no one that likes government controlled prices like for people to find out the name of the system where you have government controlled prices, but the right to own property.
your argument against the economy doing well under 70 to 90 percent tax rate for the rich is that not all of them were paying the full tax, wow, thats powerful, good point, may i borrow it for my crusade against hospitals: lets do away with them because not all patients are cured
@random0815 Very few people if not noone payed 70% tax. There was a 70% tax rate only on paper. And yes you should probably crusade against a hospital with a 100% death rate.
@666or999 as i say: im willing to get educated, please link the evidence that almost no one payed 70 percent taxes? also maybe link examples of successful models with non-progressive tax systems, for actual reality google rhenian capitalism, this was the reality of the night-mare system of regulated capitalism
Okay so you are a right wing football fan in a hurry. You seem willing to give us Way Too Much Information about your private life and way too little clarity in the form of a sophisticated rebuttal to Reisch.
When I can understand you as well as I can understand him, then perhaps I can take your monarchist politics seriously. Until then, enjoy the game!
Lee, while I appreciate the rebuttal, I think you really need to focus on production quality similar to Reich's so that it will circulate to a wider audience. That is to say, Rebuttals are useless unless people see them. Saying "I did this at halftime" even if its true shows that you're not really putting in the effort. Those quickened whiteboard sketches draw the attention. Its why they get so many views!
I stopped when he "rebutted" that the progressive and effective tax rate that was present in the mid-20th century did not hurt business. Loopholes and shelters are just controllers because that is happening now. The point is that high tax rates, did not hurt big business and that has been empirically and anecdotally proven, which is what Robert was saying. I dont know if this video guy is just a intellectually dishonest, or stupid.
Sounds like a pretty weak rebuttal. Reagan et. al. not only removed 'loopholes'; they also removed protection mechanisms for Social Security and Medicare, by allowing them to be used as collateral for a raised national debt. Only the Clinton administration has lowered debt since. Your blind faith in private enterprise is unfounded. Most large companies are currently investing U.S. income in expanding markets. You've obviously failed tax 101... flat taxes do penalize poor over rich.
Anybody who would watch Robert Reich and believe a word he says is simply a brain dead drone for the Communist/Democratic party. It is not worth your time, even during half time of a football game to point out the stupidity of Robert Reich's arguments. What makes me angry is that Robert is not stupid, which means he must know that he is lying to people.
WOW. among all the other blather you spew in this video how can you say as an American citizen that if certain Americans don't have a certain degree they don't deserve to be hired by the government?! How dare you pal. This is the land of opportunity. Where if you can't afford to go to the college you can still get a decent job at least with a hgih school degree. You're pathetic, go watch your damn game and stay the heck out of politics cause you obviously have no idea what you're talking about.
Medicare and Medicaid are seeing costs rising because.....mumble mumble...third party payer.....mumble mumble.
Not good enough. The costs are rising not because of a "third-party payer" but because they are not open to everybody. Open those programs up to everybody and you will costs go down.
ok, social security is a ponzi scheme. Sure. Your father is a rapist. Because he watched a movie that had a rape scene in it. That means he a rapist. So yes, social security is a ponzi scheme. But your father is also a rapist.
Can you please englighten me on this? Im just venturing myself into politics, so if you could explain a little in depth or inbox me. That would be great.
@xaxjx88 a ponzi scheme is destined to collapse because the earnings, if any, are less than the payments to investors. Social Security, OTOH, has a surplus, and can only be funded as long as their are people working. No one working = no social security payments. So it is a deceit to call it a ponzi scheme. It is even more than deceit. It is as if I charged you with rape for looking at a woman. That is how much of a lie it is.
@shmiggen "A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to its investors from their own money or the money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from any actual profit earned by the individual or organization running the operation.' wiki
SS pays returns from money taken from those who are working & from "investments". the investments are in special treasury bonds, after the government loots SS it replaces the money they stole ..... cont
with an IOU that is repaid by those who are working (the investors) .... yes, SS is a ponzi scheme. it's worse than a ponzi scheme, I can CHOOSE not to invest in a ponzi scheme. I can't CHOOSE to opt out of SS or taxes
a ponzi scheme is destined to collapse because the money coming in is less then the money going out.
"The financial conditions of the Social Security and Medicare programs remain challenging...... cont
Projected long-run program costs for both Medicare and Social Security are not sustainable under currently scheduled financing, and will require legislative modifications if disruptive consequences for beneficiaries and taxpayers are to be avoided. "
@nogivenogets1 No, it's nothing at all like a ponzi scheme, because if no one works, no one gets paid. In a ponzi scheme, when no one works, you still get paid. Quite a simple and clear distinction, actually.
@shmiggen it's a ponzi scheme by definition, "A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to its investors from their own money or the money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from any actual profit earned by the individual or organization running the operation.' wiki
if no one works then no one has the money to pay into a ponzi scheme & it goes belly up also.
@nogivenogets1 Yes, but the key word in the wiki definition, however, is "fraudulent". Note that this means quite literally "fraud". Social security is not fraudulent - literally. It is transparent, thus making it not a Ponzi scheme.
@shmiggen Fraud - A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain
I'm assuming you know about the double taxation (plus interest) we pay to SS? you are either deceived or complacent. there's no reason for the government to lie to get our money when they can just take it by force (extortion).
so your right, SS isn't a ponzi scheme because it's worse than a ponzi scheme.....
if SS isn't "fraudulent" then why is it forced upon us?
@nogivenogets1 I do feel your pain, by the way. I am merciful. You don't want to pay SS, I get it. But my point is - it isn't forced upon you. It is has been democratically enacted into law. If you gather enough support, you can have it dismantled. So it is not forced upon you. I hope that sheds some light upon your understanding. I am not entirely closed off to dismantling SS, but even amongst the GOP, there is very little enthusiasm for ending SS.
@shmiggen the government doesn't need to dismantle SS, just make it optional instead of mandatory. let the people decide where to invest their retirement dollars. they also need to remove SS from the general budget so government can't use it as a slush fund.
@shmiggen So... by your logic... if a crowd decides to rape a woman, its not force because the crowd democratically elected to get their rocks off at her expense, even though she doesn't consent.
@Jaspian Well, if we democratically agree that rape is not bad, and the entire populace agrees that rape is not bad, then yes, ultimately rape is not bad. This is why SS is currently legal - the majority has agreed that it is not bad.
@shmiggen The entire populace doesn't agree that SS is "not bad". You only need 50%+1 in Democracy. The 50%-1 is the girl getting held down and raped. Besides... this was never about "good" or "bad". You said FORCE. And SS is demonstrably FORCE (by the example above) if the person doesn't want to participate. It does not matter what "democracy" says. We're not a hive mind. If I don't want to do something, and society makes me do it anyway, that's coercion. That's force even if its 99%
@Jaspian What you say is true, you are forced into SS, whether you like it or not. But what do you want me to do? As long as that is what the majority wants by way of votes in the Congress, that is the way it is. If enough people organize and can get the votes, they can change the law. But the reality is the people have spoken, and they want SS. Too bad so sad.
@shmiggen I want you to admit that its force, and that some people don't like it, and that they should be allowed to leave the program. If its a good program people will want to stay and it will do just fine. If people in fact don't want social security (which is as I suspect) the program will collapse.
@Jaspian Of course its force, but I would still qualify it and call it democratic force. Mandatory car insurance is force, as are a lot of things. Force is not inherently evil. As for some people being allowed to leave the program, it just isn't realistic. The whole thing collapses without everyone in it. Think of it like Europe. Europe will never be a coherent Union until everyone is on board with a unified fiscal policy. Same with SS. Either everyone is in or everyone is out.
@shmiggen You said its not forced (that's what I responded to). I'm glad I could get you to see the reality of it. It is force. Its bullying. While I agree some basic force (such as enFORCING contracts etc) is necessary to the functioning of society, I reject that Social Security is a proper function of government. Its not good retirement policy, economic policy, and its technically unconstitutional. The people have no right to force me into a retirement program even if 100%-1 want me to.
@Jaspian You may be right. I can't prove you're wrong. But it's a gamble. You might get sick, you could lose your job, a lot of things could happen. SS is an insurance policy, that's all. Prior to SS, most of the elderly were paupers. They warmed themselves with hot cocoa at a church somewhere. They were utterly destitute, and only the priests took care of them. You could avoid this fate, as could I....but its still a gamble, a roll of the dice.
@nogivenogets1 ....the same "ponzi scheme" that has been so self-sufficient and successful, that the govt. has continually borrowed from it in order to pay for wars and tax cuts? That ponzi scheme?
@flipgood89 self-sufficient - not requiring any outside aid, support, or interaction, for survival
SS is not self sufficient, SS is funded through robbery or extortion. you do not have the choice to participate.
obviously you do not understand tax cuts. the government doesn't pay for tax cuts, it just extorts less. you conveniently left out social programs (bribery) & entitlements (more bribery) & corporate bail outs (government controlled monopoly)
Wait a second. The young man in this video says that trickle-down economics is bunk....but isn't that what the GOP has been selling for decades? Enlighten me, please.
@shmiggen No, it's what liberals want you to think the GOP has been selling for decades. What the GOP has actually been selling is "supply-side" economics, a theory which says lower tax rates give people more incentive to work, to save, and to invest. Nowhere has the GOP or any conservative economist argued a "trickle-down" theory that if you "give" money to rich people, the rich people will eventually "give" it to poor people. Therefore, it is a strawman.
@shmiggen Because he did not believe that lower tax rates would leave to higher revenues. Obviously he was wrong, and he later admitted he was wrong. Federal revenues doubled under Reagan.
@pholland Reagan won't be remembered for his surpluses - there weren't any. Reagan left deficits as far as the eye could see. Therefore, the intention of tax cuts is not to raise to revenue, hence the phrase, "trickle-down economics". My original point stands: Lee Doren is being willfully ignorant when he claims he always knew there was no such thing as trickle-down economics. He's backpedaling and lying to save face.
ALL PRESIDENTS suffering through a DEMOCRAT CONTROLLED LEGISLATURE "left deficits".
Are socialist apologists as ignorant of our nation's federal government as they appear to be, or do they fake it as a backdrop to proselytize the frauds and deceptions powering their toxic politics?
Only after the Republican's historical sweep of Congress in 1994, which ended a half century horror under Democrats, did our federal government pause their deficit spending binge.
@TylerNull lol no reagan built up our military to defeat the soviet union, that's why he left deficits. lol again at the GOP sweep of congress no gop spending continued and even expanded massively under gw bush. GOP spends money like a drunkard, nothing conservative about them at all lol lol lol. the original claim stands: GOP cannot claim that "trickle-down economics" works - which is why the young man in this video is backpedaling to save face.
Your giggles fail to address the point of which branch controls spending.
As for Reagan's economic plans, the 18 million new jobs created under it -- the historic economic expansion documented in the historical record -- isn't altered by your giggles either.
It's clear that your politics are allergic to reality.
@TylerNull yes he did create 18 million new jobs, I don't deny that. Unfortunately, he created 18 million new ponzi jobs. From 1979 - 2007, the poor and middle-classes, approximately 99% of the population, had an increase in wealth of about 27.5%. The top 1% however had an increase in wealth of 275%. So yes, 18 million new jobs were created...service jobs, financial gimmickry jobs...but nothing solid to create a modern nation state. I await your comeback with much anticipation.
@shmiggen Reagan did not create any jobs. Nor did Clinton, Bush, or Obama. Presidents don't create jobs; entrepreneurs do. I am not concerned how much the top 1% have been able to earn over the last 30 years. It is none of my business. People should be able to make as much money as their talents, abilities, and work ethic allow them to. You seem to view the economy like a pie that gets "distributed" among different classes, which is fallacious. Wealth is not fixed. It is created.
Aside from your fallacious "ponzi" rant, you admit Reagan's resounding success. Oddly, it upset you enough to expose the feral spite powering your politics.
Specifically, you're upset that "99%" had their wealth significantly INCREASE, only because a few fared even better. (Pure spite.)
As an aside, you seem oblivious that any one of the "1%", in any given tax year, may be in the "99%" in another year, and vice versa. (Thus exposing another idiocy of class-warfare.)
@TylerNull you're on the wrong side of history. The GOP is toast. The country is moving to the left, and Reaganism is dead. Reaganism was not a resounding success once you consider he is a puppet for Corporate America.
You socialists know so much history that isn't so.
And speaking of your "puppet for Corporate America", ...
* "Contributions to Obama Campaign Track Bailout Money"
* "Obama Top Fundraiser on Wall Street"
* "Largest Hedge Fund Political Donations Go to Democrats"
So, if you're going to bitterly cling to your toxic Leftist politics, then at least update its mythology. You know, to better mask your requisite frauds & deceptions.
@TylerNull Yes, Dems are also owned by their corporate masters. Both parties are nothing more than subsidiaries of Corporate America. That's why there is no "left" and no such thing as "leftism" lol! You right wing nutjobs have everything you want: a kleptocracy. My original claim stands: the narrator of this video backpedals to save face, because he knows the GOP has always endorsed "trickle-down" economics.
Stripping your original wad of claims of all its idiocies, and down to a vapid one-liner, as you just did, fails to "dispel" that fact that your spite-based economics of class warfare were exposed for what they are -- a toxic farce festering in stubborn ignorance and economic illiteracy.
@shmiggen Original claim stands false. Give one example of the GOP advocating trickle-down economics. The burden is not on us to disprove claims that you have yet to argue and provide evidence for.
@pholland Standard GOP philosophy: cut taxes and wealth will "trickle-down" to the plebians. This has been their standard campaign for three decades. Claim stands.
@shmiggen Really? Can you provide one example of a GOP politician or conservative economist actually saying that? Or are you just going keep repeating it on the hopes that it will simply "become true" if you say it enough times?
@shmiggen No. All you have to do is merely read the comments I've made and you'll understand what I'm saying. I am saying the GOP has never espoused a trickle-down theory.
@pholland trickle-down economics is most closely identified with the economic policies known as Reaganomics or supply-side economics. During Ronald Reagan's presidency, the Democratic Party-controlled House, at the urging of President Reagan, cut the marginal tax rate on the highest-income tax bracket from 70% to 28%.
@shmiggen At what point did Reagan ever argue a trickle-down theory during that time though? I'm unable to find it anywhere in his speeches or in any Republican messaging for that matter. I recall Reagan saying the tax cuts would make the economy more productive and incentivize work and investment. I recall him arguing it would bring in more tax revenues by broadening the base. I never remember him saying that more money would somehow "flow down" to poor people. When did he say this?
@pholland what you just wrote is "trickle-down economics". That is precisely it: " tax cuts would make the economy more productive and incentivize work and investment...it would bring in more tax revenues by broadening the base." This is the definition of "trickle-down economics".
@shmiggen I can assure you he's not backpedaling, because I, like him, understand the conservative viewpoint and I know that we have never once argued a "trickle-down" theory in the last half-century. Nowhere has any Republican or conservative economist argued that money will somehow get "distributed" to poor people if marginal tax rates are reduced. Trickle-down is a term liberals use to mischaracterize the purposes and goals of supply-side economics so that it be conveniently attacked.
If tax cuts don't raise revenue, then please explain how federal tax receipts more than doubled under Ronald Reagan's two terms while the top rate of tax was lowered from 70% to 28%.
I disagree with you Doren on healthcare. Around the world you see as countries are getting richer, regardless of healthcare system, people prefer to spend a higher proportion of their income on health. As they also do on leisure. This isn't neccesarily "wrong" or "bankrupting" anybody. The only problem is when its finances through the government.
You kinda didn't really address the argument about the % of available income paid in taxes being higher for the low-income folks, sounds more like you avoided it by saying that everyone pays those taxes - of course, that's not the point.
A way to address it would be saying that it's an incentive to generate more of that income/be more productive.
paying wages is trickle down. increase demand for labor increase the trickle down effect because wage for bottom to go up. unfortunately outsourcing has caused a decrease in demand for American labor.
OK, I'll explain this simply and quickly. I am a poor person, I work 40 hours a week and earn $23k a year with 4 dependents. This puts me just under the poverty level. I mention this because I want you to know that Im not some wealthy guy that doesn't understand the trials of poverty. That said, I am buying a small house, a 2007 car, all 4 members of my family have cell phones (pay as u go). A desktop computer, a laptop. Would I like better stuff, sure, but I've earned everything I have.
INTR: No offence my friend, but if you have a house, cell phones (probably a microwave, stove, color TV too), a computer, a washing machine or some place to wash your clothes: I beg your pardon, but you're not poor. Your 2007 car is newer than mine! Mine has over 200K miles on it.
INTR: Oh, well then I'm proud of you my friend. I guess I slightly misunderstood/misinterpreted what you said. My apologies. If you're the kind of person I think you are after learning this about you, I assume you'd rather be in charge of your own retirement rather than having the govt "save" for you via Social Security?
@UTubekookdetector Definately, I wish that the govt would simply return the money that I have paid in, so that I can invest it and arn a return on my money.
@UTubekookdetector But the point that I was trying to make was that the govt counts me as a "poor" person because my income is below the poverty level. I am supporting a family of 4 on 23K without welfare or food stamps. Even the poor in America live better than the kings of 100 years ago.
INTR: Duly noted. Also, the Census Bureau inflates poverty numbers because they don't count these "in-kind" benefits, which do in fact, lift many people above the poverty level. The govt is in the business of trying to make people dependent upon them. Thanks!
Robert Reich's videos are viewed by millions, and they are highly rated. I think that he is speaking to the people. More specifically, perhaps we can say that he is the voice of the people.
And less they forget, 28 years ago under the horrible Reagan, 1.1 million jobs were added, double digit inflation was broken and by the end of the 80's, 14 million new jobs were added.
@Ariancaldon That would seem fairly obvious to me--whose money is the government spending? Whatever money the government takes can't be spent in the private sector.
@VictrolaJazz that ignores the basics about money and the monetary cycle. The government takes money- and then it spends it, too. What makes government spending any less valid as a form of spending then private spending?
@Ariancaldon Well I can certainly spend my own money less wastefully than government. I worked for the same company 30 years and am now comfortably retired--I must have done something right.
@VictrolaJazz You, maybe, but mustn't you admit that there are loads of people who have wasted their money on frivolous things that haven't helped anybody? Likewise, can't we admit that the government, while it does waste, also uses lots of its money nonwastefully and productively, just like you?
@Ariancaldon Who has the prerogative to say whether something is frivolous or not? If the person enjoys what they spend their money on, what difference does it make whether it helps anyone else or not? However, I do know the government does many benevolent things with our money and I don't begrudge it--I just don't believe a bureaucrat can make better decisions than I. However, I think there is greater oversight paid to a $10/hr. file clerk than a $50M CFO and that's inequitable.
Well, living there (in Galicia) is a bureaucratic nightmare. There is massive unemployment, a dying population with very little children, and (It´s not a joke) there is one government worker for every worker in the private sector.
The general attitude there is "Why aspire for a higher salary (and dreams), when I can earn a little less working for the government only having to work very little (4-6 hours a day)?"
I have a Question. Would you say it is Corporatism that is hurting us? Seems that when Capitalism works, it works well. I think when you have these huge corporations using politicians as hand puppets, we seems to all hurt and suffer from it. Please educate me on this. You've made economics very exciting for me. Love your channel.
@diamonddust22 You are absolutely correct. State capitalism, fascism, corporatism, whatever... they are all products of central economic planning, massive beauracracies, and left wing ideology. There is a reason why the nazis were called the National Socialists. Corporatism is a product of socialism. Example: FDR's New Deal was about as corporatist as you can get with all the regulations and price controls. The way to fight corporatism is too lower regulations and decrease the size of gov't
@31guitar Buddy, I can't thank you enough for this priceless information. Nice to know there are still sane people out there. The left are complete delusional creeps. It's really surreal.
@31guitar Thank you brother, I most certainly will. Btw, goes to show that Unions are just thugs that hire violent protesters to push people around until they get what they want. Unions use these protestors to strong arm and intimidate. The relationship between thug protestor and thug Unionist has always been there. What do you think?
@diamonddust22 These protests were planned by unions and funded in part by billionaire globalist George Soros. There is audio of SEUI's Stephen Lerner talking about organizing these protests a while ago advocating for the collapse of the economy. And now we're seeing these protesters being encouraged to move their money out of big banks to credit unions. This run on banks would cause nation wide financial panic, exactly what these communists have been advocating for.
@31guitar Wow man, I knew unionists were pigs, but now we see they are nothing more then communist dictators. Out of banks and into Credit Unions? They are a cancer to out society.
I think you should expand on the Social Security / Medicaid point in another video. Otherwise, I enjoyed this video and am glad you made it. Always nice to see the truth.
#3 on cutting government jobs. Your "crowding out" perspective would make sense if the unemployment rate was 4-6% and had been there for a while, but not after going from below 5% up past 9% in just over a year. Is all that newly created unemployment structural?
Obviously the macroeconomic theory you're using to justify this position doesn't allow for prolonged gluts in the labor market, which is why I don't find your position very convincing.
The reason that the "Crowding Out" effect is fact is that for every dollar that is taken for government spending, it is not available for Private Sector spending. Government is incredibly inefficient and wasteful. In the government's hand, there are not incentives to maximize how far that dollar will go. Thus, the Austrian economists believe that the econometric multiplier for Government spending is around .25-.75 while Keynesians believe it is 1.15-1.65.
@GlennRoxWyo - The financial synonyms for 'solvent' are terms like 'profitable', and 'in the black'. Basically, 'solvent' means having more Assets (Cash, property, etc) than Liabilities (debts).
This is the first time I have seen you completely off base, almost like the church lady on the old Saturday night live. As people make more money they buy more things and more services, this is trickle down economics. It is not about corporate profits trickling up. What he said in his video is if the gov spends money trickle down economics works. if private people do it, it does not work. His way no one can build wealth. it is a flaw in socialist thinking.
@realhxq Well if his ideal society is one of -zero economic growth, a dying demography, and one government worker for every single person in the private sector, then I suppose he would be very pleased.
Saludos from Spain, Lee. Loved the issue on government workers. My family is from Galicia (Spain) and it is one of the most heavily regulated areas in the country.
There is (I´m not kidding) one government worker for every citizen in that province. It is the poorest area in the entire country, zero job growth, an excessive dependance on welfare, and has an inverse demographic pyramid. The population there is aging at a constant rate with no children. Reich´s "dream come-true" society.
"The amount of government spending is crowding out private investment"
Care to substantiate that? We have a lot of excess capacity, the federal funds rate is almost at zero, and many companies are sitting on piles of uninvested cash. Where is this "crowding out" occurring?
@slashingraven there is a harvard study that does its best to isolate the effect. Google "Do Powerful Politicians Cause Corporate Downsizing?" and make sure you're getting it from an edu domain.
So then your against Ronald Reagan who made famous Trickle Down Economics. Why are all these people saying so many things against there hero and yet still calling Ronald the best President in modern history? Your against everything the man stood for!
Lee, I'd like to see a version of this video redone. I understand the time crunch, but I do think there is a bit of merit involved with making a more detailed critique due to the fact that I found your points in this video fairly rushed and incomplete. Granted, for a less than 5 minute video, this is great, but I think it would be better if you drew out your thoughts in a more detailed manner.
ponzi schemes are not sustainable because it rely on every increasing contribution from later contributors to fund the early adopters. You can FORCE ppl to contribute which will buy you more time, which is what the Social Security system does, but eventually, if you take it to the nth year, you'll find its impossible to fund it
@Bleuski3 *sigh* ...and where is this surplus? It's not stuffed in a matres! The surplus that is invested in government T-bills, meaning that the government owes itself the surplus money back through tax money to be collected later... meaning the so-called surplus has already been spent by the government and only exists as IOUs to itself!
@ardana1973 I didn't say the government has a surplus, I said the social security program does. The government spending it elsewhere doesn't change that.
@Bleuski3 I was referring to the social security surplus not the government which runs a deficit. The social security surplus is invested in government T-bills which is already spent by the government on regular operating expenses. All those T-bills must be repaid by future tax payers to the social security program. Thus the surplus only exists as a paper asset against the liability of future tax payers.
@ardana1973 I know you were referring to the social security surplus; that's why I corrected you. You asked "where is this surplus?" Are you saying SS wouldn't have a surplus if the government wasn't investing the...surplus in T-bills?
@Bleuski3 Yes, SS would at least be backed by real assets had it been invested in other external assets. Those assets can be sold for real value. Technically T-bills can be sold for value too but it's only a shell game when that is done since ultimately that would have to be paid back by tax money. However, that doesn't make SS a good investment or sustainable. Expanding taxpayer demographics are the only method for making it sustainable (or expecting people to die young).
@Bleuski3 "Are you saying SS wouldn't have a surplus if the government wasn't investing the...surplus in T-bills?" -- that's a double negative so not sure if I answered you correctly as I'm uncertain your question. Basically, the SS is a asset in the government's books with a liability of equal value on the books. Thus its real value is nullified and it does not exist. That would be like taking out a bank loan and putting the loan into my back account and saying I have money as a result.
@ardana1973 "...that's a double negative..." No it wasn't.
I think we're talking about two different things here. Just because the government took out a loan from the American people and wasted it on T-bills or whatever doesn't mean the SS system(the bank) is faulty; they're completely separate issues.
@Bleuski3 Your argument that SS is in surplus was wrong as a result though, granted for reasons that it was never invested but wasted in T-bills. The real problem with SS is that it only works with ideal demographics of certain ratio of active taxpayers to retires with certain life expectancies. Those demographics do not exist long term and even a surplus would be gobbled up by current demographics. Plus, from an investment perspective, SS is a bad investment with extremely low returns for most.
@Bleuski3 That also speaks to another problem though with any surplus in SS - political control. Can government be trusted to manage a massive portfolio without political involvement or borrowing against it? Would it get invested in political projects like Solyndra to promote "green" over of good investments? Would it be leveraged/borrowed against? Would it get invested in GM to prop up bankrupt companies to support unions? I'm not sure SS could ever truly have a real suplus even without Tbills!
@ardana1973 Again, SS's surplus only has to do with it's income/payments to beneficiaries; it has nothing to do with what the government uses the money for in the meantime.
for another refutation to Reich's lies: lfb.org/today/seven-lies/
rojasrod 4 weeks ago
no one that likes government controlled prices like for people to find out the name of the system where you have government controlled prices, but the right to own property.
halloranedward 1 month ago
Healthcare is rising because the doctors and their administration know they can collect no matter what they charge.
KittenKoder 1 month ago
your argument against the economy doing well under 70 to 90 percent tax rate for the rich is that not all of them were paying the full tax, wow, thats powerful, good point, may i borrow it for my crusade against hospitals: lets do away with them because not all patients are cured
random0815 1 month ago
@random0815 Very few people if not noone payed 70% tax. There was a 70% tax rate only on paper. And yes you should probably crusade against a hospital with a 100% death rate.
666or999 1 week ago
@666or999 as i say: im willing to get educated, please link the evidence that almost no one payed 70 percent taxes? also maybe link examples of successful models with non-progressive tax systems, for actual reality google rhenian capitalism, this was the reality of the night-mare system of regulated capitalism
random0815 1 week ago
Okay so you are a right wing football fan in a hurry. You seem willing to give us Way Too Much Information about your private life and way too little clarity in the form of a sophisticated rebuttal to Reisch.
When I can understand you as well as I can understand him, then perhaps I can take your monarchist politics seriously. Until then, enjoy the game!
sportiboye 1 month ago
Lee, while I appreciate the rebuttal, I think you really need to focus on production quality similar to Reich's so that it will circulate to a wider audience. That is to say, Rebuttals are useless unless people see them. Saying "I did this at halftime" even if its true shows that you're not really putting in the effort. Those quickened whiteboard sketches draw the attention. Its why they get so many views!
Jaspian 2 months ago
Fox news sheep....it's pretty obvious.
Stingerbillion 2 months ago
What a garbage this video.... where are your numbers? OH yeah I forgot, I just have to listen and believe what you say
bizier100 3 months ago
lol, youtube probably shut him down for a while. Buuuunch of liberals.
colinjrob1 3 months ago
I stopped when he "rebutted" that the progressive and effective tax rate that was present in the mid-20th century did not hurt business. Loopholes and shelters are just controllers because that is happening now. The point is that high tax rates, did not hurt big business and that has been empirically and anecdotally proven, which is what Robert was saying. I dont know if this video guy is just a intellectually dishonest, or stupid.
flipgood89 3 months ago
Sounds like a pretty weak rebuttal. Reagan et. al. not only removed 'loopholes'; they also removed protection mechanisms for Social Security and Medicare, by allowing them to be used as collateral for a raised national debt. Only the Clinton administration has lowered debt since. Your blind faith in private enterprise is unfounded. Most large companies are currently investing U.S. income in expanding markets. You've obviously failed tax 101... flat taxes do penalize poor over rich.
z2o2z 3 months ago
Anybody who would watch Robert Reich and believe a word he says is simply a brain dead drone for the Communist/Democratic party. It is not worth your time, even during half time of a football game to point out the stupidity of Robert Reich's arguments. What makes me angry is that Robert is not stupid, which means he must know that he is lying to people.
Moses5768 3 months ago
WOW. among all the other blather you spew in this video how can you say as an American citizen that if certain Americans don't have a certain degree they don't deserve to be hired by the government?! How dare you pal. This is the land of opportunity. Where if you can't afford to go to the college you can still get a decent job at least with a hgih school degree. You're pathetic, go watch your damn game and stay the heck out of politics cause you obviously have no idea what you're talking about.
fourwickedfive 4 months ago
Medicare and Medicaid are seeing costs rising because.....mumble mumble...third party payer.....mumble mumble.
Not good enough. The costs are rising not because of a "third-party payer" but because they are not open to everybody. Open those programs up to everybody and you will costs go down.
shmiggen 4 months ago
ok, social security is a ponzi scheme. Sure. Your father is a rapist. Because he watched a movie that had a rape scene in it. That means he a rapist. So yes, social security is a ponzi scheme. But your father is also a rapist.
shmiggen 4 months ago
@shmiggen Huh what?
AccumulatedKnowledge 4 months ago
@AccumulatedKnowledge Just following the same logic that says social security is a ponzi scheme.
shmiggen 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AccumulatedKnowledge Just following the same logic that says social security is a ponzi scheme.
shmiggen 4 months ago
@shmiggen
Can you please englighten me on this? Im just venturing myself into politics, so if you could explain a little in depth or inbox me. That would be great.
xaxjx88 3 months ago
@xaxjx88 a ponzi scheme is destined to collapse because the earnings, if any, are less than the payments to investors. Social Security, OTOH, has a surplus, and can only be funded as long as their are people working. No one working = no social security payments. So it is a deceit to call it a ponzi scheme. It is even more than deceit. It is as if I charged you with rape for looking at a woman. That is how much of a lie it is.
shmiggen 3 months ago
@shmiggen "A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to its investors from their own money or the money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from any actual profit earned by the individual or organization running the operation.' wiki
SS pays returns from money taken from those who are working & from "investments". the investments are in special treasury bonds, after the government loots SS it replaces the money they stole ..... cont
nogivenogets1 3 months ago
with an IOU that is repaid by those who are working (the investors) .... yes, SS is a ponzi scheme. it's worse than a ponzi scheme, I can CHOOSE not to invest in a ponzi scheme. I can't CHOOSE to opt out of SS or taxes
a ponzi scheme is destined to collapse because the money coming in is less then the money going out.
"The financial conditions of the Social Security and Medicare programs remain challenging...... cont
nogivenogets1 3 months ago
Projected long-run program costs for both Medicare and Social Security are not sustainable under currently scheduled financing, and will require legislative modifications if disruptive consequences for beneficiaries and taxpayers are to be avoided. "
A SUMMARY OF THE 2011 ANNUAL REPORTS
Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees
nogivenogets1 3 months ago
I like your "rape" analogy though
Sex is a voluntary act, like investing in a Ponzi scheme
Rape is an involuntary act, like investing in SS
nogivenogets1 3 months ago
@nogivenogets1 No, rape is voluntary.
shmiggen 3 months ago
@shmiggen LOL for the rapist.
nogivenogets1 3 months ago
@nogivenogets1 yes, this is correct, but all it requires to be fixed are legislative modifications, which are easy..
shmiggen 3 months ago
@shmiggen Not so easy for the worker that has to pay more because of of the legislative modifications
nogivenogets1 3 months ago
@nogivenogets1 No, it's nothing at all like a ponzi scheme, because if no one works, no one gets paid. In a ponzi scheme, when no one works, you still get paid. Quite a simple and clear distinction, actually.
shmiggen 3 months ago
@shmiggen it's a ponzi scheme by definition, "A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to its investors from their own money or the money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from any actual profit earned by the individual or organization running the operation.' wiki
if no one works then no one has the money to pay into a ponzi scheme & it goes belly up also.
nogivenogets1 3 months ago
@nogivenogets1 Yes, but the key word in the wiki definition, however, is "fraudulent". Note that this means quite literally "fraud". Social security is not fraudulent - literally. It is transparent, thus making it not a Ponzi scheme.
shmiggen 3 months ago
@shmiggen Fraud - A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain
I'm assuming you know about the double taxation (plus interest) we pay to SS? you are either deceived or complacent. there's no reason for the government to lie to get our money when they can just take it by force (extortion).
so your right, SS isn't a ponzi scheme because it's worse than a ponzi scheme.....
if SS isn't "fraudulent" then why is it forced upon us?
nogivenogets1 3 months ago
@nogivenogets1 I do feel your pain, by the way. I am merciful. You don't want to pay SS, I get it. But my point is - it isn't forced upon you. It is has been democratically enacted into law. If you gather enough support, you can have it dismantled. So it is not forced upon you. I hope that sheds some light upon your understanding. I am not entirely closed off to dismantling SS, but even amongst the GOP, there is very little enthusiasm for ending SS.
shmiggen 3 months ago
@shmiggen the government doesn't need to dismantle SS, just make it optional instead of mandatory. let the people decide where to invest their retirement dollars. they also need to remove SS from the general budget so government can't use it as a slush fund.
nogivenogets1 3 months ago
@shmiggen So... by your logic... if a crowd decides to rape a woman, its not force because the crowd democratically elected to get their rocks off at her expense, even though she doesn't consent.
Better luck next time.
Jaspian 2 months ago
@Jaspian Well, if we democratically agree that rape is not bad, and the entire populace agrees that rape is not bad, then yes, ultimately rape is not bad. This is why SS is currently legal - the majority has agreed that it is not bad.
Better luck next time.
shmiggen 2 months ago
@shmiggen The entire populace doesn't agree that SS is "not bad". You only need 50%+1 in Democracy. The 50%-1 is the girl getting held down and raped. Besides... this was never about "good" or "bad". You said FORCE. And SS is demonstrably FORCE (by the example above) if the person doesn't want to participate. It does not matter what "democracy" says. We're not a hive mind. If I don't want to do something, and society makes me do it anyway, that's coercion. That's force even if its 99%
Jaspian 2 months ago
@Jaspian What you say is true, you are forced into SS, whether you like it or not. But what do you want me to do? As long as that is what the majority wants by way of votes in the Congress, that is the way it is. If enough people organize and can get the votes, they can change the law. But the reality is the people have spoken, and they want SS. Too bad so sad.
shmiggen 2 months ago
@shmiggen I want you to admit that its force, and that some people don't like it, and that they should be allowed to leave the program. If its a good program people will want to stay and it will do just fine. If people in fact don't want social security (which is as I suspect) the program will collapse.
Jaspian 2 months ago
@Jaspian Of course its force, but I would still qualify it and call it democratic force. Mandatory car insurance is force, as are a lot of things. Force is not inherently evil. As for some people being allowed to leave the program, it just isn't realistic. The whole thing collapses without everyone in it. Think of it like Europe. Europe will never be a coherent Union until everyone is on board with a unified fiscal policy. Same with SS. Either everyone is in or everyone is out.
shmiggen 2 months ago
@shmiggen You said its not forced (that's what I responded to). I'm glad I could get you to see the reality of it. It is force. Its bullying. While I agree some basic force (such as enFORCING contracts etc) is necessary to the functioning of society, I reject that Social Security is a proper function of government. Its not good retirement policy, economic policy, and its technically unconstitutional. The people have no right to force me into a retirement program even if 100%-1 want me to.
Jaspian 2 months ago 3
@Jaspian You may be right. I can't prove you're wrong. But it's a gamble. You might get sick, you could lose your job, a lot of things could happen. SS is an insurance policy, that's all. Prior to SS, most of the elderly were paupers. They warmed themselves with hot cocoa at a church somewhere. They were utterly destitute, and only the priests took care of them. You could avoid this fate, as could I....but its still a gamble, a roll of the dice.
shmiggen 2 months ago
@nogivenogets1 ....the same "ponzi scheme" that has been so self-sufficient and successful, that the govt. has continually borrowed from it in order to pay for wars and tax cuts? That ponzi scheme?
flipgood89 3 months ago
@flipgood89 self-sufficient - not requiring any outside aid, support, or interaction, for survival
SS is not self sufficient, SS is funded through robbery or extortion. you do not have the choice to participate.
obviously you do not understand tax cuts. the government doesn't pay for tax cuts, it just extorts less. you conveniently left out social programs (bribery) & entitlements (more bribery) & corporate bail outs (government controlled monopoly)
nogivenogets1 3 months ago
Wait a second. The young man in this video says that trickle-down economics is bunk....but isn't that what the GOP has been selling for decades? Enlighten me, please.
shmiggen 4 months ago
@shmiggen No, it's what liberals want you to think the GOP has been selling for decades. What the GOP has actually been selling is "supply-side" economics, a theory which says lower tax rates give people more incentive to work, to save, and to invest. Nowhere has the GOP or any conservative economist argued a "trickle-down" theory that if you "give" money to rich people, the rich people will eventually "give" it to poor people. Therefore, it is a strawman.
pholland 4 months ago
@pholland why did even george bush 1 call what you wrote, "voodoo" economics?
shmiggen 4 months ago
@shmiggen Because he did not believe that lower tax rates would leave to higher revenues. Obviously he was wrong, and he later admitted he was wrong. Federal revenues doubled under Reagan.
pholland 4 months ago
@pholland Reagan won't be remembered for his surpluses - there weren't any. Reagan left deficits as far as the eye could see. Therefore, the intention of tax cuts is not to raise to revenue, hence the phrase, "trickle-down economics". My original point stands: Lee Doren is being willfully ignorant when he claims he always knew there was no such thing as trickle-down economics. He's backpedaling and lying to save face.
shmiggen 4 months ago
@shmiggen
ALL PRESIDENTS suffering through a DEMOCRAT CONTROLLED LEGISLATURE "left deficits".
Are socialist apologists as ignorant of our nation's federal government as they appear to be, or do they fake it as a backdrop to proselytize the frauds and deceptions powering their toxic politics?
Only after the Republican's historical sweep of Congress in 1994, which ended a half century horror under Democrats, did our federal government pause their deficit spending binge.
TylerNull 4 months ago
@TylerNull lol no reagan built up our military to defeat the soviet union, that's why he left deficits. lol again at the GOP sweep of congress no gop spending continued and even expanded massively under gw bush. GOP spends money like a drunkard, nothing conservative about them at all lol lol lol. the original claim stands: GOP cannot claim that "trickle-down economics" works - which is why the young man in this video is backpedaling to save face.
shmiggen 4 months ago
@shmiggen
Your giggles fail to address the point of which branch controls spending.
As for Reagan's economic plans, the 18 million new jobs created under it -- the historic economic expansion documented in the historical record -- isn't altered by your giggles either.
It's clear that your politics are allergic to reality.
Backpeddle that, chuckler.
TylerNull 4 months ago
@TylerNull yes he did create 18 million new jobs, I don't deny that. Unfortunately, he created 18 million new ponzi jobs. From 1979 - 2007, the poor and middle-classes, approximately 99% of the population, had an increase in wealth of about 27.5%. The top 1% however had an increase in wealth of 275%. So yes, 18 million new jobs were created...service jobs, financial gimmickry jobs...but nothing solid to create a modern nation state. I await your comeback with much anticipation.
shmiggen 4 months ago
@shmiggen Reagan did not create any jobs. Nor did Clinton, Bush, or Obama. Presidents don't create jobs; entrepreneurs do. I am not concerned how much the top 1% have been able to earn over the last 30 years. It is none of my business. People should be able to make as much money as their talents, abilities, and work ethic allow them to. You seem to view the economy like a pie that gets "distributed" among different classes, which is fallacious. Wealth is not fixed. It is created.
pholland 4 months ago
@shmiggen
"yes he did..."
Aside from your fallacious "ponzi" rant, you admit Reagan's resounding success. Oddly, it upset you enough to expose the feral spite powering your politics.
Specifically, you're upset that "99%" had their wealth significantly INCREASE, only because a few fared even better. (Pure spite.)
As an aside, you seem oblivious that any one of the "1%", in any given tax year, may be in the "99%" in another year, and vice versa. (Thus exposing another idiocy of class-warfare.)
TylerNull 4 months ago
@TylerNull you're on the wrong side of history. The GOP is toast. The country is moving to the left, and Reaganism is dead. Reaganism was not a resounding success once you consider he is a puppet for Corporate America.
shmiggen 4 months ago
@shmiggen
You socialists know so much history that isn't so.
And speaking of your "puppet for Corporate America", ...
* "Contributions to Obama Campaign Track Bailout Money"
* "Obama Top Fundraiser on Wall Street"
* "Largest Hedge Fund Political Donations Go to Democrats"
So, if you're going to bitterly cling to your toxic Leftist politics, then at least update its mythology. You know, to better mask your requisite frauds & deceptions.
DEM'RATS & WALL STREET -- LIFE PARTNERS
TylerNull 4 months ago
@TylerNull Yes, Dems are also owned by their corporate masters. Both parties are nothing more than subsidiaries of Corporate America. That's why there is no "left" and no such thing as "leftism" lol! You right wing nutjobs have everything you want: a kleptocracy. My original claim stands: the narrator of this video backpedals to save face, because he knows the GOP has always endorsed "trickle-down" economics.
shmiggen 4 months ago
@shmiggen
Your original "claim" is an exposed mix of mythology, deception and ignorance.
Those who control all government authority, all the machine guns, and all the jail cells are the innocent victims of private citizens?
You socialists are a toxic farce, and your Fannie Fascism is showing.
Obama's Acorn disciples use to brag on their web sites about the banks they forced to submit to the suicidal lending practices designed by Democrats.
Your equivocations expose your ignorance.
TylerNull 4 months ago
@TylerNull nothing you say dispels the assertion that for decades the GOP has advocated "trickle-down economics". Original claim stands.
shmiggen 4 months ago
@shmiggen
Nice try.
Stripping your original wad of claims of all its idiocies, and down to a vapid one-liner, as you just did, fails to "dispel" that fact that your spite-based economics of class warfare were exposed for what they are -- a toxic farce festering in stubborn ignorance and economic illiteracy.
TylerNull 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TylerNull nothing you say dispels the assertion that for decades the GOP has advocated "trickle-down economics". Original claim stands.
shmiggen 3 months ago
@shmiggen Original claim stands false. Give one example of the GOP advocating trickle-down economics. The burden is not on us to disprove claims that you have yet to argue and provide evidence for.
pholland 3 months ago
@pholland Standard GOP philosophy: cut taxes and wealth will "trickle-down" to the plebians. This has been their standard campaign for three decades. Claim stands.
shmiggen 3 months ago
@shmiggen Really? Can you provide one example of a GOP politician or conservative economist actually saying that? Or are you just going keep repeating it on the hopes that it will simply "become true" if you say it enough times?
pholland 3 months ago
@pholland wait a second....this is rich. Are you saying that it is not true that the GOP espouses tax cuts?
shmiggen 3 months ago
@shmiggen No. All you have to do is merely read the comments I've made and you'll understand what I'm saying. I am saying the GOP has never espoused a trickle-down theory.
pholland 3 months ago
@pholland trickle-down economics is most closely identified with the economic policies known as Reaganomics or supply-side economics. During Ronald Reagan's presidency, the Democratic Party-controlled House, at the urging of President Reagan, cut the marginal tax rate on the highest-income tax bracket from 70% to 28%.
shmiggen 3 months ago
@shmiggen At what point did Reagan ever argue a trickle-down theory during that time though? I'm unable to find it anywhere in his speeches or in any Republican messaging for that matter. I recall Reagan saying the tax cuts would make the economy more productive and incentivize work and investment. I recall him arguing it would bring in more tax revenues by broadening the base. I never remember him saying that more money would somehow "flow down" to poor people. When did he say this?
pholland 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pholland what you just wrote is "trickle-down economics". That is precisely it: " tax cuts would make the economy more productive and incentivize work and investment...it would bring in more tax revenues by broadening the base." This is the definition of "trickle-down economics".
shmiggen 3 months ago
@shmiggen I can assure you he's not backpedaling, because I, like him, understand the conservative viewpoint and I know that we have never once argued a "trickle-down" theory in the last half-century. Nowhere has any Republican or conservative economist argued that money will somehow get "distributed" to poor people if marginal tax rates are reduced. Trickle-down is a term liberals use to mischaracterize the purposes and goals of supply-side economics so that it be conveniently attacked.
pholland 4 months ago
If tax cuts don't raise revenue, then please explain how federal tax receipts more than doubled under Ronald Reagan's two terms while the top rate of tax was lowered from 70% to 28%.
pholland 4 months ago
Michigan = pwned. ;) Sorry Lee.
designed4freedom 4 months ago 9
excellent vid Lee, done quickly but expertly
pinegrove33 4 months ago
I disagree with you Doren on healthcare. Around the world you see as countries are getting richer, regardless of healthcare system, people prefer to spend a higher proportion of their income on health. As they also do on leisure. This isn't neccesarily "wrong" or "bankrupting" anybody. The only problem is when its finances through the government.
Sondre7 4 months ago
Typical libertarian horse-crap.
monkeyboxcomedy 4 months ago
@monkeyboxcomedy Lol that's funny...
TheEllipsis731 4 months ago
@monkeyboxcomedy Typical liberal response...no substance.
CDubSD 4 months ago
Ah, ok.. hahaha
Dontwantlove 4 months ago
Honestly Mr. Doren, Robert Reich's video was so unbelievable and stupid, that i dont even think you had to critique it.
chrism1818 4 months ago 3
talk about double speak-did you think you were the only fast talking shyster anyone has ever seen or heard from?
kjack5 4 months ago
You kinda didn't really address the argument about the % of available income paid in taxes being higher for the low-income folks, sounds more like you avoided it by saying that everyone pays those taxes - of course, that's not the point.
A way to address it would be saying that it's an incentive to generate more of that income/be more productive.
Vitaminous 4 months ago
Hi Lee, would you please expand on the whole "Trickle down" thing, please?
Thanks!
Itrytotestify 4 months ago
paying wages is trickle down. increase demand for labor increase the trickle down effect because wage for bottom to go up. unfortunately outsourcing has caused a decrease in demand for American labor.
spark300c 4 months ago
Great minds for freedom: Doren, Paul, Stossel, Schiff, and Napolitano.
nonosh 4 months ago
@nonosh Don't forget Tom Woods and Lew Rockwell to name a few.
weavermama 4 months ago
@weavermama Yessir.
nonosh 4 months ago
LEE: Good analogy on car insurance paying for your gas or oil changes. If it did, it would be like health care.
UTubekookdetector 4 months ago
OK, I'll explain this simply and quickly. I am a poor person, I work 40 hours a week and earn $23k a year with 4 dependents. This puts me just under the poverty level. I mention this because I want you to know that Im not some wealthy guy that doesn't understand the trials of poverty. That said, I am buying a small house, a 2007 car, all 4 members of my family have cell phones (pay as u go). A desktop computer, a laptop. Would I like better stuff, sure, but I've earned everything I have.
intrepidorator 4 months ago
INTR: No offence my friend, but if you have a house, cell phones (probably a microwave, stove, color TV too), a computer, a washing machine or some place to wash your clothes: I beg your pardon, but you're not poor. Your 2007 car is newer than mine! Mine has over 200K miles on it.
UTubekookdetector 4 months ago
@UTubekookdetector Exactly my point. I earn 23K a year and Im not on welfare or food stamps.
intrepidorator 4 months ago
INTR: Oh, well then I'm proud of you my friend. I guess I slightly misunderstood/misinterpreted what you said. My apologies. If you're the kind of person I think you are after learning this about you, I assume you'd rather be in charge of your own retirement rather than having the govt "save" for you via Social Security?
UTubekookdetector 4 months ago
@UTubekookdetector Definately, I wish that the govt would simply return the money that I have paid in, so that I can invest it and arn a return on my money.
intrepidorator 4 months ago
@UTubekookdetector But the point that I was trying to make was that the govt counts me as a "poor" person because my income is below the poverty level. I am supporting a family of 4 on 23K without welfare or food stamps. Even the poor in America live better than the kings of 100 years ago.
intrepidorator 4 months ago
INTR: Duly noted. Also, the Census Bureau inflates poverty numbers because they don't count these "in-kind" benefits, which do in fact, lift many people above the poverty level. The govt is in the business of trying to make people dependent upon them. Thanks!
UTubekookdetector 4 months ago
@UTubekookdetector yep, I agree totally.
intrepidorator 4 months ago
Robert Reich's videos are viewed by millions, and they are highly rated. I think that he is speaking to the people. More specifically, perhaps we can say that he is the voice of the people.
MortimerTheClueless 4 months ago
And less they forget, 28 years ago under the horrible Reagan, 1.1 million jobs were added, double digit inflation was broken and by the end of the 80's, 14 million new jobs were added.
VictrolaJazz 4 months ago
You weren't clear on how government spending is crowding out private spending. Could you explain why?
Ariancaldon 4 months ago
@Ariancaldon That would seem fairly obvious to me--whose money is the government spending? Whatever money the government takes can't be spent in the private sector.
VictrolaJazz 4 months ago
@VictrolaJazz that ignores the basics about money and the monetary cycle. The government takes money- and then it spends it, too. What makes government spending any less valid as a form of spending then private spending?
Ariancaldon 4 months ago
@Ariancaldon Because private spending is less wasteful than government spending.
VictrolaJazz 4 months ago
@VictrolaJazz Is that really true?
Ariancaldon 4 months ago
@Ariancaldon Well I can certainly spend my own money less wastefully than government. I worked for the same company 30 years and am now comfortably retired--I must have done something right.
VictrolaJazz 4 months ago
@VictrolaJazz You, maybe, but mustn't you admit that there are loads of people who have wasted their money on frivolous things that haven't helped anybody? Likewise, can't we admit that the government, while it does waste, also uses lots of its money nonwastefully and productively, just like you?
Ariancaldon 4 months ago
@Ariancaldon Who has the prerogative to say whether something is frivolous or not? If the person enjoys what they spend their money on, what difference does it make whether it helps anyone else or not? However, I do know the government does many benevolent things with our money and I don't begrudge it--I just don't believe a bureaucrat can make better decisions than I. However, I think there is greater oversight paid to a $10/hr. file clerk than a $50M CFO and that's inequitable.
VictrolaJazz 4 months ago
Go SPARTANS!!! YAY!
PS
Did you see that epic late hit facemask? I'm surprised Denard didn't have a broken neck!
SeppLainer 4 months ago
Get to the point. Quit beating around the bush!
razerfish 4 months ago
Well, living there (in Galicia) is a bureaucratic nightmare. There is massive unemployment, a dying population with very little children, and (It´s not a joke) there is one government worker for every worker in the private sector.
The general attitude there is "Why aspire for a higher salary (and dreams), when I can earn a little less working for the government only having to work very little (4-6 hours a day)?"
Dontwantlove 4 months ago
I have a Question. Would you say it is Corporatism that is hurting us? Seems that when Capitalism works, it works well. I think when you have these huge corporations using politicians as hand puppets, we seems to all hurt and suffer from it. Please educate me on this. You've made economics very exciting for me. Love your channel.
diamonddust22 4 months ago
@diamonddust22 You are absolutely correct. State capitalism, fascism, corporatism, whatever... they are all products of central economic planning, massive beauracracies, and left wing ideology. There is a reason why the nazis were called the National Socialists. Corporatism is a product of socialism. Example: FDR's New Deal was about as corporatist as you can get with all the regulations and price controls. The way to fight corporatism is too lower regulations and decrease the size of gov't
31guitar 4 months ago
@31guitar Buddy, I can't thank you enough for this priceless information. Nice to know there are still sane people out there. The left are complete delusional creeps. It's really surreal.
diamonddust22 4 months ago
@diamonddust22 If you want more, check out the book Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg
31guitar 4 months ago
@31guitar Thank you brother, I most certainly will. Btw, goes to show that Unions are just thugs that hire violent protesters to push people around until they get what they want. Unions use these protestors to strong arm and intimidate. The relationship between thug protestor and thug Unionist has always been there. What do you think?
diamonddust22 4 months ago
@diamonddust22 These protests were planned by unions and funded in part by billionaire globalist George Soros. There is audio of SEUI's Stephen Lerner talking about organizing these protests a while ago advocating for the collapse of the economy. And now we're seeing these protesters being encouraged to move their money out of big banks to credit unions. This run on banks would cause nation wide financial panic, exactly what these communists have been advocating for.
31guitar 4 months ago
@31guitar Wow man, I knew unionists were pigs, but now we see they are nothing more then communist dictators. Out of banks and into Credit Unions? They are a cancer to out society.
diamonddust22 4 months ago
I think you should expand on the Social Security / Medicaid point in another video. Otherwise, I enjoyed this video and am glad you made it. Always nice to see the truth.
neonical 4 months ago
#3 on cutting government jobs. Your "crowding out" perspective would make sense if the unemployment rate was 4-6% and had been there for a while, but not after going from below 5% up past 9% in just over a year. Is all that newly created unemployment structural?
Obviously the macroeconomic theory you're using to justify this position doesn't allow for prolonged gluts in the labor market, which is why I don't find your position very convincing.
KarlBonner1982 4 months ago
@KarlBonner1982
The reason that the "Crowding Out" effect is fact is that for every dollar that is taken for government spending, it is not available for Private Sector spending. Government is incredibly inefficient and wasteful. In the government's hand, there are not incentives to maximize how far that dollar will go. Thus, the Austrian economists believe that the econometric multiplier for Government spending is around .25-.75 while Keynesians believe it is 1.15-1.65.
Slipknotyk06 4 months ago
wtf is his deffinition of solvent?
GlennRoxWyo 4 months ago
@GlennRoxWyo - The financial synonyms for 'solvent' are terms like 'profitable', and 'in the black'. Basically, 'solvent' means having more Assets (Cash, property, etc) than Liabilities (debts).
Slipknotyk06 4 months ago
@Slipknotyk06 I know the actual deffinition That wasn't my question.
GlennRoxWyo 4 months ago
Sorry the game didn't work out so well for you.
Roll Tide - See you next year ;)
Benwoodruff 4 months ago
Reich is mighty mouse! Like Krugman they push the Marxist raisins, or in plain speak poop.
9jmorrison 4 months ago
Let's put Reich up against Peter Schiff maybe that'll take the chip off his shoulder
Redeye1524 4 months ago
Michigan sucks, go Illini!!
just had to say that. :P nice video!
minisoda1234 4 months ago
This is the first time I have seen you completely off base, almost like the church lady on the old Saturday night live. As people make more money they buy more things and more services, this is trickle down economics. It is not about corporate profits trickling up. What he said in his video is if the gov spends money trickle down economics works. if private people do it, it does not work. His way no one can build wealth. it is a flaw in socialist thinking.
Thewizzardof9 4 months ago
You need to break your left-right conditioning, Lee.
DoYerBest 4 months ago
Robert Reich's website no longer accepts submissions. He is a coward
gaguy1967 4 months ago
Thanks again Lee, I really appreciate what you please keep it going.
Mathiassss 4 months ago
Hey, Lee. When are you gonna get that Ron Paul endorsement on your channel? We need your support, brother.
:)
ResistDeception 4 months ago
I would love to see Robert Reich visit Galicia (Northern Spain) and see his ideal society in the flesh.
Dontwantlove 4 months ago 21
@Dontwantlove Yeah? What is it like?
KingDingaLing090 4 months ago
@Dontwantlove would he like it ?
realhxq 4 months ago
@realhxq Well if his ideal society is one of -zero economic growth, a dying demography, and one government worker for every single person in the private sector, then I suppose he would be very pleased.
Dontwantlove 4 months ago
@Dontwantlove just plush Trolling ;-)
realhxq 4 months ago
Saludos from Spain, Lee. Loved the issue on government workers. My family is from Galicia (Spain) and it is one of the most heavily regulated areas in the country.
There is (I´m not kidding) one government worker for every citizen in that province. It is the poorest area in the entire country, zero job growth, an excessive dependance on welfare, and has an inverse demographic pyramid. The population there is aging at a constant rate with no children. Reich´s "dream come-true" society.
Dontwantlove 4 months ago
"The amount of government spending is crowding out private investment"
Care to substantiate that? We have a lot of excess capacity, the federal funds rate is almost at zero, and many companies are sitting on piles of uninvested cash. Where is this "crowding out" occurring?
slashingraven 4 months ago
@slashingraven there is a harvard study that does its best to isolate the effect. Google "Do Powerful Politicians Cause Corporate Downsizing?" and make sure you're getting it from an edu domain.
Miasmark 4 months ago
Big Thumbs up for 4:14 That is a very important point to make. That's where democracies fail.
fizzingwhizbeee 4 months ago
So then your against Ronald Reagan who made famous Trickle Down Economics. Why are all these people saying so many things against there hero and yet still calling Ronald the best President in modern history? Your against everything the man stood for!
Seems to me you want it both ways.
lordcron 4 months ago
@lordcron They love Ronald Reagan...they want him on a stamp so they can lick his ass.
warrkrymez 4 months ago
@lordcron You're saying all Reagan stood for is trickle down economics?
john42t 4 months ago
MoveOn.org is full of Trouble making provocateurs.
Theapeinacrate76 4 months ago
Mr Doren, please run for office.
Shanockdotcom 4 months ago 39
@Shanockdotcom I would totally vote for him.
bricool4 4 months ago
@Shanockdotcom OMG yes, only instead of running for office, do like Herman Cain; go straight for president.
QCprepper 4 months ago
@Shanockdotcom wait until hes in his 40s or so. i honest to god think thats a possibility
JThrashYT 4 months ago
Lee, could you do a video just discussing the crowding out effect of government spending on private investment (if you haven't already)?
DarthKrattus 4 months ago
Lee, I'd like to see a version of this video redone. I understand the time crunch, but I do think there is a bit of merit involved with making a more detailed critique due to the fact that I found your points in this video fairly rushed and incomplete. Granted, for a less than 5 minute video, this is great, but I think it would be better if you drew out your thoughts in a more detailed manner.
Thank you much.
ThunderCaller99 4 months ago
ponzi schemes are not sustainable because it rely on every increasing contribution from later contributors to fund the early adopters. You can FORCE ppl to contribute which will buy you more time, which is what the Social Security system does, but eventually, if you take it to the nth year, you'll find its impossible to fund it
outforsushi 4 months ago
@outforsushi You're aware that Social Security has a over a trillion dollar surplus, right?
Bleuski3 4 months ago
@Bleuski3 *sigh* ...and where is this surplus? It's not stuffed in a matres! The surplus that is invested in government T-bills, meaning that the government owes itself the surplus money back through tax money to be collected later... meaning the so-called surplus has already been spent by the government and only exists as IOUs to itself!
ardana1973 4 months ago
@ardana1973 I didn't say the government has a surplus, I said the social security program does. The government spending it elsewhere doesn't change that.
Bleuski3 4 months ago
@Bleuski3 I was referring to the social security surplus not the government which runs a deficit. The social security surplus is invested in government T-bills which is already spent by the government on regular operating expenses. All those T-bills must be repaid by future tax payers to the social security program. Thus the surplus only exists as a paper asset against the liability of future tax payers.
ardana1973 4 months ago
@ardana1973 I know you were referring to the social security surplus; that's why I corrected you. You asked "where is this surplus?" Are you saying SS wouldn't have a surplus if the government wasn't investing the...surplus in T-bills?
Bleuski3 4 months ago
@Bleuski3 Yes, SS would at least be backed by real assets had it been invested in other external assets. Those assets can be sold for real value. Technically T-bills can be sold for value too but it's only a shell game when that is done since ultimately that would have to be paid back by tax money. However, that doesn't make SS a good investment or sustainable. Expanding taxpayer demographics are the only method for making it sustainable (or expecting people to die young).
ardana1973 4 months ago
Comment removed
ardana1973 4 months ago
@Bleuski3 "Are you saying SS wouldn't have a surplus if the government wasn't investing the...surplus in T-bills?" -- that's a double negative so not sure if I answered you correctly as I'm uncertain your question. Basically, the SS is a asset in the government's books with a liability of equal value on the books. Thus its real value is nullified and it does not exist. That would be like taking out a bank loan and putting the loan into my back account and saying I have money as a result.
ardana1973 4 months ago
@ardana1973 "...that's a double negative..." No it wasn't.
I think we're talking about two different things here. Just because the government took out a loan from the American people and wasted it on T-bills or whatever doesn't mean the SS system(the bank) is faulty; they're completely separate issues.
Bleuski3 4 months ago
@Bleuski3 Your argument that SS is in surplus was wrong as a result though, granted for reasons that it was never invested but wasted in T-bills. The real problem with SS is that it only works with ideal demographics of certain ratio of active taxpayers to retires with certain life expectancies. Those demographics do not exist long term and even a surplus would be gobbled up by current demographics. Plus, from an investment perspective, SS is a bad investment with extremely low returns for most.
ardana1973 4 months ago
@Bleuski3 That also speaks to another problem though with any surplus in SS - political control. Can government be trusted to manage a massive portfolio without political involvement or borrowing against it? Would it get invested in political projects like Solyndra to promote "green" over of good investments? Would it be leveraged/borrowed against? Would it get invested in GM to prop up bankrupt companies to support unions? I'm not sure SS could ever truly have a real suplus even without Tbills!
ardana1973 4 months ago
@ardana1973 Again, SS's surplus only has to do with it's income/payments to beneficiaries; it has nothing to do with what the government uses the money for in the meantime.
Bleuski3 4 months ago