The financial calamity it caused was. What made the 2007 recession unique?
@plynth2 What made the recession unique is the fact that the housing bubble was far bigger than any other preceding housing bubble. The bubble had burst, and home prices were falling before the rise in unemployment. Because of the huge bubble, the crash was bigger, and the housing price decline was so severe that foreclosing did not pay off the loans. This meant bank assets declining, hence the disappearance of enormous amounts of capital. Money supply (m-2) up 80% 1995-2005, M-3 over doubled.
@luvcheney1 House prices have dropped about 15% nationally. It was MUCH smaller than the NASDAQ % drop. When house prices drop what happens? Some people end up underwater and they continue to make their payments until they are no longer underwater. Life should have been able to gone on as usual for them. What happened is on the backside, financial institutions couldn't prop up their house of cards any longer.
@luvcheney1 Investors could and should have been able to disguish the amount of risk involved with different mortgages. They chose not to. In fact, they insisted that Moody ignore the distinctions and rate them all AAA too. Investors took a system that had worked well for decades and built a house cards on top of it. The problem was all the credit default swaps and poorly poised investment structures that collapsed as soon as their was a downturn in the economy.
@luvcheney1 Investors were enabled to create the house of cards as a result of deregulation. Why do you suppose the financial system did not collapse as a result of the 2001 recession? There were sub-prime mortgages, people lost jobs, house prices went down. The house of cards did not exist during the 2001 recession because Glass-Steigall had been repealed only a couple of years before. The problem in 2007 was all the credit default swaps and poorly poised investment structures they created.
@plynth2 Because in order to have an investment bubble crash, it needs to get blown up first, thats why. The recession of 2001 was the DotCom bubble exploding. ( Nasdaq?) Nasdaq was about $5400 march, 2000, and hit about $2400 Jan 2001, 10 months later. Over 50% crash in 10 months. This crash, plus 9-11, prompted Fed Reserve to expand the money supply faster, to avoid a bigger crash. This caused a speculative frenzy and housing bubble. Financial crashes are monetary in nature.
@luvcheney1 We've gone to war before and the money supply has been expanded before. You have made a leap saying that they caused a speculative frenzy in housing without making the case. What is it that you think was so unique about the housing bubble such that its bursting would cause a near financial meltdown. If not the financial house of cards, what was it?
@plynth2 When at war, we have had rampant inflation too. WW2 we had price controls, and because of it corps gave away heath insurance benefits as the only way to pay more, attract labor. You may note in history, that gold backing temporarily removed as well. But, war destroys capital. It gets blown up, spent on non productive things. Nasdaq stocks not widely held, like homes and real estate. Nasdaq crash tiny, in relation.Everyone lives in a piece of real estate, unless you are under a bridge.
@luvcheney1 We've had recessions, increases in money supply, bursting bubbles, ups and downs in the stock market and housing prices. Banking regulations put in place after the Great Depression served us well for 80 years. As soon as those regulations started to be repealed in the 80s we immediately had the Savings & Loan bailout, and soon after Glass-Steigall was repealed we had another bailout and the financial house of cards cause a near collapse. We need more regulations on banks.
@plynth2 Large monetary expansion in 70`s, caused inflation, Volker raised interest rates over 20%, to tighten money supply to halt inflation! When a Savings and Loan loans out money very long term on a mortgage, say at 6%, and rates soar to 20%, if you cant see they are fucked, God help you! All their money loaned out forever at 6% when they have to pay 20% to get new funds? And YOU think they folded because of lax regulations? Are you even aware when rates rise, bonds & loans fall in value?l
@luvcheney1 I don't see the problem. First of all, if a loan is made at 6% it lasts only as long as the term of the loan - not forever. The average actual length of a 30 mortgage is about 7 years. Second, as an analogy, if a business bought an item at wholesale at $1.00 and sold it at retail for $1.30, they make a profit. If, in the future, the wholesale price goes to $3.00 - the business is not "fucked". They buy it at $3.00 and sell it fat $3.90. Each transaction stands on its own-loans too
@plynth2 Of course you dont see the problem. You are not educated in financial matters. Thats fine, but it ought to inhibit your comments, but it doesnt. When people are paying 6% on a mortgage, and new rates are 15% or 20%, they DONT often buy another home, and get a new 20% loan. Thats nuts. The mortgage is an asset (to the bank) . If rates are now 20%, the asset has crashed in value. Nobody will buy it at 6%, but they WILL buy it, if discounted enough so the RETURN WILL BE 20%.
@luvcheney1 If you had an education in finance I'm certain you would have mentioned it at some point in course of the discussions we've had over the last few months. You need to get down from that fine stallion you think you're riding and stop flattering yourself.
The deregulation of S&Ls in 1980 gave them many of the capabilities of banks, without the same regulations as banks. Any major bank deregulations like the one in the 80s and Glass-Steigall in 1999 requires new regulations.
@luvcheney1 Without new regulations financial institutions make risky investments that the taxpayer needs to bail them out of. Its no coincidence that bank deregulation in the 80s and 1999 was followed by bank bailouts. Any other factors that you can cite are either ones that would NOT have caused a major problem prior to the deregulation, would not have occurred prior to deregulation, or is a consequence of the bank failures - not the cause. Those regs served us well for many decades.
@plynth2 Bloomberg, Nov 14, `11, "Treasury 30-Year Bonds Gain", "U.S. 30-yr bond yields fell two basis points, or 0.02 %, to 3.1%", "The 3.125 percent securities maturing in Nov 2041 rose 15/32, or $4.69 per $1,000 face amount, to 100 3/8". No degree needed to be smarter than YOU. This means: Interest rate fell, so the value of bond rose. Opposite true, if rates RISE, the bond FALLS in value. When interest rates went over 20%( HUGE) mortgages CRASHED. S&L`s had far more long term mortgages
@plynth2 Part2) "As long as interest rates remain stable for a long time, borrowing short (raising passbook savings deposits) and lending long (writing thirty-year, fixed-rate mortgage contracts) can prove profitable, interest rates on long-term contracts are normally higher than those on short-term instruments But the risks of such a strategy remain, and those risks finally came home to roost for S&Ls, when interest rates soared."
@plynth2 Part3) With the high interest rates, S&Ls' earnings stagnated, in 1980 the average effective yield on S&Ls' portfolios was 8.79 percent, while the 1980 inflation rate stood at 12.4 percent. The rates S&Ls paid depositors were controlled (by Gov). Those interest rate ceilings (to protect S&Ls from high funding costs), caused the S&Ls' customers to leave, because of low interest rates paid, by LAW. Returns on savings of 5 1/4 to 5 1/2 percent fell short when inflation exceeded 12 %
@plynth2 Part4)Federal deposit insurance lends to place the best capitalized institutions and the most conservative managers at a disadvantage when it comes to attracting funds. Once federal guarantees make the government's credit rating the relevant risk criterion for depositors, money will flow to the riskiest firms in the industry as individuals seek out the highest returns.
@luvcheney1 Until the early 1980s the federal government regulated and controlled interest rates on bank accounts. Federal law set a ceiling on interest rates for savings accounts and generally prohibited interest payments on checking and other demand deposit accounts. Subsequently, the federal government lifted these restrictions on banks. The Depository Institutions Deregulation Act of 1980 (DIDRA) eliminated the interest rate controls on savings accounts.
@plynth2 Between 1978 & 1981 money market funds grew from $9.5 bill to $188.6 bill in assets, many customers came from banks and S&Ls. $180 billion flowed out of banks and S&L`s, due to Federal regulations. By 1980, BEFORE ANY DEREGULATION took place, the liabilities of the S&L`s exceeded its assets by $1 10 billion. The industry was already insolvent when Congress and the Carter administration enacted the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980. Try again genius
@luvcheney1 I can go through all the crap you post and discern what crap is a direct cause and what is not. You don't have that ability. For instance the problems the S&Ls were having before 1980. Were it not for deregulation, those problems would not have required them to be bailed out. You, genius, can not draw clear conclusions about complex issues because your premise that gov't and regs are the cause of all problems forces into you into elliptical conclusions.
@plynth2 PLease note: you have NEVER yet actually stated a specific "deregulation" that caused S&L crisis. Have have stated several Govt actions that caused problems 1) controlling interest rates low 2) losing control of monetary policy, forcing rates over 20% to stop inflation ( S&L`s with money loaned long term low rates) 3) Govt deposit insurance encouraging risk, discouraging caution.
@luvcheney1 Oh, I see. Were it not for FDIC individuals would not seek the highest returns. The FDIC was in place for almost 50 years but that was the root of the problem? Genius.
You can copy all excerpts from articles you want (according to you a sign of true genius) it does not change the fact that without deregulation the S&Ls would not have been able to leverag themselves to the point they needed to be bailed out.
@plynth2 Individuals like to EARN high rates of interest, but they DONT like to risk, or lose their money. When FSLIC (S&L) and FDIC remove all risk from depositors, the only care they have is high returns. Conservative bankers can NOT pay high rates, so being conservative in lending is a bad idea. FDIC created 1933, Canada didnt until 1968, they do NOT have bank failures. Canada also always allowed banks to be nationwide, insurance, investment too, like when Glass-Steagall repealed. NO failures
@plynth2 part2) Why would you WANT Govt to make policies that discourage conservative lending, and encourage risk taking? Allowing depositors be able to lose their Capital if banks take risks and fail, would do wonders for discouraging depositors to ONLY care about high returns. Cautious bankers could still get depositors, as some would accept lower rates of return, for greater safety. Govt encourages excessive risk taking, as even the financially educated do NOT care about banking risks.
@luvcheney1 Anyone who thinks we don't need regulations must also believe we don't need laws. That financial institutiions don't need regulations because capitalism is perfect system must also believe that we don't need laws because people are perfect. Or that financial collapses are an acceptable consequence just as a lawless society will have acceptable consequences. Regs cause finacial problems just like laws cause people to murder. What a philosophy!
@plynth2 Part 2) For real estate to go up in price so much, in many markets, it must be obvious to you that ever larger, more expensive mortgages were being issued to buyers, and those who refinanced? Without new mortgage money coming into the market, the new higher prices couldnt be paid. New mortgage money created by the govt, and issued into banking system, and fannie, freddie. Bank loans money, sells loan to Fannie, takes the money and loans again, sells the mortgage again, etc, over & over
@plynth2 Part 2) Glass Steagal allowed banks to be investment, commercial and insurance institutions too. This is the same thing that Canada allows its banks to do too, for many decades, as well as allowing them to open all over the nation. Canada has no bank failures, nor during the Great Depression either. Canada didnt have a Govt pushing home ownership for all either. Our banks used to require 20% down routinely. The only way to avoid that was through FHA, VA. ( Govt). Govt pushed banks.
There is a new book just published everyone should read. It addresses what is really wrong with both America and the rest of the world; how most people have been turned into money slaves and how most people are taken advantage of by the money masters. It also addresses all the political "cool aid". To find out more, check out Get-The-Book. com. "Money Slaves and Cool Aid" may also be found at Amazon or B&N. Paul Ryan is on the right track. Too bad most of Congress is so corrupt though.
Republican Paul Ryan uses"projection"when ACCUSING Obama of"class warfare". CLASS WARFARE is what REPUBLICAN$ have been waging for the last 30 yrs. Since the Reagan& Bush tax cuts, the wealthest have been paying less tax than at anytime in America's history. Since Bush Jr, America has lost more jobs than at anytime in it's history. PAULIE,everyone form NY to Janesville,WI (your hometown)to Seattle knows that YOU are out to DESTROY MEDICARE..TAKE YOUR CORPORATE DONATIONS& RETIRE.YOU'RE FINISHED.
Congressman Ryan is telling us, the American people, the hard truth. The good news is that our financial crisis Can be fixed. The bad news is that too few voters know about his committee's proposals and our media gives very little time to it, other than bring up, but not address the objections of liberal Democrats. Party interests before national interests--again. If only so-called average Americans knew how much good is in Rep. Ryan's plan. I daresay many, if not most, would be demonstrating f
As a proud patriotic liberal I encourage both congress and senate to defeat every bill that would provide employment for republicans. I'm very much looking forward to the day every inbred right winger and their children have no job or home. Keep up the good work!
Wow, these guy sounds so convincing.But we know that this are only pretty lies only lies.Republicans want to Eliminate Medicare and SS to take that $ to be spent in more wars and other things to help the special interest in this country. We need to adopt single payer healthcare system just like Vermont did.It's amazing how republicans wants to cut so many programs for the people but do not want to raise taxes on the rich or corporations or end the wars. Reforming Medicare=Eliminating Medicare
IF FOLKS ARE SERIOUS ABOUT OUR BUDGET THEY WOULD CONSIDER THE PROGRESSIVES PEOPLE'S BUDGET PLAN WHICH PUTS OUR BUDGET BACK INTO SURPLUS BY 2021 (10 YEARS)
THE PAUL RYAN PLAN TAKES 25 YEARS TO BALANCE AND OBAMA'S EVEN LONGER!
Thanks to liberal policy the world economy is crashing. We must do two things to stop the meltdown NOW!!! Firstly, we need to raise all payroll taxes 10% for one year. We also need to stop (right now) wasteful handout programs like medicare, social security, unemployment,, etc. and lower the minimum wage to $2/hr so we can compete with China for jobs. I will work with Boehner, Ryan and my other republican colleagues and take immediate action on these proposals. God bless the GOP!
i am from ISRAEL. you spent a lot of money for security of us in the middle east. thats why your economy was damaged. you are so stupid because we used your tax income just improve our weapons. long live ISRAEL.
Nice , calling people with a different point of view names. That's realtime open minded. I live in Ma. Under Romneycare I am fined $240.00 a month for being broke and young( not needing or wanting ins.) So keep your hypothetical bs to yourself. You only call names because your angry at the world.
I hope this includes cuts in militarism as well as welfare. No matter. This country is going to be so broke it won't be able to conduct wars anymore. The rest of the world will sigh with great relief when the oh-so-morally-superior, pre-emptive war machine comes to a grinding halt.
I hope that Ron Paul wins in 2012. He is the only presidential candidate that is serious about saving this country. All the others are bought out corporate shills. The media support for them prooves it. (Perry)
The facts are very clear, you are an engineer for big corporations to create tax loop holes, funneling hard earned tax dollars from the middle class to fund our government while your donors get off Scott err...Ryan free. Reality is, taxes pay for roads, police, teachers, etc, that you expect the middle class to pay for, not the people making record earnings in this bad economy while paying to keep you in office.
Thanks to liberal policy the world economy is crashing. We must do two things to stop the meltdown NOW!!! Firstly, we need to raise all payroll taxes 10% for one year. We also need to stop (right now) wasteful handout programs like medicare, social security, unemployment,, etc. and lower the minimum wage to $2/hr so we can compete with China. I will work with Paul Ryan and my other republican colleagues and take immediate action on these proposals. God bless the GOP!
@GOPkicksbutt You want to lower the minimum wage to $2 per hour?
Why not? It's the closest thing the rich can get to owning slaves again.
Even better, because it's cheaper than feeding, clothing, & housing a slave & his family and you don't even have to take care of the minimum wage worker if he gets sick or injured.
@HomelessOnline Want to know why the border has never been secured? Because the corporations in agribusiness, construction, service industry etc wanted cheap labor instead of paying a living wage to Americans, and because successive governments have been whores for moneyed corporations & special interests who lobby & finance their political campaigns.
@megarational - Tell us something we don't know! I'm sure everybody here understands it is the common American man getting screwed by illegal immigration, not the corporations nor the government.
@megarational Only 5% of hourly workers are paid minimum wages. Other workers may be commission, or salaried, so are NOT hourly. Obviously, fewer that 5% are at minimum. Why do businesses pay more than minimum wages, when law doesnt require it? Because of the market. Allow all wages to be market based, so there isnt 50% black teenage unemployment. Let the kids work, dont make it illegal.
@megarational Unemployment is simply a surplus of labor. The market always clears surpluses, with prices. The Govt is responsible for creating the unemployment, by taking people out of the labor market (reducing the surplus). How? Paying them to stay out, to stay home. Minimum wage laws never create a situation where a person can get paid for more than his productivity warrants. It just means business that would create employment at less than the minimum dont exist. Loss of the free choice.
THE GOP WILL ALWAYS TRY TO KILL MEDICARE! LISTEN TO THEIR IDOL, IT’S NOT JUST TALK, IT’S THEIR MISSION.
Ronald Reagan: "If you don’t [stop Medicare] and I don’t do it, one of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it once was like in America when men were free.” [1961]
In the form and dress of simple austerity,Greed becomes Thrift, a virtue who likes a moderate,saving life.She tricks & fools gullible men [Pshcomachia]
I'm not American, and for shore not the smartest gay on the face of the earth, but any way, as what happens in states repercutes to the rest of the world I should say that: I DON'T WONT TO CARE ABOUT THE USA SHIT=DEBT. 1-FUCK OFF FEDERAL RESERVE . 2- DEBT=PROGRESS, BUT ONLY WHEN IT IS AAA+ DEBT. 3-IF YOU WANT THE AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE, PROVE TO THE REST OF THE WORLD THAT YOUR SHIT IS WORTH OF IT OTHERWISE THE REST OF THE WORLD WOULD SET YOU BACK TO THE STONE AGE (SOMETHING THAT WOULD HAPPEN SOON)
IT IS ALSO ADVANTAGEOUS FOR A TYRANNY THAT ALL THOSE WHO ARE UNDER IT SHOULD BE OPPRESSED WITH POVERTY....AND THAT BEING EMPLOYED IN PROCURING THEIR DAILY BREAD, THEY MAY HAVE NO LEISURE TO CONSPIRE AGAINST TYRANTS --ARISTOTLE
Paul Ryan has guts. No one else is willing to even say the words "entitlement reform"
AtibbsSPARTAN 1 day ago
While I agree with Ryan that a debt crisis is possible if the US spends indefinitely, could someone explain to me why using large fiscal spending isn't the answer to the current crisis? Liberals supporting fiscal stimulus usually argue that they are adopting the same Keynesian policy that got us out of the Great Depression, could someone explain to me what's so different about today and the Great Depression that such measures won't work? Just wondering.
asdfhuliashduflasihf 4 days ago
All I see from liberals is name calling and no facts. I don't think they understand how serious this problem is. What we have going on now is unsustainable in the long run. 40% of annual budget is paid for in borrowing money we can't pay back. What happens when we can't borrow anymore? We will either need to cut spending, print money or raise taxes severely on EVERYONE not just the top 10%. Do you see what is going on in Greece right now? That is coming to America if we don't do something soon.
cbuma 1 week ago
funny how he says we all will have to suffer. when his plan has 1 trillion in tax cuts the the wealthy and the elderly will not be able to get health care.
what suffering do the wealthy have to go through in this plan
nailo1 1 week ago
That dirtbag republican whore would not be considered a multi cell organism in the lab; but some type of haunted protoplasm from the bottom of the septic tank he drinks from.
geezerdombroadcast 2 weeks ago
@geezerdombroadcast wow, way to go. Your reasons fro thinking that are very mature.
miniwars123 1 week ago
Recent survey said 54% of republicans aren't happy with their candidates. "Gee" can't imagine why? Mr.999 Herman the magnificent. Hey Herman how those genital warts doing??? Rick see ya later damaged brain Perry. Mitt the cult leader Romney baptising the dead again. Mr. frothy sntorum of google Santorum fame ,or was it scrotum, Mr. KKK incognito Ronny boy. Last but not least That pillar of virtue and chastity orator of all things fascist Gengrinch
geezerdombroadcast 2 weeks ago
Only someone who is ignorant of history and economics thinks we have dont have a revenue problem. The problem is revenue as this year govt revenue will be 14% of GDP -- the lowest in many yrs & this is b/c the rich, like Romnney, are paying a lower overall tax rate than the middle class.
DillonDee1 2 weeks ago
This guy is turning a monetary issue into a spending issue... the key to GOP politics...since when does the lesser of two liberals make a conservative
Permanomics 2 weeks ago
Shut up Paul Ryan... this is the internet you cant get anything past us figure that out yet??
We know it is a monetary issue, there is no group of programs you can target to bring us to prosperity, it is YOU Paul Ryan who continues to sit there and say nothing about a private banking system that is legally allowed to issue out 10 times what it has on reserves to whomever they choose and for whatever reason they choose... that is corruption at its core... and only RON PAUL is speaking up
Permanomics 2 weeks ago
Republican super heroes Reagan,and Bush raised spending more than all other administrations combined.Top marginal tax rate in the 50's under Eisenhower was 91% our debt as a portion of GDP after WWII was much higher than today. We grew our way out of it.These whores Issa, Cantor, Ryan, are despicable liars and cheep carnival tricksters whoring for the giant multinationals,oil companies and big coal. We need an infrastructure bank right now. NO INVESTMENT IN PEOPLE NO JOBS NO FUTURE. WAKE UP!
geezerdombroadcast 2 weeks ago
@geezerdombroadcast More ramblings and babbling from a koolaide drinkin librool. Barack Odumbo, the nappy headed Muslim said it was "irresponsible" and "unpatriotic" when GH added 4 trillion to the National Debt in four years while this Muslim added 6 trillion in four years. Yeah, keep drinkin koolaide, Mr. Geezer.
kb2010gt500 2 weeks ago
@geezerdombroadcast Let's look at Odumbo's campaigh promises. Odumbo said he would transcend DC politics and then turned around and rammed Odumbocare down our thorats using the very tactics he siad he would not use like backroom deals with lobbysist, unions, businesses and members of Congress. Keep in mind HCR ranked no. 4 on issues Americans were most concerned about witht he economy and jobs at no's. 1 and 2. Yet this idiot went after HCR.
kb2010gt500 2 weeks ago
@geezerdombroadcast Furthermore, Barack Odumbo gave over 1000 waivers to his own Odumbocare to unions. Odumbo said he would end the wars in 18 months and we are still in Iraq and Odumbo had his own Surge in Afghanistan. You stinkin librools whined about GW waterboarding a few terrorist buy say nuthin about Odumbo using predator drones. Then Odumbo had his own little war in Libya. You stinkin librools sure know how to hold your noses.
kb2010gt500 2 weeks ago
@geezerdombroadcast Dear koolide drinker, we'll see how you feel when gas hits $5/gallon. Yeah, I know you librools would get out of your car and laugh at the price of gas but when you get home you fall on your livingroom floor and throw a fit a five year old would be proud.
kb2010gt500 2 weeks ago
@geezerdombroadcast What about Gitmo, Mr. koolaide drinker. Gitmo is still open for business. No terrorist have been brought to trial on our shores neither. What about that koolaide drinker?
kb2010gt500 2 weeks ago
I'm mostly a liberal leaning person when it comes to politics, and I think Rep. Ryan makes some valid points. No matter what actions we take as a nation, we must understand that you cannot live with mountains of debt and expect the economy to continue to function. That's just bad economics. I also appreciate the fact that he is using a YouTube channel to communicate effectively with the American people. Seriously, why is this guy not running for president?
TheBandwagonman 1 month ago
the problem is socialism, only ending socialism will fix the problem.flat tax, close the fed/state bureaucracy and pay the debt.
halloranedward 1 month ago 4
cut the fucking offense spending
Mrinebriation 1 month ago
Please go to my channel to see a better plan for 2012 than Republicans or Democrats are proposing.
balancedbudget2012 1 month ago
I know I'm going to get yelled at, but right now I'm so glad I'm Canadian...
peacenotwar500 1 month ago
I was lucky enough to buy Ford stock when it was down around $1 & sell for around a $45k Cap Gain
It's wrong that I can work at clicking a few keys & end up paying 1/2 the tax rate of someone who sweated on a construction job ALLYEAR LONG to earn the same money...
especially since many of my Cap Gains through the yrs have been totally tax free
DillonDee1 1 month ago
end the wars, tax the rich!
hab99rry 2 months ago
@hab99rry how much more do YOU want to pay you greedy deadbeat
Srd1126 2 months ago
@Srd1126
Considering the average rich person pays about 16% of their income to taxes and the average middle class and poor person pays around 23% of their pay to total taxes and the rich have far more disposable income it's safe to say that it most definitely isn't fair as a whole as is. Labeling people as deadbeats for wanting something more fair in this regard doesn't really change the facts nor is a reasonable argument.
garith21 1 month ago
@garith21 Not sure if you are lying, mis-informed, or clueless. The average "rich person" pays 30%+ of their income to federal income tax and 40%+ to combined taxes. The average poor person pays ZERO in federal income taxes. You need to quit spreading that nonsense. I will ask agian, if you want higher taxes, how much more do YOU want top pay? Or are you just a greedy person who wants others to pay your way for what you should pay for yourself?
Srd1126 1 month ago
@Srd1126
1) Federal income tax isn't all taxes
2) A majority of other taxes are largely regressive especially when you factor in state and local taxes which is why I said "ALL taxes" and not federal income taxes
3) Considering many rich people make most of their money that would be covered in other taxes which are far lower than income tax this claim is false.
4) Only about as much as they were paying during the Clinton years, cutting out loopholes would be nice to.
garith21 1 month ago
@garith21 Federal income tax is not all taxes, but by far the biggest collection at the federal level. You clearly have no clue how "rich people make their money." Rich people pay about 40%+ of their income in taxes and then selfish, greedy people like yourself want them to pay even higher Clinton-Era rates because you have some fascination with them. YOU should pay 5% more of YOUR income if it is such a good idea. Anyone if free to gift to the treasury, see their website. I doubt you will.
Srd1126 1 month ago
@Srd1126
"Rich people pay about 40%+ of their income in taxes"
Some do, some do not, many can in fact put off paying taxes almost indefinitely because of the way certain taxes are processed with various loopholes and deductions are applied
garith21 1 month ago
@garith21 There are few individual tax shelters and in fact the bottom and middle class have far more tax credits available than the upper class. (eg: EIC, child care, etc.) Perhaps you should take your Occupy Wall Steet nonsense somewhere else, I am not as stupid as the average Obama voter. But again. quit being greedy and selfish and tell me how much more YOU want to pay in taxes. I doubt I will get an answer.
Srd1126 1 month ago
@Srd1126
Personally speaking I simply want the loopholes gone. When the top rung income has increased by 400% (when taking inflation into account) and the bottom 90% have increased 1% (when taking inflation into account) since 1980 and they pay less by percentage of income than the middle class in overall taxes it's safe to say the current status quo isn't equal.
garith21 1 month ago
@Srd1126
"tell me how much more YOU want to pay in taxes."
Considering the middle class is shrinking, the gap between everyone else and the rich is widening and you're more likely to live out the American dream in Denmark why should the laborers of America pay more when the rich control over 80% of the wealth in America, so much in fact that the top 400 control more than the bottom 150 million.
garith21 1 month ago
@garith21 Yes, again you do not answer, because YOU don't want to pay more, you want some mythical rich person to pay your way. Here is a news flash for you. "the rich" are not a static group as though the same people earn the same amounts over 40 years. People move in and out of the top 10% all the time, often because they sell a business or other asset that did well. But again, HOW MUCH MORE DO YOU PERSONALLY WANT TO PAY???
Srd1126 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Srd1126
"because YOU don't want to pay more, you want some mythical rich person to pay your way."
Actually I just want all rich people to pay the same amount as the average person in the united states as far as a share of their overall income. It's cute that you want to avoid all of the tax haven talk or anything else that points out how your simplistic understanding is utterly flawed, but not terribly convincing.
garith21 1 month ago
@Srd1126
""the rich" are not a static group as though the same people earn the same amounts over 40 years."
Right, according to studies factoring in inflation the super rich have only had a 400% increase in income while 90% of Americans have only had a 1% increase in income (factoring in inflation) over the last 3 decades.
garith21 1 month ago
@Srd1126
"HOW MUCH MORE DO YOU PERSONALLY WANT TO PAY???"
When will you address everything else that's said in this regard that points out that the average person is paying more of a share of their income in total taxes and has not had a notable increase in income over the last 3 decades? Why do you only base your arguments on income taxes (with a narrow view) rather than all taxes and factoring in what does happen.
garith21 1 month ago
@Srd1126
If the tax havens, subsidies, deductions, etc etc were removed I would even advocate their taxes be lowered, but some people don't want them removed so a raise in taxes needs to be advocated to balance it out. As 90% of Americans pay more of a share of their non moving income than the moving super rich, I don't see why 90% should be paying more as long as we're talking about funding government.
garith21 1 month ago
@garith21 The top 10% are paying more than the bottom 90% combined, we have a spending problem with spending as % of GDP 25% higher under Obama. And yet again, HOW MUCH MORE DO *YOU* WANT TO PAY? Quit being selfish and greedy, tell me how much more you want YOUR rate raised.
Srd1126 1 month ago
@Srd1126
" as % of GDP 25% higher under Obama."
Most of those are one shot stimulus or actually counting the wars that weren't originally counted in the general budget of the previous administration. One shot stimulus is quite different from subjects like medicare plan D or the bush tax cuts. If you simply got rid of the bush tax cuts CBO states that the deficit would be gone in a few years.
garith21 1 month ago
@Srd1126
Even the wsj, apparently a socialist source now has an article that states that because of the widening divide between the super rich and the majority of the population that America should consider raising taxes on the super rich so shorten the gulf.
garith21 1 month ago
@Srd1126
"There are few individual tax shelters"
why should there be any? Especially to the extent that 2 trillion dollars in wealth can be hidden in off shore accounts to evade taxes, which clearly aren't going to helping the American economy.
garith21 1 month ago
@garith21 I'd be happy with a flat tax from dollar one with no deductions at all. Of course the bottom 47% would then have to start paying taxes.
Srd1126 1 month ago
@Srd1126
"Of course the bottom 47% would then have to start paying taxes."
The bottom 47% only don't pay income tax due to credits, they however pay a large portion of their income to taxes on all levels of government. more so than the average rich person anyways.
garith21 1 month ago
@garith21 please cite some sources for this nonsense. The lower classes do not pay near even the top federal rate alone for taxes. You need to get your information from a more fair and balanced source and not OWS camps.
Srd1126 1 month ago
@Srd1126
IRS released the effective federal tax for the top 400 Americans, 2007 for example the effective federal tax rate was around 16% of their income.
garith21 1 month ago
@garith21 Now we see the problem--you think the top 400 is representative of all "rich people." The top 1% equates to 3 million people, say 2 million removing children. You would need to take a random sample of that group where each member had an equal and nonzero chance to be sampled. So you are starting with flawed logic (common among liberals.) BTW: the fair tax rate for divadends and cap gains is zero as tax was already paid at the corp level. Write back when you take a stat101 class.
Srd1126 1 month ago
@Srd1126
"Now we see the problem--you think the top 400 is representative of all "rich people.""
Actually it's a simple demonstration that your knowledge on the topic is flat out wrong. If "every" rich person pays 30-40% of their income to taxes, demonstrating that even the top 400 pay closer to 16% indicates your statement is absolutely wrong. My argument is that they should all be paying a fair rate.
garith21 1 month ago
@Srd1126
The degrees of difference in the rich and super rich are also quite wide gaps, there's large differences even between the top 1% and the top .01% of the population.
Factoring in for inflation the bottom 90% have had an increase of 1% total income, 90-95 a 30% increase, 95-99% a 51% increase, 99-99.5 a 81% increase this rise in difference increases all the way to the top .01% with a 403% increase in income over the last 3 decades.
garith21 1 month ago 2
@Srd1126
"Write back when you take a stat101 class."
I actually aced statistics, it is however amusing that you'll continue to argue something isn't statistically significant because by definition the topic that's being discussed is a very very small minority to begin with. My original point is that not "every" rich person pays their fair share, the top 400 is merely a demonstration that your assumption that they all do is wrong, I only cited the top 400 because it's freely available.
garith21 1 month ago
@Srd1126
"a more fair and balanced source"
Like what? Faux news?
garith21 1 month ago
@garith21 Fox News Channel has a reputation and ratings to indicate a fair and balanced newscast.
Srd1126 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Srd1126
"Fox News Channel has a reputation and ratings to indicate a fair and balanced newscast."
K, you're so far off the deep end that there's no reason to continue a conversation. Fox news is so well known to display such a bias that it actually distorts news to the point that comedy shows result in a better understanding of reality than fox news does.
garith21 1 month ago
why u guys believe in this bullshit?
omaar26 2 months ago
Asshole. Tax the fucking rich. you smarmy little scumbag. You'd rather kill grandma's social security and have people dying in The streets ( which they are. And quietly, at home,too) .. And you'd rather all the un-rich just died out anyway, wouldn't you? You are a bad person. And a liar.
joysblues 2 months ago
The computer program crashes? Ugh what bullshit. Let me guess it does a stack overflow from recursion? Does is segfault? Fuck.
jas16899 2 months ago
Let's use some basic logic --
Many in the middle class are working into April to pay off their taxes,
While many on Wall Street have paid their taxes in January!
Some idiots say that even if you make them pay their fair share it wont pay off the National debt,
YES, IT WONT IN 1 YEAR -- BUT IT WILL OVER TIME -- JUST LIKE WE PAID THE WW2 DEBT!
DillonDee1 2 months ago
TO CONSERVATIVES:
Let's step it up, and win this thing!!!
scortacusochopstix 2 months ago
@scortacusochopstix Are you dumb enough to have believed this video?
jas16899 2 months ago
@jas16899 are you saying that our national debt isn't exceeding our national GDP?
you know, the truth is a powerful allie.
scortacusochopstix 1 month ago
@scortacusochopstix yeah okay that has nothing to do with my post... why are you replying to me?
Anyway Paul Ryan is a scumbag.
jas16899 1 month ago
@jas16899 It has EVERYTHING to do with your inconsiderate post.
unless you didn't see the video and just threw crap accusations against Paul Ryan.
i'm replying because we have enough lying jack wagons like you who don't give a bee's hive for the difference between fact and fiction.
Enough said.
scortacusochopstix 1 month ago
@scortacusochopstix what I said has nothing to do with GDP or debt. Also, Paul Ryan is a whore.
jas16899 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Fellow Americans, we must deal with this vile individual & totally expose him.
IRS tells us that the top 10% derives most of their income from Capital Gains, Dividends & Interest
Bush reduced the taxes on these to 15%
Because of this some of the richest people are now paying a much lower tax rate than their employees & the top 10% now has 90% of the FINANCIAL WEALTH of the nation
RYAN NOW WANTS TO REDUCE THE TAX RATE ON CAPITAL GAINS, DIVIDENDS & INTEREST TO ZERO!!
FUCKING UNBELIEVABLE!!
DillonDee1 2 months ago 7
@DillonDee1 Clinton lowered the capital gains tax,they still pay way more taxes than their workers, reducing capital gains will bring jobs to america.
Any questions?
GoombaStompin 1 month ago
Fellow Democrats, we must deal with this oncoming disaster with Republicans because they are our fellow Americans. Let's take Ryan's offer seriously and if we have a better idea to solve our debt crisis, let's offer a plan. Until then, we better get on board with his plan and stop demanding that someone else pay. It's time for us to not only quote JFK's "Ask not...", but that we all pitch in & start to live it by working together with all Americans to end the debt crisis before it destroys US
johng626 2 months ago
~~^~^Since GOP Clown god, Ronald Reagan, Republicans have been waging CLASS WARFARE on the working people of America. The EFFECTIVE TAX RATE for the wealthest individuals & for corporations is the lowest in 50 yrs. Almost all Republicans have signed on to the GROVER NORQUIST no tax increase PLEDGE. Because of these COWARDLY TREASONOUS REPUBLICANS we now have a serious REVENUE problem which should be a matter of NATIONAL SECURITY. ~~~~^^^^^Is there not ONE REAL MAN IN THE LOT?
poindexterwitkowsky 3 months ago
@poindexterwitkowsky Only someone who is ignorant of history and economics thinks we have a revenue problem. The problem is spending. Entitlement spending is flawed and must be curtailed drastically.
svvmichael1 1 month ago
It was a small part of what was done after WWII, and no one did pay so high taxes, the higher brackets started on much higher incomes. If you look at revenue it was almost the same when the top bracket was 90 or 30%. But lets grant you that it increased revenue What is your logic? How did it cause growth? Its just money. Or you think the fact that you take it from the rich has some special value? How come when under Obama spending rose by 30-40% and growth of the economy is none existent.
serialkiller1990 3 months ago
@serialkiller1990 -- 1st off dont begn your argument w/ total bullshit -- it weakens your whole statement.
DillonDee1 3 months ago
We had debt over 90% of GDP at the end of WW2
But we solved the problem by increasing taxes on the top 10%
Today Germany has the strongest European economy -
We should adopt their tax code with Income over $600,000 taxed at 50%
DillonDee1 3 months ago
@DillonDee1
You seriously think that 10% increase on one bracket could spur growth, and 30-40% higher spending does not?
And Germany has the biggest economy, not the strongest. It is relatively strong because it has strong industry but it also has enormous debt. You know what kind of growth this economy experience between 1993-2010? 2,3%.
serialkiller1990 3 months ago
all of the people running suck
wilfredc190 3 months ago
Can someone posting negative comments about this video please argue some facts and lay off the ad hominem attacks? Attacking someone's motivations, associations, and character is not an argument and brands the author as ignorant or malicious. There is not enough wealthy peoples' money to solve the present and projected deficit problems if we can't rein in spending. It's the math, stupid!
bgwms52 3 months ago 13
@bgwms52 Coming from Scandinavia, where (effective) taxes on corporations and wealthy individuals is astronomical compared to in the US, I can certainly say that a significant proportion of your problems could be solved by increasing (effective) taxes on said groups.
I can't see it happening though, the state of mind regarding these things is different in Scandinavia. Over here it is regarded as logical, in the US it is regarded as evil, stifling, economy destroying communism.
To each his own.
PerfectionIncarnate 2 months ago
@bgwms52 let me ask you a question, do you understand the impacts of these numbers? yeah its so easy to say yeah lets reduce this number, make this one larger. you say its easy when you dont see the physical impact on people and their families. i do. if you go along with this person and what they wish to do then you will get some serious karma. every politician has a plan and now they are have been corrupt. follow none of them its all smoke and mirrors now.
HVAC1337NJ 2 months ago
Great video. I can't believe people want something as costly as medicare run on the federal and not state level or back into the private sector, which needs to happen if we will ever even have a serious attempt at reducing the size of our deficit and debt
LivingthaDreem 3 months ago
There is no way to argue that banking deregulation and tax cuts have fucked every rung of the socioeconomic ladder from the middle class on down.
judeseamus 3 months ago
Wall street and Banks give Capitalism a bad name
RantVideos 3 months ago
Cut the war budget alone would solve ourproblems cut war spending
RantVideos 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Paul Ryan is a TOTAL SCUMBALL working as a CORPORATE WHORE
DillonDee1 4 months ago 7
@DillonDee1 the computer you used to type that ...is a company owned by a corporation ...Ohh my Stars !!!..
TheJasonDR 4 months ago
@TheJasonDR - we dont object to Corporations -- we just object to them taking over Congress & the courts
DillonDee1 4 months ago
@DillonDee1 ...yell at democrats then...giving money to many companies like solyndra....lol corporations have no power over you ....they can only sell you a product or service...and they can fire you or Hire you..if you believe otherwise then you sr. are delusional ...ohh and by the way im a mainstream republican
TheJasonDR 4 months ago
@DillonDee1 They waste their time and money on Congress, and the courts only because the govt insists on regulating them, making life and death decisions over their efforts. By wanting govt to be involved with business, business must be involved with govt. I assure you, reduce govt involvement, and you will see corresponding reductions in corp involvement. Allow free people to enter into mutually beneficial economic transactions. Or not. Let people decide.
luvcheney1 3 months ago
@luvcheney1 "Allow free people to enter into mutually beneficial economic transactions." Bernie Madoff and the Goldman Sachs folks would love you! Why would we want regulators looking over THEIR shoulders?
I suppose an alternative to regulations is tougher criminal laws. If a company is found to have taken advantage of one of The People, those responsible are put to death. We can start with making examples of Madoff, Blankenfein, Milken, Skilling,etc. No regulations, just executions.
plynth2 3 months ago
@plynth2 Chevron is found to be contaminating drinking water by fracking in Wyoming.? Someone at Chevron will be put to death. Chevron not sure what the threshold is for what is considered safe? Oh well, there's no impartial judge to set the threshold. Do you want lethal injection or hanging?
plynth2 3 months ago
@plynth2 You want a reasonable discussion? Executions? Goldman accused of selling mortgage based derivatives to a HEDGE FUND, with Goldman money, NOT investors!0 "Proprietary trading". Goldman`s position profits, if value of mortgages fell. Hedge fund would profit, if they didnt. Hedge funds are the most sophisticated investors, and they believed their trade was smart. They can do their own "due diligence". They bet, they lost. So? EVERY investment has someone selling, so another can buy. DUH!
luvcheney1 3 months ago
@luvcheney1 Oh so you are saying that Goldman Sachs never deceives their customers and if they do they should have known better? Goldman is not responsible for any collateral economic damage? Wrong. What about taxpayers who had a gun pointed at their heads by Goldman that we either pay with our tax dollars or pay with the loss of our jobs and homes?
You don't want regulations but you want a serious discussion???
plynth2 3 months ago
@plynth2 I am stating a fact, that the issue of illegality about Goldman has nothing to do at all with your other ridiculous points, that somehow Goldman CREATED collateral damage, and that somehow Goldman writes itself a check from the Federal Govt, in terms of TARP (bailouts). Go look up the vote on TARP, by political Party, to see conservatives more opposed to bailouts than Libs. I will debate any subject, but dont keep adding multiple issues. Finish defending Hedge Funds first.
luvcheney1 3 months ago
@luvcheney1 I'm sure Goldman was involved in many investments that only hurt their sophisticated investors. Jeffrey Dalmer probably gave money to charities too. Its what Goldman and Dalmer did wrong that is the issue. If you only are interested in discussing those investments that did not cause harm to the economy, I'm am not. Who voted for TARP is a multiple issues you broached. The issues I raised revolved around the need for regulation. What reg made Moody rate shit instruments as AAA?
plynth2 3 months ago
@plynth2 YOU mentioned Goldman, Blankfein. The Justice Dept is looking at Goldman, on the issue I was talking about. That made it relevant, it was YOUR subject. Then you mentioned taxpayers, that we pay them with our tax dollars, which is the bailout issue, again YOU brought it up. You object to me talking about subjects YOU bring up? Moody rated "shit" instruments as AAA, because for 75 yrs, the US home mortgage was one of safest investments around. AND Feds back up Fannie and Freddie, dunce!
luvcheney1 3 months ago
@luvcheney1 I picked on yourj line "Allow free people to enter into mutually beneficial economic transactions." It implied that you are against all regulations.. Then I delved into the need for regulationson banks and investments and employed some hyperbole on a alternatve to regulation. Everything I've brought up had to do with the need for regulations - that includes the impact that a lack of adequate regs (including Chevron) has on taxpayers. Your problem is you just can't see the connection
plynth2 3 months ago
@luvcheney1 As I indicated, Moody rated them AAA because of any regulation. It was because firms like Goldman pressured Moody into overstating their quality. If financiers aren't smart enough to be able to recognize the good from the bad and rate them accordingly then they need to be regulated.
plynth2 3 months ago
@plynth2 Preposterous! Rating a mortgage isnt like a corp bond that could go bad because of a bankruptcy. Why? Because a fucking mortgage has a home as collateral. If buyer doesnt pay, the house is foreclosed, and sold. No harm, no foul. What crashed the the banks, was the collapse of home values. Had values remained as always,more stable, crap loans wouldnt crash the banking system, because the homes would be resold. In order to see mortgages would go bad meant to see housing value to crash.
luvcheney1 3 months ago
@luvcheney1 I agree with everything you've said and so what I said is NOT preposterous. First, I will address the last point you made. I know for a fact that they DID foresee the housing bubble bursting years before it happened. My brother is a day trader and he advise his daughter and me to delay buying property (her first and I had relocated and so was between houses) because of the sub-prime problem. She and I saved tens of thousands on our eventual purchases. ALL investors were aware.
plynth2 3 months ago
@luvcheney1 The rest of what you said points at EXACTLY what the real reason for the near financial collapse. It was NOT that there were sub-prime mortgages issued. Like you stated: owner doesn't pay, there's foreclosure, no harm-no foul. Foreclosures do NOT result from house prices going down. If values go down, homeowners pay the same mortgage. More are underwater and lose wealth on paper, but life goes on as usual. Foreclosures are the result of homeowners losing there jobs.
plynth2 3 months ago
@plynth2 Do a little research. Home prices were falling before the unemployment rate soared higher. Unemployment rate very steady until 12/07 went to 5%, but home prices began falling after 1/06, really faster 1/07. Homes falling 1 yr before unemployment rose. People were buying homes with mortgages that were too difficult to pay off, but they thought they could refinance, or sell and make money, but when prices fell they couldnt refinance. MOST people didnt see it coming, or they would be rich
luvcheney1 3 months ago
@luvcheney1 The dotcom bubble bursting and other recessions with their resulting drop in home prices, drop in stock prices and unemployment did not cause a near financial collapses. People have always taken mortgages that overextended them such that they could not afford them when they lost their jobs. The fall in home prices in 2006 was not a historically unique event. The financial calamity it caused was. What made the 2007 recession unique?
plynth2 3 months ago
@plynth2 What made the recession unique is the fact that the housing bubble was far bigger than any other preceding housing bubble. The bubble had burst, and home prices were falling before the rise in unemployment. Because of the huge bubble, the crash was bigger, and the housing price decline was so severe that foreclosing did not pay off the loans. This meant bank assets declining, hence the disappearance of enormous amounts of capital. Money supply (m-2) up 80% 1995-2005, M-3 over doubled.
luvcheney1 3 months ago
@luvcheney1 House prices have dropped about 15% nationally. It was MUCH smaller than the NASDAQ % drop. When house prices drop what happens? Some people end up underwater and they continue to make their payments until they are no longer underwater. Life should have been able to gone on as usual for them. What happened is on the backside, financial institutions couldn't prop up their house of cards any longer.
plynth2 3 months ago
@luvcheney1 Investors could and should have been able to disguish the amount of risk involved with different mortgages. They chose not to. In fact, they insisted that Moody ignore the distinctions and rate them all AAA too. Investors took a system that had worked well for decades and built a house cards on top of it. The problem was all the credit default swaps and poorly poised investment structures that collapsed as soon as their was a downturn in the economy.
plynth2 3 months ago
@luvcheney1 Investors were enabled to create the house of cards as a result of deregulation. Why do you suppose the financial system did not collapse as a result of the 2001 recession? There were sub-prime mortgages, people lost jobs, house prices went down. The house of cards did not exist during the 2001 recession because Glass-Steigall had been repealed only a couple of years before. The problem in 2007 was all the credit default swaps and poorly poised investment structures they created.
plynth2 3 months ago
@plynth2 Because in order to have an investment bubble crash, it needs to get blown up first, thats why. The recession of 2001 was the DotCom bubble exploding. ( Nasdaq?) Nasdaq was about $5400 march, 2000, and hit about $2400 Jan 2001, 10 months later. Over 50% crash in 10 months. This crash, plus 9-11, prompted Fed Reserve to expand the money supply faster, to avoid a bigger crash. This caused a speculative frenzy and housing bubble. Financial crashes are monetary in nature.
luvcheney1 3 months ago
@luvcheney1 We've gone to war before and the money supply has been expanded before. You have made a leap saying that they caused a speculative frenzy in housing without making the case. What is it that you think was so unique about the housing bubble such that its bursting would cause a near financial meltdown. If not the financial house of cards, what was it?
plynth2 3 months ago
@plynth2 When at war, we have had rampant inflation too. WW2 we had price controls, and because of it corps gave away heath insurance benefits as the only way to pay more, attract labor. You may note in history, that gold backing temporarily removed as well. But, war destroys capital. It gets blown up, spent on non productive things. Nasdaq stocks not widely held, like homes and real estate. Nasdaq crash tiny, in relation.Everyone lives in a piece of real estate, unless you are under a bridge.
luvcheney1 3 months ago
@luvcheney1 We've had recessions, increases in money supply, bursting bubbles, ups and downs in the stock market and housing prices. Banking regulations put in place after the Great Depression served us well for 80 years. As soon as those regulations started to be repealed in the 80s we immediately had the Savings & Loan bailout, and soon after Glass-Steigall was repealed we had another bailout and the financial house of cards cause a near collapse. We need more regulations on banks.
plynth2 3 months ago
@plynth2 Large monetary expansion in 70`s, caused inflation, Volker raised interest rates over 20%, to tighten money supply to halt inflation! When a Savings and Loan loans out money very long term on a mortgage, say at 6%, and rates soar to 20%, if you cant see they are fucked, God help you! All their money loaned out forever at 6% when they have to pay 20% to get new funds? And YOU think they folded because of lax regulations? Are you even aware when rates rise, bonds & loans fall in value?l
luvcheney1 3 months ago
@luvcheney1 I don't see the problem. First of all, if a loan is made at 6% it lasts only as long as the term of the loan - not forever. The average actual length of a 30 mortgage is about 7 years. Second, as an analogy, if a business bought an item at wholesale at $1.00 and sold it at retail for $1.30, they make a profit. If, in the future, the wholesale price goes to $3.00 - the business is not "fucked". They buy it at $3.00 and sell it fat $3.90. Each transaction stands on its own-loans too
plynth2 3 months ago
@plynth2 Of course you dont see the problem. You are not educated in financial matters. Thats fine, but it ought to inhibit your comments, but it doesnt. When people are paying 6% on a mortgage, and new rates are 15% or 20%, they DONT often buy another home, and get a new 20% loan. Thats nuts. The mortgage is an asset (to the bank) . If rates are now 20%, the asset has crashed in value. Nobody will buy it at 6%, but they WILL buy it, if discounted enough so the RETURN WILL BE 20%.
luvcheney1 3 months ago
@luvcheney1 If you had an education in finance I'm certain you would have mentioned it at some point in course of the discussions we've had over the last few months. You need to get down from that fine stallion you think you're riding and stop flattering yourself.
The deregulation of S&Ls in 1980 gave them many of the capabilities of banks, without the same regulations as banks. Any major bank deregulations like the one in the 80s and Glass-Steigall in 1999 requires new regulations.
plynth2 3 months ago
@luvcheney1 Without new regulations financial institutions make risky investments that the taxpayer needs to bail them out of. Its no coincidence that bank deregulation in the 80s and 1999 was followed by bank bailouts. Any other factors that you can cite are either ones that would NOT have caused a major problem prior to the deregulation, would not have occurred prior to deregulation, or is a consequence of the bank failures - not the cause. Those regs served us well for many decades.
plynth2 3 months ago
@plynth2 Bloomberg, Nov 14, `11, "Treasury 30-Year Bonds Gain", "U.S. 30-yr bond yields fell two basis points, or 0.02 %, to 3.1%", "The 3.125 percent securities maturing in Nov 2041 rose 15/32, or $4.69 per $1,000 face amount, to 100 3/8". No degree needed to be smarter than YOU. This means: Interest rate fell, so the value of bond rose. Opposite true, if rates RISE, the bond FALLS in value. When interest rates went over 20%( HUGE) mortgages CRASHED. S&L`s had far more long term mortgages
luvcheney1 3 months ago
@plynth2 Part2) "As long as interest rates remain stable for a long time, borrowing short (raising passbook savings deposits) and lending long (writing thirty-year, fixed-rate mortgage contracts) can prove profitable, interest rates on long-term contracts are normally higher than those on short-term instruments But the risks of such a strategy remain, and those risks finally came home to roost for S&Ls, when interest rates soared."
luvcheney1 3 months ago
@plynth2 Part3) With the high interest rates, S&Ls' earnings stagnated, in 1980 the average effective yield on S&Ls' portfolios was 8.79 percent, while the 1980 inflation rate stood at 12.4 percent. The rates S&Ls paid depositors were controlled (by Gov). Those interest rate ceilings (to protect S&Ls from high funding costs), caused the S&Ls' customers to leave, because of low interest rates paid, by LAW. Returns on savings of 5 1/4 to 5 1/2 percent fell short when inflation exceeded 12 %
luvcheney1 3 months ago
@plynth2 Part4)Federal deposit insurance lends to place the best capitalized institutions and the most conservative managers at a disadvantage when it comes to attracting funds. Once federal guarantees make the government's credit rating the relevant risk criterion for depositors, money will flow to the riskiest firms in the industry as individuals seek out the highest returns.
luvcheney1 3 months ago
@luvcheney1 Until the early 1980s the federal government regulated and controlled interest rates on bank accounts. Federal law set a ceiling on interest rates for savings accounts and generally prohibited interest payments on checking and other demand deposit accounts. Subsequently, the federal government lifted these restrictions on banks. The Depository Institutions Deregulation Act of 1980 (DIDRA) eliminated the interest rate controls on savings accounts.
Try again genius.
plynth2 3 months ago
@plynth2 Between 1978 & 1981 money market funds grew from $9.5 bill to $188.6 bill in assets, many customers came from banks and S&Ls. $180 billion flowed out of banks and S&L`s, due to Federal regulations. By 1980, BEFORE ANY DEREGULATION took place, the liabilities of the S&L`s exceeded its assets by $1 10 billion. The industry was already insolvent when Congress and the Carter administration enacted the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980. Try again genius
luvcheney1 3 months ago
@luvcheney1 I can go through all the crap you post and discern what crap is a direct cause and what is not. You don't have that ability. For instance the problems the S&Ls were having before 1980. Were it not for deregulation, those problems would not have required them to be bailed out. You, genius, can not draw clear conclusions about complex issues because your premise that gov't and regs are the cause of all problems forces into you into elliptical conclusions.
plynth2 3 months ago
@plynth2 PLease note: you have NEVER yet actually stated a specific "deregulation" that caused S&L crisis. Have have stated several Govt actions that caused problems 1) controlling interest rates low 2) losing control of monetary policy, forcing rates over 20% to stop inflation ( S&L`s with money loaned long term low rates) 3) Govt deposit insurance encouraging risk, discouraging caution.
luvcheney1 3 months ago
@luvcheney1 Oh, I see. Were it not for FDIC individuals would not seek the highest returns. The FDIC was in place for almost 50 years but that was the root of the problem? Genius.
You can copy all excerpts from articles you want (according to you a sign of true genius) it does not change the fact that without deregulation the S&Ls would not have been able to leverag themselves to the point they needed to be bailed out.
plynth2 3 months ago
@plynth2 Individuals like to EARN high rates of interest, but they DONT like to risk, or lose their money. When FSLIC (S&L) and FDIC remove all risk from depositors, the only care they have is high returns. Conservative bankers can NOT pay high rates, so being conservative in lending is a bad idea. FDIC created 1933, Canada didnt until 1968, they do NOT have bank failures. Canada also always allowed banks to be nationwide, insurance, investment too, like when Glass-Steagall repealed. NO failures
luvcheney1 3 months ago
@plynth2 part2) Why would you WANT Govt to make policies that discourage conservative lending, and encourage risk taking? Allowing depositors be able to lose their Capital if banks take risks and fail, would do wonders for discouraging depositors to ONLY care about high returns. Cautious bankers could still get depositors, as some would accept lower rates of return, for greater safety. Govt encourages excessive risk taking, as even the financially educated do NOT care about banking risks.
luvcheney1 3 months ago
@luvcheney1 Anyone who thinks we don't need regulations must also believe we don't need laws. That financial institutiions don't need regulations because capitalism is perfect system must also believe that we don't need laws because people are perfect. Or that financial collapses are an acceptable consequence just as a lawless society will have acceptable consequences. Regs cause finacial problems just like laws cause people to murder. What a philosophy!
plynth2 3 months ago
@plynth2 Part 2) For real estate to go up in price so much, in many markets, it must be obvious to you that ever larger, more expensive mortgages were being issued to buyers, and those who refinanced? Without new mortgage money coming into the market, the new higher prices couldnt be paid. New mortgage money created by the govt, and issued into banking system, and fannie, freddie. Bank loans money, sells loan to Fannie, takes the money and loans again, sells the mortgage again, etc, over & over
luvcheney1 3 months ago
@plynth2 Part 2) Glass Steagal allowed banks to be investment, commercial and insurance institutions too. This is the same thing that Canada allows its banks to do too, for many decades, as well as allowing them to open all over the nation. Canada has no bank failures, nor during the Great Depression either. Canada didnt have a Govt pushing home ownership for all either. Our banks used to require 20% down routinely. The only way to avoid that was through FHA, VA. ( Govt). Govt pushed banks.
luvcheney1 3 months ago
There is a new book just published everyone should read. It addresses what is really wrong with both America and the rest of the world; how most people have been turned into money slaves and how most people are taken advantage of by the money masters. It also addresses all the political "cool aid". To find out more, check out Get-The-Book. com. "Money Slaves and Cool Aid" may also be found at Amazon or B&N. Paul Ryan is on the right track. Too bad most of Congress is so corrupt though.
TMIAmerica 4 months ago
Republican Paul Ryan uses"projection"when ACCUSING Obama of"class warfare". CLASS WARFARE is what REPUBLICAN$ have been waging for the last 30 yrs. Since the Reagan& Bush tax cuts, the wealthest have been paying less tax than at anytime in America's history. Since Bush Jr, America has lost more jobs than at anytime in it's history. PAULIE,everyone form NY to Janesville,WI (your hometown)to Seattle knows that YOU are out to DESTROY MEDICARE..TAKE YOUR CORPORATE DONATIONS& RETIRE.YOU'RE FINISHED.
poindexterwitkowsky 4 months ago 2
Congressman Ryan is telling us, the American people, the hard truth. The good news is that our financial crisis Can be fixed. The bad news is that too few voters know about his committee's proposals and our media gives very little time to it, other than bring up, but not address the objections of liberal Democrats. Party interests before national interests--again. If only so-called average Americans knew how much good is in Rep. Ryan's plan. I daresay many, if not most, would be demonstrating f
CatholicGirl5 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
As a proud patriotic liberal I encourage both congress and senate to defeat every bill that would provide employment for republicans. I'm very much looking forward to the day every inbred right winger and their children have no job or home. Keep up the good work!
TheKmbt 4 months ago
Wow, these guy sounds so convincing.But we know that this are only pretty lies only lies.Republicans want to Eliminate Medicare and SS to take that $ to be spent in more wars and other things to help the special interest in this country. We need to adopt single payer healthcare system just like Vermont did.It's amazing how republicans wants to cut so many programs for the people but do not want to raise taxes on the rich or corporations or end the wars. Reforming Medicare=Eliminating Medicare
mbmart2005 5 months ago
@mbmart2005 that's just scare tactics, I call BS all over that.
50percentFirebird 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IF FOLKS ARE SERIOUS ABOUT OUR BUDGET THEY WOULD CONSIDER THE PROGRESSIVES PEOPLE'S BUDGET PLAN WHICH PUTS OUR BUDGET BACK INTO SURPLUS BY 2021 (10 YEARS)
THE PAUL RYAN PLAN TAKES 25 YEARS TO BALANCE AND OBAMA'S EVEN LONGER!
luvitluvitbaby 5 months ago
Comment removed
luvitluvitbaby 5 months ago
Thanks to liberal policy the world economy is crashing. We must do two things to stop the meltdown NOW!!! Firstly, we need to raise all payroll taxes 10% for one year. We also need to stop (right now) wasteful handout programs like medicare, social security, unemployment,, etc. and lower the minimum wage to $2/hr so we can compete with China for jobs. I will work with Boehner, Ryan and my other republican colleagues and take immediate action on these proposals. God bless the GOP!
unclelight 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i am from ISRAEL. you spent a lot of money for security of us in the middle east. thats why your economy was damaged. you are so stupid because we used your tax income just improve our weapons. long live ISRAEL.
saylikubac 5 months ago
Nice , calling people with a different point of view names. That's realtime open minded. I live in Ma. Under Romneycare I am fined $240.00 a month for being broke and young( not needing or wanting ins.) So keep your hypothetical bs to yourself. You only call names because your angry at the world.
capecodwoody 5 months ago
I hope we put a true conservitive up against Obama. What do you think about R. Santorum ?
capecodwoody 5 months ago
you all hate Paul Ryan because you know he speaks the TRUTH. Your liberal nirvana will never come.
capecodwoody 5 months ago
I hope this includes cuts in militarism as well as welfare. No matter. This country is going to be so broke it won't be able to conduct wars anymore. The rest of the world will sigh with great relief when the oh-so-morally-superior, pre-emptive war machine comes to a grinding halt.
I hope that Ron Paul wins in 2012. He is the only presidential candidate that is serious about saving this country. All the others are bought out corporate shills. The media support for them prooves it. (Perry)
panzerkilla 5 months ago in playlist More videos from HouseBudgetCommittee
2037 ? you people are crazy . it will not pass through 2013
VivaMydick 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Paul, give the same presentation as if the date is January 19th, 2001. Then, lets compare and see if we can't uncover some reasons why we got here.
elansing 6 months ago
Comment removed
elansing 6 months ago
The facts are very clear, you are an engineer for big corporations to create tax loop holes, funneling hard earned tax dollars from the middle class to fund our government while your donors get off Scott err...Ryan free. Reality is, taxes pay for roads, police, teachers, etc, that you expect the middle class to pay for, not the people making record earnings in this bad economy while paying to keep you in office.
SpigaloProductions 6 months ago
@SpigaloProductions
Paul Ryan: "The facts are very clear." [gives facts and analysis]
Lefty troll SpigaloProductions: "The facts are very clear." [spouts baseless charges, insults, hateful vitriol]
Your opinion is worth less than nothing, you disgusting hack.
Tuhljin 5 months ago
ryan vs obama would be one hell of an election
TheJasonDR 6 months ago
Thanks to liberal policy the world economy is crashing. We must do two things to stop the meltdown NOW!!! Firstly, we need to raise all payroll taxes 10% for one year. We also need to stop (right now) wasteful handout programs like medicare, social security, unemployment,, etc. and lower the minimum wage to $2/hr so we can compete with China. I will work with Paul Ryan and my other republican colleagues and take immediate action on these proposals. God bless the GOP!
GOPkicksbutt 6 months ago
@GOPkicksbutt You want to lower the minimum wage to $2 per hour?
Why not? It's the closest thing the rich can get to owning slaves again.
Even better, because it's cheaper than feeding, clothing, & housing a slave & his family and you don't even have to take care of the minimum wage worker if he gets sick or injured.
The Republican dream..
megarational 6 months ago
@megarational - even closer to the rich owning slaves again is allowing illegals into our country to work.
HomelessOnline 5 months ago
@HomelessOnline Want to know why the border has never been secured? Because the corporations in agribusiness, construction, service industry etc wanted cheap labor instead of paying a living wage to Americans, and because successive governments have been whores for moneyed corporations & special interests who lobby & finance their political campaigns.
megarational 5 months ago
@megarational - Tell us something we don't know! I'm sure everybody here understands it is the common American man getting screwed by illegal immigration, not the corporations nor the government.
HomelessOnline 5 months ago
@HomelessOnline Someone has to work, since Americans get paid to stay home.
luvcheney1 5 months ago
@megarational Only 5% of hourly workers are paid minimum wages. Other workers may be commission, or salaried, so are NOT hourly. Obviously, fewer that 5% are at minimum. Why do businesses pay more than minimum wages, when law doesnt require it? Because of the market. Allow all wages to be market based, so there isnt 50% black teenage unemployment. Let the kids work, dont make it illegal.
luvcheney1 5 months ago
@luvcheney1 You dumb fucking asshole. How incredibly stupid can you be???
In periods of high unemployment employers will, in the absence of minimum wage, take advantage of workers by paying next to nothing for wages.
Of course that's OK with the slimy ignorant Republican/Tea Bagger crowd. Fucking disgusting.
megarational 5 months ago
@megarational Unemployment is simply a surplus of labor. The market always clears surpluses, with prices. The Govt is responsible for creating the unemployment, by taking people out of the labor market (reducing the surplus). How? Paying them to stay out, to stay home. Minimum wage laws never create a situation where a person can get paid for more than his productivity warrants. It just means business that would create employment at less than the minimum dont exist. Loss of the free choice.
luvcheney1 5 months ago
THE GOP WILL ALWAYS TRY TO KILL MEDICARE! LISTEN TO THEIR IDOL, IT’S NOT JUST TALK, IT’S THEIR MISSION.
Ronald Reagan: "If you don’t [stop Medicare] and I don’t do it, one of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it once was like in America when men were free.” [1961]
In the form and dress of simple austerity,Greed becomes Thrift, a virtue who likes a moderate,saving life.She tricks & fools gullible men [Pshcomachia]
chrisdelano64 6 months ago
I'm not American, and for shore not the smartest gay on the face of the earth, but any way, as what happens in states repercutes to the rest of the world I should say that: I DON'T WONT TO CARE ABOUT THE USA SHIT=DEBT. 1-FUCK OFF FEDERAL RESERVE . 2- DEBT=PROGRESS, BUT ONLY WHEN IT IS AAA+ DEBT. 3-IF YOU WANT THE AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE, PROVE TO THE REST OF THE WORLD THAT YOUR SHIT IS WORTH OF IT OTHERWISE THE REST OF THE WORLD WOULD SET YOU BACK TO THE STONE AGE (SOMETHING THAT WOULD HAPPEN SOON)
Olegrudnev 7 months ago
Soooo, if they destroy SS and I am "younger" I fully expect the the close to $200,000 I have paid into it, with interest.
AntiYouist 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IT IS ALSO ADVANTAGEOUS FOR A TYRANNY THAT ALL THOSE WHO ARE UNDER IT SHOULD BE OPPRESSED WITH POVERTY....AND THAT BEING EMPLOYED IN PROCURING THEIR DAILY BREAD, THEY MAY HAVE NO LEISURE TO CONSPIRE AGAINST TYRANTS --ARISTOTLE
AntiYouist 7 months ago
Great vid.. Go Ryan, Go!
austenbosten 7 months ago 2
how do you know this guy anit lying either its hard to find a truth telling goveorment official
lildertygangsta 7 months ago