My point is not to beat up on those truly waylaid by their circumstances but; it is to point out that the majority of ppl "down on their luck" out there really could improve themselves if they wanted to! Sometimes you have to work crappy job, hours, etc to get from point A to point B. I found a way to put myself through college and as tempting as it was at times to say "woe is me" I just kept pushing.
Well knucklez2 I must admit I think you have a pt in many cases. However, there are also many "white ppl" like myself not born into privilege - broken home, mom left at 12, father disowned me at 20, no relationship with him in over 20 yr and somehow I found a way to make myself better. Today - Bach and master's and have been working as a professional for over 14 yr now - could it be, maybe that since I wasn't going to be pulled down by my circumstances I was still able to make it work?
@LordOmegaLL They are making fun of your Vice President Joe Biden when he said "Look, John's (mcain) last-minute economic plan does nothing to tackle the number-one job facing the middle class, and it happens to be, as Barack says, a three-letter word: jobs. J-O-B-S, jobs." ..Joe Biden
I'm a conservative (to put it mildly) and even I think this is stupid.
They have ability, but this is so out of context it isn't even funny. They should be applying themselves in a different fashion. No offense intended, but the truth is the truth.
@123karismith Yeah, you're right. That was a poorly worded reply, and i apologize for it. But still, these kids are sending out established talking points for an anti-entitlement, anti-social program movement. I don't shower in Perrier, I shower in tap water like a normal American- and tap water is a public option. These guys are literally against this. They aren't Republicans- they're Accelerationists- they want to accelerate the destruction of our govt, think we'll be better off without it.
@eertmalp I wish the fog would lift from your thought process, these boys aren't spouting "talking points" they are talking truth. The destruction of this Government started 100 years ago in the progressive movement, government hand out de-motivate people from providing for them selves. The people on the dole become dependent on a Government system that over promises and under delivers, because there are too few people to tax and to many waiting to be pampered. It's called honest labor
@shakerson That's a jab at Biden (of course you probably don't know who that is....not an Xbox game character) when he said that........go back to sleep, the country is about to change and you'll just wake up and work for who ever is in charge.
@123karismith I wouldn't know if he was an Xbox character (I don't own one) and I am conscious of the change our country is going through. I will not "wake up and work for whoever is in charge" because I possess things such as independent critical thinking and a basic understanding of grammar structure, unlike yourself, which I can use to express the type of change I want to see and just maybe change some people's minds. Hint: Making assumptions about someone is not a good way to do that.
@shakerson You make the assumption that I was trying to persuade you to change your mind, that wasn't my intent, I was obviously wasting a sarcastic response to your lack of knowledge to what they were referencing. You definitely have very impressive grammar structure as you proved in your original post. Please do tell me about the change you reference yet don't explain in your oh so eloquent response. Type away young wordsmith and change the world.....Oh and I do have an assumption about you.
@123karismith There's not enough space here for me to explain my politics to you. I'll leave space for people to voice their opinions on the video. If you'd honestly like to know what I believe, you can message me and ask anything you would like to know. I will send you a response and I will not be condescending, nor will I resort to name-calling, unless you chose to do so while asking. I can be as respectful, or as disrespectful, as you can.
@123karismith VPOTUS. I wasn't aware of his gaffe until I read that and looked it up ('cause I check facts and don't ignorantly assume that everyone knows what they're talking about). Also, to preempt any assumptions, I happen to know Biden is a jackass and I don't find Obama as charismatic as many do. However, I don't believe Biden's utter stupidity or Obama's oratory are as damaging to this country as Ann Coulter and Glenn Beck's conspiratorial insanity.
i was about to call this video geeky and gay but then i saw the short guy breaking out some smooth moves on the floor, thus restoring all previously lost street cred.
It's beautiful that we live in a country where two consensual adults can live with their little buddy in marital bliss like this. Way to go New Hampshire!
and not to mention this is the worst "music" video I've ever seen, that guy doing the dancing is just a douche, who the hell came up with this lame video idea. If you're trying to send a message maybe the video should be more about the message than a couple of "conservative" douchebags "rapping"and some even more lame ass dancing on tables on a beach? I wish I could give this video a million dislikes.
These guys are fucking lame ass fags, if these guys showed up at one of my parties they'd get made fun of to the point they'd cry republican tears (which are like crocodile tears).
@knucklez2 Your comment is stupid as this video. It's no different than saying "All black people are criminals" or "All Mexicans are here illegally." Think smart and use your head if you want to win against the people who paid for this video. White, Black, Brown, All Races, we need to unite. Neo-Cons love self-segregation, it means less work for them.
Stop hating and do something to succeed. If you spent less time worrying about "rich" aka successful people maybe you would be living the life you want. I'm a Young Conservative and fully support the Young Cons!
@cl6002k5 It's not so easy to just "do something" and succeed. The country,. let alone the world, is not that simple. The majority of people in the world can't just become rich on drive alone, nor can they live the life they want. I am a college student and I am doing all I can to be successful, and honestly, I probably will be. However, your logic is very fallacious.
@knucklez2 Bullshizz, if you work hard and get an education, you'll do great. I don't care your color or background, there are too many people that quit trying or never start and then they cry that life's tough. Guess what? Life is tough, you gotta fight for more then just your right to party....It's funny how many racist comments are here against these young white guys....oh, racism is alive and well, just remember who's talking it.
@123karismith First, I will address your comment on racism. Racism can come from any person/group towards any other person or group. There's no sole perpetrator, however, if you look at Racism as a system in the USA, white people are more likely to succeed. Second of all, not everyone has access to an education. People who are raised within certain lifestyle boundaries just never get a chance. Plus, A lot of people graduating college can't even get jobs these days. Life isn't so simple.
@knucklez2 Your defeatist attitude will be the only chains that hold you back, I have a Daughter-in -law that graduated college last year and she finally landed her first post college job after 19 interviews. She wanted to give up after 5 then 10 and 15 interviews, but she kept going, never accepting no as the final answer, because of her persistence and luck she now has a start to her career. Quit the pity party and get after it and you'll succeed. People fought for ever inch of this country.
@123karismith Oh, but I don't have a defeatist attitude about myself. I know that I personally will be successful because I am intelligent, going to a good college and have a drive to succeed. However, I don't look over the fact that MOST PEOPLE in this country, let alone the world, simply do not have the opportunities that I or your daughter have. You can't simply imply your own anecdotal evidence as a sweeping generalization about opportunity int his country. i hope you understand.
@knucklez2 I'm white and I failed but at least I tried and don't blame anybody but my self.. Get off the race card idiot. That is a good excuse...fifty years ago but not now. Be as loser, your choice.
@ronnelson82 If you go purely by statistics, white people have a higher chance of success due to cultural and financial backgrounds. Congratulations on your failure though, you're a shining example that even the privileged can fail.
@knucklez2 : Regardless of "statistics" some are not reliable because they are based on assumptions and estimations, not actual figures (like populations, mortality rates etc). If you take your statistics from reliable sources, indeed it will be a valid way to back up your info.So prove it. Is race, gender, sexuality etc.supposed to make people put aside their ideologies and common sense. Why?
@knucklez2 another example of the reverse racist left trying to hamstring conservatives message of personal responsibility, productivity and frugal spending. too bad it won't work.
Based on your religious obsessions, you probably oppose drug legalization and gay marriage. Based on your love of Reagan, you probably support interventionism abroad. So why are you talking about individualism?
Also, "we are not statists"?
Unless you're an anarchist or panarchist/radical minarchist, yes. Yes you are.
@vaguelyhumanoid Very well said. And Reagan don't made government smaller, but much bigger. He was bigger statist then Carter. In 1981-1989 government spending was above 34% of GDP, but in last year in Carter presidency 31% of GDP, but in absolute number government grove even more. If you are real anti-statist, you must love Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson or James Buchanan. They are real fighters against big government.
Removing failure removes achievement? I'm pretty sure the pursuit of money and getting it is an achievement that most people already work for already. I don't understand. Are you saying people need the threat of poor health and complete destitution to be able to achieve anything?
Remember, everybody in the Soviet Union had a job. You would think government intervention provided a SECURITY and SAFETY for its people. Ultimately, all those people were poor!
@gideondavid30 The Cold War is over and more to the point there is a big difference between state planned communist economies and nations that provide or encourage social welfare. It is actually possible to have regulated private health insurance co-exist with a public system for those who cannot afford private health insurance. The private system will be better quality, acting as an incentive to buy it. It actually works out cheaper in the end and doesn't mess the economy around so badly.
" big difference between state planned communist economies and nations that provide or encourage social welfare"
The only difference is the degree.
"It is actually possible to have regulated private health insurance co-exist with a public system for those who cannot afford private health insurance"
You remove the profit motive through the government artifically setting prices via PUBLIC OPTION competition you distort the market.
The public police does not compete with the private sector. There is nor distortion there.
I don't think you understand how a market works. Through competition prices are driven down. THE LAW OF SUPPLY AND DEMAND will ultimately decide what a GOOD or SERVICE is worth.
When the government arbitrarily sets prices it either artificially inflates or deflates the cost of doing business.
@gideondavid30 Importantly, each market doesn't behave in exactly the same way. The point I was making is that public policing is a distortion because it competes with private security firms and private means of protection. For example, if there was no public police force or a severely reduced police force there would be more private security guards and contracts due to increased demand. Prices would sky rocket for security guards but in theory they would reduce with competition.
1) POLICE FORCE point noted. As of now, we have federal and state police.The founding fathers believed that a government was useful in some cases...ie military and police. However, thats where they drew the line. Both the military and police exist to protect freedom and property from enemies foreign and domestic. Anything beyond that exceeds the role of government.
@gideondavid30 But the founding fathers were pretty big rebels. They founded a democracy or mob rule when it was a dirty word. So in other words I don't think that they expected the nation's values and philosophy to stay exactly the same for the next 300 years. I do think they expected democracy and those rights and individual freedoms to survive, but you are talking about an era in history where the concept of wholistic healthcare didn't even exist.
2) I disagree. THE FOREFATHERS took into account thousands of years of monarchies and oligarthies. They made the constitution next to impossible to amend.
So, it wasn't so much the DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES they were passing down but the CHECKS AND BALANCES and LAWS. Remember the constiution was inspired by a certain philosophy.
FREE WILL, INDIVIDUALISM, SELF RELIANCE, AND LIBERTY.
@gideondavid30 But that is the same thing that I'm saying. Well, for democracy to operate effectively it need checks and balances and laws. I think they knew that, and obviously they did not want tyrranical government to form. But if you have an independent court system, individual rights, freedom of speech etc it is very difficult for tyrannical govt to form.
@gideondavid30 The point I'm trying to illustrate to you with the public policing example is that the economy is full of distortions. To arbitrarily remove the distortions without examining the negative or positive effects is misguided. The main idea that I'm disagreeing with is that ALL deregulation or non-intervention is good. I understand that you are saying that removing distortions in the market will eventually lead to more competition and the real price of goods.
2) Yes, and I agree. Regulation needs to exist so much as it exists to protect property and freedom. What I have a problem is is when the government intervenes for the purpose of providing entitlements. This is far beyond the scope of the government. And the consequence of PROVIDING for the people is an EVER GROWING GOVERNMENT. Governments that get to big become more of a threat to our freedoms an property then a protector. CHECKS AND BALANCES exist for a reason.
@gideondavid30 That's why courts and other independent arms of government exists. As part of the checks and balances. If the main issue is the corruption of government by corporations, then invest your time in stopping corruption not destroying the capacity of government to operate. Ban political donations, make lobbyists be registered and unable to force their agendas.... but making govt less able to govern is a recipe for disaster.
THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION WAS THE ONLY TRUE REVOLUTION.
What do I mean by that? I mean that the monarchy was not replaced by a dictator or oligarthy but by a New System. George Washington actually was offered a crown but he turned it down.
@gideondavid30 True and that's a good thing. But I still don't think on principle or otherwise this doesn't allow for public healthcare. I mean there is public education. And it hasn't yet created a dictatorship.
@gideondavid30 Taken from aihw.gov.au/expenditure/health.cfm :
Health expenditure represents a significant component of Australia's economy:
•$103.6 billion in 2007-08
•9.1% of gross domestic product (GDP).
Australia spends a similar proportion of its GDP on health as Norway, Italy and New Zealand. It spends more than United Kingdom and Japan, but considerably less than the United States, which spent 16.0% of GDP in 2007.
(The point is the free market approach is the prob)
@gideondavid30 But the Australian healthcare system is even more regulated than the American. But it spends less as proportion of GDP while still having a higher life expectancy than the US. Plus employers and businesses are not put at a disadvantage by having to cover their employees healthcare. It basically makes the US less competitive, is expensive and inefficient. But regulation or government intervention is not the problem, the US is the only OECD country without a universal public option.
The U.S. system is subject to alot of government regulation. You say the Austrialian is more efficient than ours and has government intervention....FINE!
However, our system would be 10X better than yours had we let free markets reign.
@gideondavid30 Yes it is a difference of degree with communism versus social democracies. I think the US will always be closest to the free market side of the spectrum. But in doing that I think it can also make smart economic decisions in areas like health. A blanket free market in all areas approach is noble in its philosophy but in the effects it has economically and socially it can fall short.
Healthcare is by no means free from market forces.
There will always be companies designing new medical equipment, scientists discovering cures for diseases, and HIGH PAY for doctors who choose to enter the profession. Money cannot be taken out of the equation.
The rule of thumb is that private companies are more efficient at providing a good or service than the government does.
@gideondavid30 Companies will still design new equipment and research will continue as per usual. Especially as people will still be willing to pay for the top medical care, the US is a wealthy nation. Money is not taken out of the equation.
All it means is there is a public system also. The sky doesn't fall in as a result.
3) Companies will "design new equipment and research" so as long as there is a profit in it.Remember, businesses exist to make money. True, charity may be the motive of SOME companies but NOT most of them. You assume that private companies can compete with the drastically low prices that the public option will provide. Only the very rich will be able to get those type of private insurances where as the middle class will have to pay a fortune.
You are not getting it. Any prices set by the government MAY NOT REFLECT the actual costs of providing healthcare. The government can lose money in providing healthcare cuz they just tax the people. Companies don't have the ability to compete when the government is setting prices that it loses money.
The only type of private companies that can survive are by those who provide healthare to milionares and billionares.
@gideondavid30 50% of people in Australia have private health insurance, and the other 50% don't. The government does interfere in the market with the public health option. It does actually work.
I do understand your economic arguments but the problem is the US is really the only country left that actually believes those arguments. I've lived in both the US and Australia.
American healthcare has its problems. But its not due to capitalism but to all the government involved in IT. Start by getting rid of MEDICARE and MEDICAID, TORT REFORM, DEFENSIVE MEDICINE, open up state lines for MORE COMPETITION.
@gideondavid30 Healthcare should be under Federal law. It is under Federal law in Australia. I don't think anyone arguing for public healthcare would be arguing against less private insurance competition.
Medicare and Medicaid seem lacking in their approach. But I don't think that is evidence in itself that public healthcare cannot work. If a supermarket chain or a bank collapsed you wouldn't assume that that type of organisation cannot work in different circumstances.
@gideondavid30 Healthcare being under Federal law means there are uniform standards and regulations across the country for insurance companies to deal with. It makes it cheaper for business to operate under, the system is more transparent. I know that might sound like government taking over to you, but it really does make the system more upfront for everyone.
"uniform standards and regulations across the country for insurance companies "
Thats all fine and dandy but these laws can work against the doctors who make judgment calls throughout their practice. BIG BUREAUCRACY makes practicing medicine difficult. We already have TORT.
Often the government will forbid or delay new methods of healing diseases. Those that are desparate should not be denied these type of procedures if they ar
@gideondavid30 And if its under a federal standard legal system then its easier for everyone to see what is going on. Instead of duplicating 50 or more different systems, and having no-one sure what is happening. Federalization is actually an easier way towards removing unneccesary regulations. I'm all for deregulation and the simplification of the law as long as there is a case for it.
@gideondavid30 Yeah, and one of your major points is about corporations using government to shut out competition and entrench themselves. So if there is federal law that applies to everyone, don't you think it would be a lot easier to assess and notice if the laws are corrupt?
FEDERAL LAWS: Remember that we have regulation on the books. Plenty, And it didn't prevent a recession. The Corporations still got away with shit. Why? Because the marriage between corporation and government exists,. That is gonna happen man. Government officials are payed off and simply look the other way when a corporation is breaking laws or cutting corners.
@gideondavid30 But completely removing the government would only make the situation worse. The problem is if you remove the government instead of the corporations making alliances with govt they will make cartels, completely control national debate and basically run the country on their own agendas.
Banks would have no capital or liquidity requirements, meaning they might be tempted to take bigger risks and get bigger losses. There isn't a magic force that will make the bad practices go.
1 "make cartels".....Cartels exist in black markets. For example, the cartels in mexico are the DIRECT RESULT from the ilegalization of drugs. Legalize the drugs and you get rid of the cartels.
2. The government exists to protect property and liberty. If cartels break the law thats WHEN the government intervenes. The government lays the ground rules and ENFORCES THOSE RULES. However, government officials are not immune to corruption. The best way to hurt a cartel is through their wallet.
The best way to get rid of cartels is allow the free markets to rule. Why are there so many cartels in Mexico.......hmm perhaps it is because drugs are illegal. If a harmful TRUST exists then let WE THE PEOPLE rise up...BOYCOTT...and hurt companies that way. Asking the government to regulate the health insurance companies is like trying to put a fire out with gasoline.
LET US NOT UNDERESTIMATE grassroot movements and let us NOT overestimate government's usefulness.
You underestimate our constitution. People have the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press. ANY MEDIA OUTLET is subject to a bias but the OUTRIGHT DENIAL of our basic constitutional rights cannot be removed. Hence, the federal government steps in.
4) The government is really no different than a corporation. A few control ALOT. It is better to have multiple corporations existing subject to market forces than ONE BIG GOVERNMENT.
5) Banks take bigger risks when the government backs them. Remove the government bailouts and companies are subject to market forces...thus putting back risk in the equation. Bad practices in business eventually lead to businesses going out of business. The reason bad businesses exist today is because the government enables them to exist.
7) "If a supermarket chain or a bank collapsed you wouldn't assume that that type of organisation cannot work in different circumstances"
If this happened (which it did with the bailouts etc), the capital would be reallocated to other entreprenuers who can more wisely utilize it. Companies go bankrupt all time, but it isnt the end of the world. It simply means the markets need to be purged from bad business practice.
@gideondavid30 But under that logic banks would've been allowed to collapse like dominos in the US and Europe. Govts obviously don't like bailing out failed enterprises but with banks there isn't much choice, the alternative is a 2nd Great Depression.
@gideondavid30 Mate, healthcare should always be about clinical best practice in the interests of the patient. If I get treated in a public hospital in Australia or I go to have a private operation in Australia the doctor makes the decision based on what is best for me. He isn't hampered by what the insurance company will and won't pay for, and there aren't death panels or any of that scare mongering kind of stuff.
@gideondavid30 It pretty much took WW2 and large scale infrastructure programs (obviously funded by government) to bring the US GDP passed its 1929 level. And unemployment was still around 15% in 1940, down from 25%.
The govt. didn't bail out banks or provide emergency loans to the banks in 1929 and the results are quite shocking. About 10 years of "reallocation of capital" that ended with huge govt. spending on the military.
@gideondavid30 This article is kind of related to the topic. Related to the difference between communism and social capitalism. Focused on eastern europe's transition from communism to the free market. I don't expect you to believe it, but its food for thought. globalpolitician com/2843-economics-eastern-europe
Do you realize that other developed countries do have taxes, individual freedoms, the free market and government intervention? Your ideology only seems to serve the interests of a few at the expense of most Americans. It is possible to have basic social and economic protections for citizens and a free market that encourages and rewards hard work. You can buy TVs, expensive cars, mansions etc in other countries and still have accessible healthcare and education for everyone.
It comes down to the threshhold of taxation people are willingly to tolerate before giving up on their pursuits.
Remember, all that STUFF that is provided for the mass population comes at the expensve of the labor and innovation of those who CHOOSE to work their ass off.
A robust economy will not survvel FOREVER with an ENTITLED, HALF-ASSED people!
@gideondavid30 Agreed, It's not a good idea to make people lazy or unmotivated. But there is more than an enough incentive for people to work hard and succeed in other areas of the economy. The threat of homelessness and poverty is more than enough to drive people, and the promise of wealth and its security is more than encouraging. To suggest that people will not bother working hard because they have healthcare is short sighted.
"The threat of homelessness and poverty is more than enough to drive people"
Which is why we shouldn't be trying to get rid of those threats through a NANNY STATE!
"To suggest that people will not bother working hard because they have healthcare is short sighted. "
No, but healthcare simply gets real expensive. Why? Because the smoker, the druggie, the reckless, and those who don't pay taxes will get the say quality of healthcare as those who are healthy and those who pay taxes.
@gideondavid30 Look at the Australian example. Yes, smokers and the reckless do get care but it works out being cheaper for the economy and the society in the end. Healthcare does not get really expensive. It's simply fear mongering that plays into the hands of insurance companies.
People in Australia aren't any more lazy than Americans nor do they work less hours than Americans. Again there is 5% unemployment so people aren't leaching on the system.
@gideondavid30 For example take Australia- it has a public health care sytem that co-exists with a private health care system. If you buy private care you get treated faster and other benefits, but if you cannot afford the private you go public (not always because people are lazy). Unemployment is only 5%, people don't go bankrupt due to healthcare costs and businesses have healthy employees and don't have to cover their healthcare. Tax is not too high and the economy is good.
"The private system will be better quality, acting as an incentive to buy it"
This may be true but employers are mandated to provide health insurance to their employees. Why would a company choose the more expensive INSURANCE plan over the public option?
At the end of the day a heart transplant surgery for a morbidly obese person will be expensive under any insurance plan. If people are not held accountable to their life choices costs will simply go up.
@gideondavid30 Employers in Australia are NOT involved in the healthcare system. It is a HUGE market distortion to rely on the employers. It's stupid to have an employee making a decision about who they work for based on the salary, career path AND the health benefits... it doesn't allow people to be mobile and if the company decides to scrap the plan the employee gets screwed.
" If you buy private care you get treated faster and other benefits"
Thats the point though. The quality dip that results from rationing and waiting lines is not worth creating a public option. Sick people need to be treated now or the chances of them dieing goes up.
In America, we do provide emergency care to people. We do bill them but they will get treated.
@gideondavid30 But if people can not afford the private care then they would much rather PUBLIC care than no care at all. The people who want CHOICE and speed still get it through private health insurance.
It is worth creating a public option so people don't go bankrupt, lose jobs, lose houses, stop spending and wrecking the rest of the economy.
"It is worth creating a public option so people don't go bankrupt, lose jobs, lose houses, stop spending and wrecking the rest of the economy."
Why not give free food, water, and shelter, then have the people work to pay their healthcare premiums? How about the government provides ALL THE BASIC NEEDS FOR SURVIVAL. That way, people only work for recreational needs.
@gideondavid30 Why stop at healthcare? Because its neccesary economically and socially. I know that the central push of your argument rests on fear of government and there are strong historical reasons for that in the US, but do you seriously think that the govt wants to control everything?
The government does not provide universal food, water an shelter because that would be stupid. The government DOES provide targeted welfare to people who may need it in terms of shelter etc.
8) "but do you seriously think that the govt wants to control everything?
"
Remember, WE THE PEOPLE only have 2 PARTIES To choose from. Thats one step removed from a TYRANNY. Special interests and lobbyists plague Washington.
It is the few who make decisions for the many. The bigger the government gets the greater the chance a tyranny can exist. I am not saying that we would turn into CUBA, but what i am saying is that the government can actually be damaging to our economic engine.
@gideondavid30 The other good thing about a public option, is that during a recession even though people will lose their jobs (maybe even homes) they will still have some healthcare. That means they are ready to work again, pay their bills and SPEND money into the economy thus creating a flow on effect of more jobs.
You are the classic liberal thinker. Spend lots of money in hard times and spend lots of money in good times. Afterall, there is never a shortage of PETER's to rob to pay PAUL.
In reality, that just isn't the case.
FREE MARKETS seem dangerous but people fail to grasp the concept of a self regulating market. What peoplei don't get is the alliances that are formed between the government and corporations.
@gideondavid30 I believe in govt spending LOTS of money in recessions but not during economic booms. During economic booms the government should save money to use when the recession does happen.
I know what you're saying with a self-regulating free market and the invisible hand. Its an attractive way to look at markets. Because it gives the hope that we can have pure democracy in the sense that we won't have to fear authoritarian government and we will all have freedom and a stable economy.
9) "believe in govt spending LOTS of money in recessions but not during economic booms"
yes the Keynesian approach that has failed IN America. It doesn't work at all. Jobs are produced by individual businesses. STIMULUS does nothing more than delay the necessary lows that need to happen for the market to correct itself. After the money is spent we are simply in more debt. Don't take my word for it just look at the employment and deficits that exist in the US.
@gideondavid30 But the US runs deficits during recessions and during economic booms. Both sides Republicans and Democrats haven't gotten spending under control. The US has a huge military expenditure and health expenditure so no wonder it has debt problems. If the government is not allowed to develop a broad and stable tax base then of course its going to have huge debt, unless it cuts programs it obviously can't such as military expenditure.
7) We are in unchartered territory when it comes to our deficit. WAKE UP! The show is over man. It is time to cut spending.
8) Yes we need to end our wars AS WELL as our SOCIAL PROGRAMS. We can't afford the WELFARE STATE.
9) Yes the government needs TAXES but too much of it is a bad thing. Think of it like adding spice to your favorite dish. Just the right amount of spice makes the meal delicious. Too much spice and you RUIN THE MEAL (cont..)
10) I will conlude with this: the only way a big bureaucratic,regulating, benovelent government can exist is when GOOD PEOPLE are running the show. However, history tells us that people are subject to CORRUPTION. That is something you have to factor in. Just because we have OVERSIGHT and LAYERS OF BUREAUCRACY doesn't mean a society is gonna be free from CRIME and ABUSE. Once a link in the chain is BOUGHT OFF REGULATION becomes useless.
Hence, VOTING with your dollar is better at regulating.
@gideondavid30 The problem with self-regulation is that monopolies and cartels get created. In theory if one corporation has bought up all the other corporations in its market and drives up the price, then another corporation would emerge to challenge these high prices. The problem is that in the absence of a regulator the monopolizer will do anything to crush that emerging corporate competitor. Ideally, the monopolizer would lower their prices... but they won't do that, but anything but that.
10) "The problem with self-regulation is that monopolies and cartels get created"
I disagree. The only time monopolies are destructive is when the government keeps them alive. Walmart is just about a monopoly and it provides goods at low prices that benefit the common man. They exist because the GOOD or SERVICE they provide is SUPERIOR than the rest.
Monopolies that are bad are kept there by the government that creates them. The public school system is a good example (cont....)
10) it costs almost twice as much to provide an education to a child than it does in a private school. Essentialy, the DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION is a monopoly created by the government. Our school system is notorious for failing a good portion of our students.
Also, major corporations are able to dominate markets by the government that protects them through lobbyists. Laws can be created to keep competition from existing and so the corporation is left UNCHECKED. Just look at the BAILOUTS!!!
11) If pure free markets existed corporations would have no leverage because the government is too small to be controlled. Once a corporation chooses to lower the quality of its good or service or raise the price, it leaves room for competitors to grab a piece of the market. People will ultimately vote the corporation out of existence through the ALMIGHTY DOLLAR. That is called a boycott and it is extremely effective.
I will concede that MUTUAL COOPERATION and MOTIVATION can help a PEOPLE ENDURE a government with HIGH taxation. However, thats IF people CHOOSE to cooperate and WORK HARD so that everybody does not go without.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"I've got a three letter word J, O, B, S." Correct me if I'm mistaken, but i believe that's four letters. Sorry, that was bugging me. Now some thoughts, from watching your videos i have come to the conclusion that your greatest hero is a Hollywood cowboy, and your greatest goals in life include advancing yourselves at the cost of others ("old school capitalist") and destroying the government which protects you. Enjoy your twisted world of moral absolutes and crappy rap.
Capitalism via the dictionary - system based on a free market, open competition, profit motive and private ownership of the means of production.
Socialism via the dictionary - system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution in the community as a whole.
Socialism and big government entitlement programs advance someone at the cost of someone else
@TheYoungCons You assume that those who own the means of production are people. They're faceless corporations ran by people who care about profit motives instead of human beings. That's the basis of the system you're defending. You want a world where only 2% of the population control 98% of the wealth. That's fucked up. It's really fucked up. Capitalism has no morals or ethics so people marry it with democracy so it has them by default. That's also fucked up and immoral.
@houstonJK Capitalism offers you the opportunity to be a captain of industry. If you don't have what it takes, or prefer not to be, don't ridicule those who do. If yhou prefer for a "faceless" government to run what INVESTOR OWNED corporations are now doing, then you will really see beaurocratic junk as a result. I wish you good luck in whatever endeavors you have.
@friedie1jeff It's so simplistic as to be disingenuous to pretend that all you need is "what it takes" to become a "captain of industry". You have to have "what it takes" within the context of your upbringing. That means many people would have to be able to first understand that opportunity is there, then escape their local poverty long enough to get a proper education, then overcome the cultural barriers based on their origins, race, or other aspects, and then be lucky enough to be noticed.
@balthcat Don't use your failure in life as the typical example. Our universities graduate tens of thousands of engineers each year who become very successful - TENS OF THOUSANDS. And they are all from very very diverse backgrounds.
@balthcat Almost every successful person I know, including me, started with zero resources and plenty of ability. Stop blaming the entire world for your failures and get moving if you want to do something better.
@friedie1jeff Why do you insist that my beliefs are rooted in personal failure? It's not for me that I want healthcare in the US. I'm in Canada. I get it for free. I am not starving, or dying, or uneducated. How does my desire to give food, medicine, and education to others have to stem from a lack in my own life?
Perhaps that says more about you than it does about me. Do YOU only seek to fix things which affect you personally? Do you not see pain and wish for that pain to end?
Comment removed
grigoriy0225 5 days ago
this is god awful. go die in a hole
RKB2424 2 weeks ago
see what rap has done?? LMFAO
reneperezz 2 weeks ago
My point is not to beat up on those truly waylaid by their circumstances but; it is to point out that the majority of ppl "down on their luck" out there really could improve themselves if they wanted to! Sometimes you have to work crappy job, hours, etc to get from point A to point B. I found a way to put myself through college and as tempting as it was at times to say "woe is me" I just kept pushing.
Rdogg911 1 month ago
Well knucklez2 I must admit I think you have a pt in many cases. However, there are also many "white ppl" like myself not born into privilege - broken home, mom left at 12, father disowned me at 20, no relationship with him in over 20 yr and somehow I found a way to make myself better. Today - Bach and master's and have been working as a professional for over 14 yr now - could it be, maybe that since I wasn't going to be pulled down by my circumstances I was still able to make it work?
Rdogg911 1 month ago
Nice job rapping about Ayn Rand while being anti-athiest Jesus freaks.
Licentiathe8th 2 months ago
@TheYoungCons Carry your ass to Somalia and see how your bullshit ideology works.
Tradeofjane 2 months ago
"I've got a three letter words - J O B S" SO EDUCATED
LordOmegaLL 3 months ago
@LordOmegaLL They are making fun of your Vice President Joe Biden when he said "Look, John's (mcain) last-minute economic plan does nothing to tackle the number-one job facing the middle class, and it happens to be, as Barack says, a three-letter word: jobs. J-O-B-S, jobs." ..Joe Biden
777archangeI777 3 weeks ago
@LordOmegaLL it would appear its your education that is lacking.... Silly Liberal.
777archangeI777 3 weeks ago
Who thought it was a good idea to put that shrimpy dancer next to stretch there?
TheRealSatanicpanic 4 months ago
Fuck groupthink.
cincyblows 4 months ago
I just YTPed this... Lol
demdanglibruls 5 months ago
Test
demdanglibruls 5 months ago
I'm a conservative (to put it mildly) and even I think this is stupid.
They have ability, but this is so out of context it isn't even funny. They should be applying themselves in a different fashion. No offense intended, but the truth is the truth.
TheCanine2 5 months ago 2
Hijacking the music of an oppressed minority to sing about how great it is to be white and privileged, gg
TomeOG 5 months ago
Young Cons is fitting because 'con' is an abbreviation of convict. Just like all republicunts.
wutangebooks 5 months ago
coach god bless u dave rufful
RikidFailure 5 months ago
we are not a country of entitlements and handouts
Myger402 6 months ago 3
I'm white and happily born to privilege, and even I hate these assholes. Get out of my country, you useless fucks.
eertmalp 7 months ago
@eertmalp Your parents must be real proud......pathetic. Have you wrecked Mommies car yet?
123karismith 5 months ago
@123karismith Yeah, you're right. That was a poorly worded reply, and i apologize for it. But still, these kids are sending out established talking points for an anti-entitlement, anti-social program movement. I don't shower in Perrier, I shower in tap water like a normal American- and tap water is a public option. These guys are literally against this. They aren't Republicans- they're Accelerationists- they want to accelerate the destruction of our govt, think we'll be better off without it.
eertmalp 5 months ago
@eertmalp I wish the fog would lift from your thought process, these boys aren't spouting "talking points" they are talking truth. The destruction of this Government started 100 years ago in the progressive movement, government hand out de-motivate people from providing for them selves. The people on the dole become dependent on a Government system that over promises and under delivers, because there are too few people to tax and to many waiting to be pampered. It's called honest labor
123karismith 5 months ago
It feels more like they're talking slightly fast than really rapping.
YaoiHuntressEarth 9 months ago 5
youtube . com/user/mav2225 <The "dancer"'s youtube account, in case you like to tell him how ya feel. Or just like to laugh at his terrible dancing.
shakerson 9 months ago
This is talentlesss....... its putrid. My eyes took a sh$t for the first time today. The tall one looks like Igor Spenglar.
johnstjulien 9 months ago
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
ebolasoulja 9 months ago
Comment removed
ebolasoulja 9 months ago
Wow! These privileged white douchebags sure are edgy and urban.
L188188 9 months ago
"Jobs" is not a 3-letter word, dumbasses.
shakerson 9 months ago
@shakerson That's a jab at Biden (of course you probably don't know who that is....not an Xbox game character) when he said that........go back to sleep, the country is about to change and you'll just wake up and work for who ever is in charge.
123karismith 5 months ago
@123karismith I wouldn't know if he was an Xbox character (I don't own one) and I am conscious of the change our country is going through. I will not "wake up and work for whoever is in charge" because I possess things such as independent critical thinking and a basic understanding of grammar structure, unlike yourself, which I can use to express the type of change I want to see and just maybe change some people's minds. Hint: Making assumptions about someone is not a good way to do that.
shakerson 5 months ago
@shakerson You make the assumption that I was trying to persuade you to change your mind, that wasn't my intent, I was obviously wasting a sarcastic response to your lack of knowledge to what they were referencing. You definitely have very impressive grammar structure as you proved in your original post. Please do tell me about the change you reference yet don't explain in your oh so eloquent response. Type away young wordsmith and change the world.....Oh and I do have an assumption about you.
123karismith 5 months ago
@123karismith There's not enough space here for me to explain my politics to you. I'll leave space for people to voice their opinions on the video. If you'd honestly like to know what I believe, you can message me and ask anything you would like to know. I will send you a response and I will not be condescending, nor will I resort to name-calling, unless you chose to do so while asking. I can be as respectful, or as disrespectful, as you can.
shakerson 5 months ago
@shakerson By the way, DO you know who Biden is???
123karismith 5 months ago
@123karismith VPOTUS. I wasn't aware of his gaffe until I read that and looked it up ('cause I check facts and don't ignorantly assume that everyone knows what they're talking about). Also, to preempt any assumptions, I happen to know Biden is a jackass and I don't find Obama as charismatic as many do. However, I don't believe Biden's utter stupidity or Obama's oratory are as damaging to this country as Ann Coulter and Glenn Beck's conspiratorial insanity.
shakerson 5 months ago
this is HORRIBLE!!!
tadeturton 9 months ago
why is that midget breakdancing?
johnforz 9 months ago
you guys are the worst rappers i have heard all year
NicholasUrman 9 months ago
white people.
penetration999 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Nice flow douchelords!
cannibalelvis 9 months ago
Nice flow douchelords!
cannibalelvis 9 months ago
this is very, very bad.
josephmarshall 9 months ago
horrendous fail
alanratboyrichards 9 months ago
i was about to call this video geeky and gay but then i saw the short guy breaking out some smooth moves on the floor, thus restoring all previously lost street cred.
psycomedia 9 months ago
It's beautiful that we live in a country where two consensual adults can live with their little buddy in marital bliss like this. Way to go New Hampshire!
but this really needs a chorus by Rebecca Black.
dollarvandemos 9 months ago
This is worse than cancer.
combetthefrog 9 months ago 32
@combetthefrog
May you never have it
cl6002k5 6 months ago
wow, these guys suck
alexianquestion 9 months ago 3
and not to mention this is the worst "music" video I've ever seen, that guy doing the dancing is just a douche, who the hell came up with this lame video idea. If you're trying to send a message maybe the video should be more about the message than a couple of "conservative" douchebags "rapping"and some even more lame ass dancing on tables on a beach? I wish I could give this video a million dislikes.
ematthews0483 9 months ago 4
These guys are fucking lame ass fags, if these guys showed up at one of my parties they'd get made fun of to the point they'd cry republican tears (which are like crocodile tears).
ematthews0483 9 months ago
how does open competition not advance someone at the cost of someone else?
warren4570 9 months ago 3
@warren4570
Yeah, I would think that's the likely outcome of competition.
ihatethisvideo 9 months ago
Any law that upholds one company over another is not a good law. What we have in this country is not
capitalism but CORPORITISM. You HATE corporations and the insurance companies? Then perhaps you
should consider shrinking government interference which artficially props up these companies.
I know its easy to say that a country has better health care because....but you have to look at the economy as a whole.
gideondavid30 9 months ago
White people born into privilege literally believe anyone can just open a book and succeed.
lol
knucklez2 10 months ago 21
@knucklez2 Your comment is stupid as this video. It's no different than saying "All black people are criminals" or "All Mexicans are here illegally." Think smart and use your head if you want to win against the people who paid for this video. White, Black, Brown, All Races, we need to unite. Neo-Cons love self-segregation, it means less work for them.
therealsanjaypatel 9 months ago
@knucklez2 Get off your backside, off the Xbox and stay off the street corners . . . and yeah open a book once in a while -- you might succeed.
Ksay1950 7 months ago
@knucklez2
Stop hating and do something to succeed. If you spent less time worrying about "rich" aka successful people maybe you would be living the life you want. I'm a Young Conservative and fully support the Young Cons!
cl6002k5 6 months ago 3
@cl6002k5 It's not so easy to just "do something" and succeed. The country,. let alone the world, is not that simple. The majority of people in the world can't just become rich on drive alone, nor can they live the life they want. I am a college student and I am doing all I can to be successful, and honestly, I probably will be. However, your logic is very fallacious.
knucklez2 6 months ago
@knucklez2 Bullshizz, if you work hard and get an education, you'll do great. I don't care your color or background, there are too many people that quit trying or never start and then they cry that life's tough. Guess what? Life is tough, you gotta fight for more then just your right to party....It's funny how many racist comments are here against these young white guys....oh, racism is alive and well, just remember who's talking it.
123karismith 5 months ago
@123karismith First, I will address your comment on racism. Racism can come from any person/group towards any other person or group. There's no sole perpetrator, however, if you look at Racism as a system in the USA, white people are more likely to succeed. Second of all, not everyone has access to an education. People who are raised within certain lifestyle boundaries just never get a chance. Plus, A lot of people graduating college can't even get jobs these days. Life isn't so simple.
knucklez2 5 months ago
@knucklez2 Your defeatist attitude will be the only chains that hold you back, I have a Daughter-in -law that graduated college last year and she finally landed her first post college job after 19 interviews. She wanted to give up after 5 then 10 and 15 interviews, but she kept going, never accepting no as the final answer, because of her persistence and luck she now has a start to her career. Quit the pity party and get after it and you'll succeed. People fought for ever inch of this country.
123karismith 5 months ago
@123karismith Oh, but I don't have a defeatist attitude about myself. I know that I personally will be successful because I am intelligent, going to a good college and have a drive to succeed. However, I don't look over the fact that MOST PEOPLE in this country, let alone the world, simply do not have the opportunities that I or your daughter have. You can't simply imply your own anecdotal evidence as a sweeping generalization about opportunity int his country. i hope you understand.
knucklez2 5 months ago
@knucklez2 I'm white and I failed but at least I tried and don't blame anybody but my self.. Get off the race card idiot. That is a good excuse...fifty years ago but not now. Be as loser, your choice.
ronnelson82 5 months ago
@ronnelson82 If you go purely by statistics, white people have a higher chance of success due to cultural and financial backgrounds. Congratulations on your failure though, you're a shining example that even the privileged can fail.
knucklez2 5 months ago
@knucklez2 : Regardless of "statistics" some are not reliable because they are based on assumptions and estimations, not actual figures (like populations, mortality rates etc). If you take your statistics from reliable sources, indeed it will be a valid way to back up your info.So prove it. Is race, gender, sexuality etc.supposed to make people put aside their ideologies and common sense. Why?
MsElena505 5 months ago
@knucklez2 another example of the reverse racist left trying to hamstring conservatives message of personal responsibility, productivity and frugal spending. too bad it won't work.
chrispollock 3 months ago
Not my style of presentation, but I like the message.
\m/
twistedxdetsiwt 1 year ago
There is no moral relativism? Really? I guess that the world is all black or white. It must be wondeful to be a simpleton.
friedie1jeff 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@friedie1jeff
It's a shame I can only vote this up once.
ihatethisvideo 9 months ago
J O B S ... yes... I'll be lucky if I make 3K by the end of the year!!!
rock1witme 1 year ago
Hey bad poetry bad ideas stupid white creeps riding on a black art
jangothor 1 year ago 2
Comment removed
asusla 1 year ago
Based on your religious obsessions, you probably oppose drug legalization and gay marriage. Based on your love of Reagan, you probably support interventionism abroad. So why are you talking about individualism?
Also, "we are not statists"?
Unless you're an anarchist or panarchist/radical minarchist, yes. Yes you are.
vaguelyhumanoid 1 year ago 2
@vaguelyhumanoid Very well said. And Reagan don't made government smaller, but much bigger. He was bigger statist then Carter. In 1981-1989 government spending was above 34% of GDP, but in last year in Carter presidency 31% of GDP, but in absolute number government grove even more. If you are real anti-statist, you must love Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson or James Buchanan. They are real fighters against big government.
rivertify 1 year ago
"success is addictive"
amen.
cristinaa517 1 year ago 3
TO THE YOUNGCONS,
Alot of haters. I absolutely love your rap.!
gideondavid30 1 year ago
to:togoyoyogo
he three letter and splled it with four so the liberals would know what he is talking about
goingape1 1 year ago
the way i see this video is if you want a merical be the merical
goingape1 1 year ago
Removing failure removes achievement? I'm pretty sure the pursuit of money and getting it is an achievement that most people already work for already. I don't understand. Are you saying people need the threat of poor health and complete destitution to be able to achieve anything?
beamla 1 year ago
"Removing failure removes achievement"
Remember, everybody in the Soviet Union had a job. You would think government intervention provided a SECURITY and SAFETY for its people. Ultimately, all those people were poor!
gideondavid30 1 year ago
@gideondavid30 The Cold War is over and more to the point there is a big difference between state planned communist economies and nations that provide or encourage social welfare. It is actually possible to have regulated private health insurance co-exist with a public system for those who cannot afford private health insurance. The private system will be better quality, acting as an incentive to buy it. It actually works out cheaper in the end and doesn't mess the economy around so badly.
beamla 1 year ago
" big difference between state planned communist economies and nations that provide or encourage social welfare"
The only difference is the degree.
"It is actually possible to have regulated private health insurance co-exist with a public system for those who cannot afford private health insurance"
You remove the profit motive through the government artifically setting prices via PUBLIC OPTION competition you distort the market.
gideondavid30 1 year ago
@gideondavid30 And it's a good distortion because it works. It's also a market distortion to provide public police and laws.
beamla 1 year ago
The public police does not compete with the private sector. There is nor distortion there.
I don't think you understand how a market works. Through competition prices are driven down. THE LAW OF SUPPLY AND DEMAND will ultimately decide what a GOOD or SERVICE is worth.
When the government arbitrarily sets prices it either artificially inflates or deflates the cost of doing business.
gideondavid30 1 year ago
@gideondavid30 Importantly, each market doesn't behave in exactly the same way. The point I was making is that public policing is a distortion because it competes with private security firms and private means of protection. For example, if there was no public police force or a severely reduced police force there would be more private security guards and contracts due to increased demand. Prices would sky rocket for security guards but in theory they would reduce with competition.
beamla 1 year ago
1) POLICE FORCE point noted. As of now, we have federal and state police.The founding fathers believed that a government was useful in some cases...ie military and police. However, thats where they drew the line. Both the military and police exist to protect freedom and property from enemies foreign and domestic. Anything beyond that exceeds the role of government.
gideondavid30 1 year ago
@gideondavid30 But the founding fathers were pretty big rebels. They founded a democracy or mob rule when it was a dirty word. So in other words I don't think that they expected the nation's values and philosophy to stay exactly the same for the next 300 years. I do think they expected democracy and those rights and individual freedoms to survive, but you are talking about an era in history where the concept of wholistic healthcare didn't even exist.
beamla 1 year ago
2) I disagree. THE FOREFATHERS took into account thousands of years of monarchies and oligarthies. They made the constitution next to impossible to amend.
So, it wasn't so much the DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES they were passing down but the CHECKS AND BALANCES and LAWS. Remember the constiution was inspired by a certain philosophy.
FREE WILL, INDIVIDUALISM, SELF RELIANCE, AND LIBERTY.
gideondavid30 1 year ago
@gideondavid30 But that is the same thing that I'm saying. Well, for democracy to operate effectively it need checks and balances and laws. I think they knew that, and obviously they did not want tyrranical government to form. But if you have an independent court system, individual rights, freedom of speech etc it is very difficult for tyrannical govt to form.
beamla 1 year ago
@gideondavid30 The point I'm trying to illustrate to you with the public policing example is that the economy is full of distortions. To arbitrarily remove the distortions without examining the negative or positive effects is misguided. The main idea that I'm disagreeing with is that ALL deregulation or non-intervention is good. I understand that you are saying that removing distortions in the market will eventually lead to more competition and the real price of goods.
beamla 1 year ago
2) Yes, and I agree. Regulation needs to exist so much as it exists to protect property and freedom. What I have a problem is is when the government intervenes for the purpose of providing entitlements. This is far beyond the scope of the government. And the consequence of PROVIDING for the people is an EVER GROWING GOVERNMENT. Governments that get to big become more of a threat to our freedoms an property then a protector. CHECKS AND BALANCES exist for a reason.
gideondavid30 1 year ago
@gideondavid30 That's why courts and other independent arms of government exists. As part of the checks and balances. If the main issue is the corruption of government by corporations, then invest your time in stopping corruption not destroying the capacity of government to operate. Ban political donations, make lobbyists be registered and unable to force their agendas.... but making govt less able to govern is a recipe for disaster.
beamla 1 year ago
THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION WAS THE ONLY TRUE REVOLUTION.
What do I mean by that? I mean that the monarchy was not replaced by a dictator or oligarthy but by a New System. George Washington actually was offered a crown but he turned it down.
gideondavid30 1 year ago
@gideondavid30 True and that's a good thing. But I still don't think on principle or otherwise this doesn't allow for public healthcare. I mean there is public education. And it hasn't yet created a dictatorship.
beamla 1 year ago
Education is like 5.7% of our GDP. Healthcare is like 20% of our GDP.
Thats a considerable growth in government
And of course the rule of thumb is government is more inefficient and more evasive.
gideondavid30 1 year ago
@gideondavid30 Taken from aihw.gov.au/expenditure/health.cfm :
Health expenditure represents a significant component of Australia's economy:
•$103.6 billion in 2007-08
•9.1% of gross domestic product (GDP).
Australia spends a similar proportion of its GDP on health as Norway, Italy and New Zealand. It spends more than United Kingdom and Japan, but considerably less than the United States, which spent 16.0% of GDP in 2007.
(The point is the free market approach is the prob)
beamla 1 year ago
UNITED STATES healthcare is not top tier. In fact, it is highly inefficient. However, that isn't due to insurance but to other factors.
gideondavid30 1 year ago
@gideondavid30 But the Australian healthcare system is even more regulated than the American. But it spends less as proportion of GDP while still having a higher life expectancy than the US. Plus employers and businesses are not put at a disadvantage by having to cover their employees healthcare. It basically makes the US less competitive, is expensive and inefficient. But regulation or government intervention is not the problem, the US is the only OECD country without a universal public option.
beamla 1 year ago
LET ME REPEAT:
The U.S. system is subject to alot of government regulation. You say the Austrialian is more efficient than ours and has government intervention....FINE!
However, our system would be 10X better than yours had we let free markets reign.
Thats the point. It comes down to efficiency.
gideondavid30 1 year ago
@gideondavid30 Yes it is a difference of degree with communism versus social democracies. I think the US will always be closest to the free market side of the spectrum. But in doing that I think it can also make smart economic decisions in areas like health. A blanket free market in all areas approach is noble in its philosophy but in the effects it has economically and socially it can fall short.
beamla 1 year ago
Healthcare is by no means free from market forces.
There will always be companies designing new medical equipment, scientists discovering cures for diseases, and HIGH PAY for doctors who choose to enter the profession. Money cannot be taken out of the equation.
The rule of thumb is that private companies are more efficient at providing a good or service than the government does.
gideondavid30 1 year ago
@gideondavid30 Companies will still design new equipment and research will continue as per usual. Especially as people will still be willing to pay for the top medical care, the US is a wealthy nation. Money is not taken out of the equation.
All it means is there is a public system also. The sky doesn't fall in as a result.
beamla 1 year ago
3) Companies will "design new equipment and research" so as long as there is a profit in it.Remember, businesses exist to make money. True, charity may be the motive of SOME companies but NOT most of them. You assume that private companies can compete with the drastically low prices that the public option will provide. Only the very rich will be able to get those type of private insurances where as the middle class will have to pay a fortune.
gideondavid30 1 year ago
@gideondavid30 But the middle class's quality of healthcare is not going to be reduced, and it won't stretch them as much as it does today.
beamla 1 year ago
HEALTHCARE:
You are not getting it. Any prices set by the government MAY NOT REFLECT the actual costs of providing healthcare. The government can lose money in providing healthcare cuz they just tax the people. Companies don't have the ability to compete when the government is setting prices that it loses money.
The only type of private companies that can survive are by those who provide healthare to milionares and billionares.
gideondavid30 1 year ago
@gideondavid30 50% of people in Australia have private health insurance, and the other 50% don't. The government does interfere in the market with the public health option. It does actually work.
I do understand your economic arguments but the problem is the US is really the only country left that actually believes those arguments. I've lived in both the US and Australia.
beamla 1 year ago
American healthcare has its problems. But its not due to capitalism but to all the government involved in IT. Start by getting rid of MEDICARE and MEDICAID, TORT REFORM, DEFENSIVE MEDICINE, open up state lines for MORE COMPETITION.
Very simple.
gideondavid30 1 year ago
@gideondavid30 Healthcare should be under Federal law. It is under Federal law in Australia. I don't think anyone arguing for public healthcare would be arguing against less private insurance competition.
Medicare and Medicaid seem lacking in their approach. But I don't think that is evidence in itself that public healthcare cannot work. If a supermarket chain or a bank collapsed you wouldn't assume that that type of organisation cannot work in different circumstances.
beamla 1 year ago
4) "Healthcare SHOULD be under Federal law"
Based on what logic or law?
5) Medicare and MEdicaid are smaller versions of a public option. Both programs are going bankrupt.
6) The U.S. is not a wealthy nation. We are on the road to bankrupty. Have you looked at our defiicit lately? Let us deal with the facts, please.
gideondavid30 1 year ago
@gideondavid30 Healthcare being under Federal law means there are uniform standards and regulations across the country for insurance companies to deal with. It makes it cheaper for business to operate under, the system is more transparent. I know that might sound like government taking over to you, but it really does make the system more upfront for everyone.
beamla 1 year ago
"uniform standards and regulations across the country for insurance companies "
Thats all fine and dandy but these laws can work against the doctors who make judgment calls throughout their practice. BIG BUREAUCRACY makes practicing medicine difficult. We already have TORT.
Often the government will forbid or delay new methods of healing diseases. Those that are desparate should not be denied these type of procedures if they ar
gideondavid30 1 year ago
@gideondavid30 And if its under a federal standard legal system then its easier for everyone to see what is going on. Instead of duplicating 50 or more different systems, and having no-one sure what is happening. Federalization is actually an easier way towards removing unneccesary regulations. I'm all for deregulation and the simplification of the law as long as there is a case for it.
beamla 1 year ago
AS LONG as those federal standards are SIMPLE and SWEET.
gideondavid30 1 year ago
@gideondavid30 Yeah, and one of your major points is about corporations using government to shut out competition and entrench themselves. So if there is federal law that applies to everyone, don't you think it would be a lot easier to assess and notice if the laws are corrupt?
beamla 1 year ago
FEDERAL LAWS: Remember that we have regulation on the books. Plenty, And it didn't prevent a recession. The Corporations still got away with shit. Why? Because the marriage between corporation and government exists,. That is gonna happen man. Government officials are payed off and simply look the other way when a corporation is breaking laws or cutting corners.
gideondavid30 1 year ago
@gideondavid30 But completely removing the government would only make the situation worse. The problem is if you remove the government instead of the corporations making alliances with govt they will make cartels, completely control national debate and basically run the country on their own agendas.
Banks would have no capital or liquidity requirements, meaning they might be tempted to take bigger risks and get bigger losses. There isn't a magic force that will make the bad practices go.
beamla 1 year ago
1 "make cartels".....Cartels exist in black markets. For example, the cartels in mexico are the DIRECT RESULT from the ilegalization of drugs. Legalize the drugs and you get rid of the cartels.
2. The government exists to protect property and liberty. If cartels break the law thats WHEN the government intervenes. The government lays the ground rules and ENFORCES THOSE RULES. However, government officials are not immune to corruption. The best way to hurt a cartel is through their wallet.
gideondavid30 1 year ago
@gideondavid30
The health insurance industry has an anti-trust exemption. Cartel. And that's a cartel operating in a very large chunk of GDP.
Oil companies. Cartel. "The best way to hurt them is through their wallet." OK, Americans will stop driving cars and heating their homes.
ihatethisvideo 9 months ago
The best way to get rid of cartels is allow the free markets to rule. Why are there so many cartels in Mexico.......hmm perhaps it is because drugs are illegal. If a harmful TRUST exists then let WE THE PEOPLE rise up...BOYCOTT...and hurt companies that way. Asking the government to regulate the health insurance companies is like trying to put a fire out with gasoline.
LET US NOT UNDERESTIMATE grassroot movements and let us NOT overestimate government's usefulness.
gideondavid30 9 months ago
3) "completely control national debate "
You underestimate our constitution. People have the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press. ANY MEDIA OUTLET is subject to a bias but the OUTRIGHT DENIAL of our basic constitutional rights cannot be removed. Hence, the federal government steps in.
4) The government is really no different than a corporation. A few control ALOT. It is better to have multiple corporations existing subject to market forces than ONE BIG GOVERNMENT.
gideondavid30 1 year ago
5) Banks take bigger risks when the government backs them. Remove the government bailouts and companies are subject to market forces...thus putting back risk in the equation. Bad practices in business eventually lead to businesses going out of business. The reason bad businesses exist today is because the government enables them to exist.
gideondavid30 1 year ago
@gideondavid30 What would happen if you removed Medicare and Medicaid?
I would say that old people and the poor would no longer have health insurance. And then two things could happen:
1. No company insures them (because old people are costly to health systems and poor people can't pay).
2. The insurance companies do insure the old people and your health insurance premiums go up as a result of increased costs of the old people.
What do you think would eventually happen?
beamla 1 year ago
7) "If a supermarket chain or a bank collapsed you wouldn't assume that that type of organisation cannot work in different circumstances"
If this happened (which it did with the bailouts etc), the capital would be reallocated to other entreprenuers who can more wisely utilize it. Companies go bankrupt all time, but it isnt the end of the world. It simply means the markets need to be purged from bad business practice.
gideondavid30 1 year ago
@gideondavid30 But under that logic banks would've been allowed to collapse like dominos in the US and Europe. Govts obviously don't like bailing out failed enterprises but with banks there isn't much choice, the alternative is a 2nd Great Depression.
beamla 1 year ago
HEALTHCARE: should be about a case by case basis and people deserve choices.
Again, incentives for preventive medicine should be offered. Those that live healthier lives should be rewarded for it.
gideondavid30 1 year ago
@gideondavid30 Mate, healthcare should always be about clinical best practice in the interests of the patient. If I get treated in a public hospital in Australia or I go to have a private operation in Australia the doctor makes the decision based on what is best for me. He isn't hampered by what the insurance company will and won't pay for, and there aren't death panels or any of that scare mongering kind of stuff.
beamla 1 year ago
1) THE GREAT DEPRESSION is a whole different topic. Just keep this in mind, whatever got us into that depresssion FDR made sure to keep us there.
FDR was not a capitalist!!
2)
gideondavid30 1 year ago
LOOK,
it makes no sense to reward BAD BUSINESS PRACTICE by bailing companies.
Yes there would have been TEMPORARY PAIN in our government.
There is a transitonal process whereby capital is reassigned.
The government had its hands in those banks of you speak of and that is why they failed.
gideondavid30 1 year ago
@gideondavid30 It pretty much took WW2 and large scale infrastructure programs (obviously funded by government) to bring the US GDP passed its 1929 level. And unemployment was still around 15% in 1940, down from 25%.
The govt. didn't bail out banks or provide emergency loans to the banks in 1929 and the results are quite shocking. About 10 years of "reallocation of capital" that ended with huge govt. spending on the military.
beamla 1 year ago
@gideondavid30 This article is kind of related to the topic. Related to the difference between communism and social capitalism. Focused on eastern europe's transition from communism to the free market. I don't expect you to believe it, but its food for thought. globalpolitician com/2843-economics-eastern-europe
beamla 1 year ago
Do you realize that other developed countries do have taxes, individual freedoms, the free market and government intervention? Your ideology only seems to serve the interests of a few at the expense of most Americans. It is possible to have basic social and economic protections for citizens and a free market that encourages and rewards hard work. You can buy TVs, expensive cars, mansions etc in other countries and still have accessible healthcare and education for everyone.
beamla 1 year ago
beamla,
It comes down to the threshhold of taxation people are willingly to tolerate before giving up on their pursuits.
Remember, all that STUFF that is provided for the mass population comes at the expensve of the labor and innovation of those who CHOOSE to work their ass off.
A robust economy will not survvel FOREVER with an ENTITLED, HALF-ASSED people!
gideondavid30 1 year ago
@gideondavid30 Agreed, It's not a good idea to make people lazy or unmotivated. But there is more than an enough incentive for people to work hard and succeed in other areas of the economy. The threat of homelessness and poverty is more than enough to drive people, and the promise of wealth and its security is more than encouraging. To suggest that people will not bother working hard because they have healthcare is short sighted.
beamla 1 year ago
"The threat of homelessness and poverty is more than enough to drive people"
Which is why we shouldn't be trying to get rid of those threats through a NANNY STATE!
"To suggest that people will not bother working hard because they have healthcare is short sighted. "
No, but healthcare simply gets real expensive. Why? Because the smoker, the druggie, the reckless, and those who don't pay taxes will get the say quality of healthcare as those who are healthy and those who pay taxes.
gideondavid30 1 year ago
@gideondavid30 Look at the Australian example. Yes, smokers and the reckless do get care but it works out being cheaper for the economy and the society in the end. Healthcare does not get really expensive. It's simply fear mongering that plays into the hands of insurance companies.
People in Australia aren't any more lazy than Americans nor do they work less hours than Americans. Again there is 5% unemployment so people aren't leaching on the system.
beamla 1 year ago
@gideondavid30 For example take Australia- it has a public health care sytem that co-exists with a private health care system. If you buy private care you get treated faster and other benefits, but if you cannot afford the private you go public (not always because people are lazy). Unemployment is only 5%, people don't go bankrupt due to healthcare costs and businesses have healthy employees and don't have to cover their healthcare. Tax is not too high and the economy is good.
beamla 1 year ago
"The private system will be better quality, acting as an incentive to buy it"
This may be true but employers are mandated to provide health insurance to their employees. Why would a company choose the more expensive INSURANCE plan over the public option?
At the end of the day a heart transplant surgery for a morbidly obese person will be expensive under any insurance plan. If people are not held accountable to their life choices costs will simply go up.
gideondavid30 1 year ago
@gideondavid30 Employers in Australia are NOT involved in the healthcare system. It is a HUGE market distortion to rely on the employers. It's stupid to have an employee making a decision about who they work for based on the salary, career path AND the health benefits... it doesn't allow people to be mobile and if the company decides to scrap the plan the employee gets screwed.
beamla 1 year ago
" If you buy private care you get treated faster and other benefits"
Thats the point though. The quality dip that results from rationing and waiting lines is not worth creating a public option. Sick people need to be treated now or the chances of them dieing goes up.
In America, we do provide emergency care to people. We do bill them but they will get treated.
gideondavid30 1 year ago
@gideondavid30 But if people can not afford the private care then they would much rather PUBLIC care than no care at all. The people who want CHOICE and speed still get it through private health insurance.
It is worth creating a public option so people don't go bankrupt, lose jobs, lose houses, stop spending and wrecking the rest of the economy.
The Australian example is evidence in itself.
beamla 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"It is worth creating a public option so people don't go bankrupt, lose jobs, lose houses, stop spending and wrecking the rest of the economy."
Why not give free food, water, and shelter, then have the people work to pay their healthcare premiums? How about the government provides ALL THE BASIC NEEDS FOR SURVIVAL. That way, people only work for recreational needs.
Why stop at heatlhcare?
gideondavid30 1 year ago
@gideondavid30 Why stop at healthcare? Because its neccesary economically and socially. I know that the central push of your argument rests on fear of government and there are strong historical reasons for that in the US, but do you seriously think that the govt wants to control everything?
The government does not provide universal food, water an shelter because that would be stupid. The government DOES provide targeted welfare to people who may need it in terms of shelter etc.
beamla 1 year ago
8) "but do you seriously think that the govt wants to control everything?
"
Remember, WE THE PEOPLE only have 2 PARTIES To choose from. Thats one step removed from a TYRANNY. Special interests and lobbyists plague Washington.
It is the few who make decisions for the many. The bigger the government gets the greater the chance a tyranny can exist. I am not saying that we would turn into CUBA, but what i am saying is that the government can actually be damaging to our economic engine.
gideondavid30 1 year ago
@gideondavid30 The other good thing about a public option, is that during a recession even though people will lose their jobs (maybe even homes) they will still have some healthcare. That means they are ready to work again, pay their bills and SPEND money into the economy thus creating a flow on effect of more jobs.
beamla 1 year ago
You are the classic liberal thinker. Spend lots of money in hard times and spend lots of money in good times. Afterall, there is never a shortage of PETER's to rob to pay PAUL.
In reality, that just isn't the case.
FREE MARKETS seem dangerous but people fail to grasp the concept of a self regulating market. What peoplei don't get is the alliances that are formed between the government and corporations.
gideondavid30 1 year ago
@gideondavid30 I believe in govt spending LOTS of money in recessions but not during economic booms. During economic booms the government should save money to use when the recession does happen.
I know what you're saying with a self-regulating free market and the invisible hand. Its an attractive way to look at markets. Because it gives the hope that we can have pure democracy in the sense that we won't have to fear authoritarian government and we will all have freedom and a stable economy.
beamla 1 year ago
9) "believe in govt spending LOTS of money in recessions but not during economic booms"
yes the Keynesian approach that has failed IN America. It doesn't work at all. Jobs are produced by individual businesses. STIMULUS does nothing more than delay the necessary lows that need to happen for the market to correct itself. After the money is spent we are simply in more debt. Don't take my word for it just look at the employment and deficits that exist in the US.
gideondavid30 1 year ago
@gideondavid30 But the US runs deficits during recessions and during economic booms. Both sides Republicans and Democrats haven't gotten spending under control. The US has a huge military expenditure and health expenditure so no wonder it has debt problems. If the government is not allowed to develop a broad and stable tax base then of course its going to have huge debt, unless it cuts programs it obviously can't such as military expenditure.
beamla 1 year ago
7) We are in unchartered territory when it comes to our deficit. WAKE UP! The show is over man. It is time to cut spending.
8) Yes we need to end our wars AS WELL as our SOCIAL PROGRAMS. We can't afford the WELFARE STATE.
9) Yes the government needs TAXES but too much of it is a bad thing. Think of it like adding spice to your favorite dish. Just the right amount of spice makes the meal delicious. Too much spice and you RUIN THE MEAL (cont..)
gideondavid30 1 year ago
10) I will conlude with this: the only way a big bureaucratic,regulating, benovelent government can exist is when GOOD PEOPLE are running the show. However, history tells us that people are subject to CORRUPTION. That is something you have to factor in. Just because we have OVERSIGHT and LAYERS OF BUREAUCRACY doesn't mean a society is gonna be free from CRIME and ABUSE. Once a link in the chain is BOUGHT OFF REGULATION becomes useless.
Hence, VOTING with your dollar is better at regulating.
gideondavid30 1 year ago
@gideondavid30 The problem with self-regulation is that monopolies and cartels get created. In theory if one corporation has bought up all the other corporations in its market and drives up the price, then another corporation would emerge to challenge these high prices. The problem is that in the absence of a regulator the monopolizer will do anything to crush that emerging corporate competitor. Ideally, the monopolizer would lower their prices... but they won't do that, but anything but that.
beamla 1 year ago
10) "The problem with self-regulation is that monopolies and cartels get created"
I disagree. The only time monopolies are destructive is when the government keeps them alive. Walmart is just about a monopoly and it provides goods at low prices that benefit the common man. They exist because the GOOD or SERVICE they provide is SUPERIOR than the rest.
Monopolies that are bad are kept there by the government that creates them. The public school system is a good example (cont....)
gideondavid30 1 year ago
10) it costs almost twice as much to provide an education to a child than it does in a private school. Essentialy, the DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION is a monopoly created by the government. Our school system is notorious for failing a good portion of our students.
Also, major corporations are able to dominate markets by the government that protects them through lobbyists. Laws can be created to keep competition from existing and so the corporation is left UNCHECKED. Just look at the BAILOUTS!!!
gideondavid30 1 year ago
11) If pure free markets existed corporations would have no leverage because the government is too small to be controlled. Once a corporation chooses to lower the quality of its good or service or raise the price, it leaves room for competitors to grab a piece of the market. People will ultimately vote the corporation out of existence through the ALMIGHTY DOLLAR. That is called a boycott and it is extremely effective.
gideondavid30 1 year ago
I will concede that MUTUAL COOPERATION and MOTIVATION can help a PEOPLE ENDURE a government with HIGH taxation. However, thats IF people CHOOSE to cooperate and WORK HARD so that everybody does not go without.
gideondavid30 1 year ago
nice to see young americans taking such a strong interest in our country's future and well being. keep up the good work guys!!
wrigleyworld 1 year ago
What the world needs now is more Young Cons! To all the welfare-bum lib haters here, have a huge "piss off" from me losers. This is awesome stuff!
acutemaniadotnet 1 year ago 19
Niiiiice. I love it.
starfleetofficer1 1 year ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"I've got a three letter word J, O, B, S." Correct me if I'm mistaken, but i believe that's four letters. Sorry, that was bugging me. Now some thoughts, from watching your videos i have come to the conclusion that your greatest hero is a Hollywood cowboy, and your greatest goals in life include advancing yourselves at the cost of others ("old school capitalist") and destroying the government which protects you. Enjoy your twisted world of moral absolutes and crappy rap.
yogoyoyogo 1 year ago
@yogoyoyogo
/watch?v=bq-eeWow_WU (youtube link)
Capitalism via the dictionary - system based on a free market, open competition, profit motive and private ownership of the means of production.
Socialism via the dictionary - system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution in the community as a whole.
Socialism and big government entitlement programs advance someone at the cost of someone else
TheYoungCons 1 year ago 11
@TheYoungCons Don't sweat it guys. To libs, any word related to work is a four-letter word. He's just upset that he doesn't know who Lazarus is.
acutemaniadotnet 1 year ago
@TheYoungCons You assume that those who own the means of production are people. They're faceless corporations ran by people who care about profit motives instead of human beings. That's the basis of the system you're defending. You want a world where only 2% of the population control 98% of the wealth. That's fucked up. It's really fucked up. Capitalism has no morals or ethics so people marry it with democracy so it has them by default. That's also fucked up and immoral.
houstonJK 1 year ago
@houstonJK Capitalism offers you the opportunity to be a captain of industry. If you don't have what it takes, or prefer not to be, don't ridicule those who do. If yhou prefer for a "faceless" government to run what INVESTOR OWNED corporations are now doing, then you will really see beaurocratic junk as a result. I wish you good luck in whatever endeavors you have.
friedie1jeff 1 year ago 2
@friedie1jeff It's so simplistic as to be disingenuous to pretend that all you need is "what it takes" to become a "captain of industry". You have to have "what it takes" within the context of your upbringing. That means many people would have to be able to first understand that opportunity is there, then escape their local poverty long enough to get a proper education, then overcome the cultural barriers based on their origins, race, or other aspects, and then be lucky enough to be noticed.
balthcat 9 months ago
@balthcat Don't use your failure in life as the typical example. Our universities graduate tens of thousands of engineers each year who become very successful - TENS OF THOUSANDS. And they are all from very very diverse backgrounds.
Have a good life. I hope you find success.
friedie1jeff 9 months ago
@friedie1jeff I'm sorry, how does my example apply to me? I'm a WASP. Nice try though.
There is no such thing as equality in a free market system, because those with resources+ability always outpace those with ability alone.
balthcat 9 months ago
@balthcat Almost every successful person I know, including me, started with zero resources and plenty of ability. Stop blaming the entire world for your failures and get moving if you want to do something better.
friedie1jeff 9 months ago
@friedie1jeff Why do you insist that my beliefs are rooted in personal failure? It's not for me that I want healthcare in the US. I'm in Canada. I get it for free. I am not starving, or dying, or uneducated. How does my desire to give food, medicine, and education to others have to stem from a lack in my own life?
Perhaps that says more about you than it does about me. Do YOU only seek to fix things which affect you personally? Do you not see pain and wish for that pain to end?
balthcat 9 months ago