The oppose anything that makes america the nations collective strength. How can you call yourself an american if everything you oppose is anything that makes the u.s.a collectively strong.That can only be an anti-american. You cant make a video that says this isnt true.Can you.
You raise the following question when you state "we have already bankrupt our currency enough . . ." that the government should "pay off the debt. . .". How can an institution (Government) who by definition is the currency monopolist become bankrupt in issuing its own currency? To suggest that somehow it can become bankrupt and that it needs to raise/spend revenue on paying of debts, does not follow.
Yes, Flashback, it's a disgrace, making people off people's hunger. How sick is that? People have a right to eat. There shouldn't be profit involved. What kind of a society actually forces people to pay money to eat? We should do what Europe is doing, where they give all their food to their citizens for "free".
Europe doesn't give their food away for free. I live there, so I know. Private persons have to do that - that is; steal food (that has not gone bad yet!) from dumpsters, cook it and give it away so it doesn't go to waste.
Don't blame a watered down bill on the republicans...the dummocrats now control our governement. If you can't afford health insurance now...wait until it is free
It's amazing that republicans don't mind spending 800+billion to support a war for oil, but scream bloody murder when we try to give people health insurance. Amazing when you consider how many christians there are in the gop.
Government should NEVER be stealing from honest citizens to fund a corrupt vote buying scheme, whether the EXCUSE for their theft is "to give people health insurance" or whatever lame excuse they give for their evil schemes.
I know this is petty and shallow, but could you do something about the lighting and white balance in your videos? Just get a lamp, buy some GE Reveal light bulbs and learn how to manually adjust the white balance on your camera. It's really not that difficult.
Conversely, I love your videos and always watch them first when they show up in my subscription box. Keep up the good work!
Lee the 200 million left over from TARP does not exist. True we have approved it to be spent but, we are broke. In fact we have been broke most of my lifetime but, alas that does not seem to stop congress from spending more and more money we dont have. Our grandchildren should just punch us all in the nose right now.
The cult followers of Obama will jump off a cliff at his slightest whim and not think twice about it. Warnings of bankruptcy and the collapse of the American dollar have no meaning to them.
They're told one thing and that's what they believe and don't question it. There is no room in a cult for logic or asking questions. Being ostracized from your cult buddies is a hard thing to handle and can lead to anger and trust issues later in life.
To feel better, they watch MSNBC, America's Pravda.
No, these people are not "totally insane". They are stealing your country in a very programmed and planned way. This makes them sane, but cunningly EVIL.
This fact:
"For feds, more get 6-figure salaries
Average pay $30,000 over private sector"
is proof that we are now a communist nation and this WILL NEVER be reversed without revolution. Bankers and Politicians should learn how to swim!
Do you know what a "communist nation" is? When there is a very diverse distribution of wealth... that's just about the exact opposite of socialism. Let's not get into politics... let's just talk about knowing the meaning of the terms we throw around.
lol, if you say so. Another retard that doesn't even know the what the terms actually mean. Honestly, i bet you don't even know what socialism and communism actually are. I'm not promoting either, i feel capitalism is the only viable system here in the US but at the same time i take the time to educate myself so i don't sound like a retard in public talking about the differences between socialism/communism i obviously don't know anything about.
I run across pseudo intellectuals like you on youtube all the time, you're likely a post monderinst too. Just because you sound smart by talking nonsense doesn't make you intelligent. The difference between communism and socialism (philosophically) is almost nothing.
Lets call it what it is, collectivism(fascism, socialism, communism, ect.) vs. individualism (capitalism). Whats the difference? Property rights. Its not very complicated. Stop trying to make it.
How you define property (public vs private) is the main characteristic of any government system. The word 'property' has huge implications on what type of system you get. It effects just about every governmental decision you can make on (almost) any topic.
Of course it all goes back to property. Most political philosphy deals solely with property. But here's the difference between socialism and communism and how that difference is especially important in pointing out how retarded the republican base is today. Communism seeks to control both the economic and social by ensuring that property is owned collectively and that process of redistribution is controlled by a central gov't. Socialism only seeks to manage the economy through collective
through collective social control. That's a huge difference and it is especially funny because the right wing base is becoming pretty rabid in condemning obama as a socialist while accusing him of taking over their american lives and values. Think about that for a minute.Another funny thing about right wing rhetoric: they think facism is somehow a leftist thing when it is ideologically an extreme right position.You lumping up socialism and facism into one proves you know nothing about the terms.
How'd I know you were going to say something stupid like this.
The American government right now is closer to being fascist than capitalist, ( look at the fundamental premise of what each word means)
The main characteristic of socialism (and communism) is public ownership of the means of production, and, therefore, the abolition of private property. The right to property is the right of use and disposal. Under fascism, men retain the semblance of private property, but the government Cont...
Under fascism, citizens retain the responsibilities of owning property, without freedom to act and without any of the advantages of ownership. Under socialism, government officials acquire all the advantages of ownership, without any of the responsibilities, since they do not hold title to the property, but merely the right to use it as they please.
You seem to be thinking that we are arguing over the definition of what it means for a country to be socialist or communist or w/e. Your initial post said socialist = murder, communism = suicide. I pointed out that was a stupid comment and that it demonstrated you knew nothing about those two terms. You proceeded to say it was all about private property (duh) and i explained to you the difference between the two terms.
As I said before, There is no difference between communism and socialism (philosophically), except in the means of achieving the SAME ultimate end : communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism, by vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide.
So basically, a biased definition. Communisim and socialism enslaves men, except of course i already brought up the major deifference between the two and provided examples of countries that function democratically with socialist ideals.
And facism has no qualms about contorlling everything, there is no pretense of private ownership. But facism doesn't really deal with property. Facism is more about rejecting the materialistic basis of socialism and communism and instead try to set up a new definition of society apart from property. That's why the main characteristic of facism is rampant nationalism, and even heroism. Facism doesn't really advance an economic system, except to say that government should just control it all.
Both socialism and fascism involve the issue of property rights. The right to property is the right of USE and DISPOSAL. Observe the difference in those two theories : socialism negates private property rights altogether, and advocates the vesting of ownership and control in the community as a whole, i.e. in the state, fascism leaves ownership in the hands of private individuals, but transfers CONTROL of the property to the government.
The only reason why America has gone the fascist route is because its easier to keep the fassad of private property going, it has nothing(or very little) to do with Right vs. Left. It would be much easier for citizens to realize the govt. is the one destroying the economy if they owned the means of production outright. But if they're just in the background, pulling the strings, they can claim it was the "Market" that fucked up and gain even more control when the inevitable happens.
Facism outright rejects the economic basis of socialism and communism and capitalism. Facism as a political philosophy rejects the property and material definition of society as defined by socialism/communism/etc. And call me stupid but how do you leave OWNERSHIP in someone's hands but retain CONTROL? If you own something you control it. If you don't you don't. One or the other has to actually do the controlling, in which the ownership becomes moot, in which case, what difference does it make?
"One or the other has to actually do the controlling, in which the ownership becomes moot, in which case, what difference does it make?" - Alllllright! We're making progress D. No such thing as private property under fascism, socialism, or communism. Therfore any differences between the 3 are moot. Since the fundamental premise of them are all the SAME! Thats all I have to say about this topic, now, if you'd like to argue FOR any of the 3 vs. Capitalism, we can do that.
I guess Mussolini had the whole state corporatist economic model but Nazi Germany certainly didn't function like that, so... point is that no real stated economic model in facism, since the whole principle is a rejection of both capitalism and socialism. The "Third way."
You're not following the argument. I actually do agree that America has become more facist since W. The argument was that you said there was no real difference between socialism and communism. I explained to you the difference, and included a remark saying that it was funny that the right is accusing obama of being a socialist when they should (from their perspective) more accurately be describing him as a communist.
Actually, an edit here: America's been facist every now and again even before W, one of the higher peaks coming during the McCarthy era and the red scare.
During the Red Scare, I see no move toward imperial foreign policy, Corporatist economic models*, government control of vital industries through extensive regulation, dissolving large retailers and granting their assets to small businesses, consolidation of power in the Executive over Congress. The stated goals of, you know, actual Fascists.
Unless by Fascist you mean "right wing bogeyman! Boo, hiss."
"government control of vital industries through extensive regulation, dissolving large retailers and granting their assets to small businesses, consolidation of power in the Executive over Congress" - all of this is going on right now though*, isn't it strange that Obama isn't a right winger though? I thought you had to be a neocon to be fascist? Hm.....
*It would be more accurate to say they are dissolving large (banks) and granting their assets to even larger (banks), not small ones.
There was a move toward imperial foreign policy. Not a land grab of course but just look at S America and the power plays of the US there and in asia and the middle east. The entire cold war can be seen as imperialist policy. During the red scare, you were either american with american values or the enemy. Extreme nationalism is a main characteristic of facism. Actually, if you have the time and desire, read E.L. Doctorow's "Book of Daniel." Good book on the red scare and great book in general.
America becoming fascist has been going on way before W. And you're still trying to create some nit picky barriers between the 3 major forms of collectivism (not that I disagree there are minor differences between the 3 systems) BUT it's still the same form of governce. There isn't enough difference between the 3 to claim they are totally separate systems. On a fundamental level they all try to achieve the same thing, the "Collective Good"
Most countries right wingers call "socialist" actually do have private property. Sweden for example has a social democratic economy with a high redistribution of wealth via high taxes and very broad general welfare programs. And according to you people, Sweden is a socialist nation. Your comment on facism i just go lol.
you're just a brainwashed college boy who listened to his control freak professors too much. It's all the same fundamentals, you can put "right wing" tags on things if you want. I'm sure you think that a govt. has to be racist to be fascist too don't ya? Did your professor from the sierra club in college tell you that one too?
you can try and cherrypick facts about certain countries all day long. "See look at this country we call socialist, they have blah blah blah...." run from the premise of your argument all you want, context dropper. =P
That was a valid point about sweden especially in the context of our conversation... since we're talking about the right misusing terms, why not bring up the rest of the misinformation they spew?
What's wrong with college? You're making a lot of assumptions, like, "I bet you're a post-modernist," and "I'm sure you think a facist gov't is racist," among other assumptions. So let me make some too. You think you're smart, you went to college, and in fact you thought you were smarter than everybody else there, including the professors, but couldn't ever really prove it so you content yourself by telling the mirror that you're unique in your special brand of liberal hate.
"you're unique in your special brand of liberal hate. "
You're right, I do dislike liberals, but unlike you, I'm logically consistent, I dislike conservatives as well. I don't sit here and point fingers at one side and say "look how dumb you are...silly republicans" and then spout on how democrats are super awesome. If W was so fascist, why is Obama continuting his policies, except putting them on steroids? W did stimulus, bailouts, tariffs, health care spending, ect ...just like obama.
The Senate bill, which aides said had prompted Mr. Obamas comment, went much further, requiring that all manufactured goods bought by taxpayers for the stimulus be produced domestically, a requirement that would seem to exclude some of the most commonly used appliances of daily life, including most computers. On Wednesday night, Senator John McCain tried, and failed, to have the provision stripped from the bill. Look at this, Feb 2009, buy american act in the bailout bill.
And LOOK! A republican trying to get it taken out! I thought the Right were a bunch of nationalist fascists? Seems like your buddy Obama is more fascist than McCain. So tell me again that the you have to be on the Right to be fascist? D's and R's are meaningless when it comes to political philosophy. They're both in the same camp.
And again, i don't support obama but still, this has been reported because why? The most astonishing thing about the story (and the reason why it's so prominently featured) is that McCain is working with the Dems. It's not McCain's initiative, he's working with (forget the name of the senator). Again, obama is a big disappointment so far to real progressives but the main party platform is there and it was behind this legislative push as well, it wasn't all McCain.
Another assumption. You think i support obama. Read through all my comments and try to find a single one that says i support him. The only thing i say about him is that he's governing like a centrist and has disappointed the progressive movement that got him in office. Also, about you being logically consistent... like i said, you just think you're smarter than everybody else and special. You dislike both liberals and conservatives... woo fuckin great, want a cookie?
The problem is that idiots throw out terms like socialism, communism, facism(lol), marxism, leninism, etc without really knowing what the terms actually mean. Then some dude comes along and says it's all about property right. Well, no shit mr.obvious. But people are using the terms wrong.
Since your are now referring to me as an "idiot" I guess I will chime in...
First off, glad I got your panties all in a twist and sure I will admit it: you are much smarter than me.
Anyway back to my point. The moment that Federal Government jobs are preferred over Private Sector jobs, you have a nation that is (or will be) controlled by the State (or Fed).
And I see this as a disastrous turn of events.
And for all your efforts, you sound like a pompous retard! So, bang on Dekotable!
I wasn't debating any of your points. You think there is a conspiracy to take over america, great, whatever. I was just pointing out the fact that you were misusing the term communism wrong.
This stuff is truly disturbing I can't help feeling this is all going somewhere unpleasant. I hope the US isn't going through a Boris Yeltsin phase. It all puts me in mind of the proverbial Chinese curse: "May you live in interesting times" I say proverbial because it's not really Chinese, rather an Anglophone -nod- to the sublime wit of Chinese culture.
If I chose to end my life I would ensure I had all of my lifes affairs in order, ie. a will, then I would opt for the warm embrace of an intravenous heroin overdose.
That or a heart attack as a direct consequence of a fist full of Viagra and a gorgeous, full-hipped, massive-chested woman bouncing away on top of me.
Slamming into the ground at terminal velocity several seconds to begin regretting my decision and no way of reversing it has no appeal to me.
I've often thought that that is the way I'd like to go. If I'm old and I know I'm going to die, might as well go out on the biggest high (pun intended) ever!
By the way, BEST BARNEY FRANK IMPERSONATION EVER!!!
"The goverment wants to raise the debt ceiling TO 1.8 trillion dollars. WRONG. They want to raise it BY 1.8 trillion. (It was actually raised today by 1.1 Trillion)
2nd: You start off with a story about teenage sex, misleading the Tubers with you vid title.
When Bush took office the debt was 5.6 Trillion. By 2006 the debt ceiling had been raised to 8.965 trillion.
wow i just read the article in the side bar about the sex education being taught in schools, how the hell did that go on for so long? are you kidding me!!!!! DISGRACE
I support gay rights and gay marriage, but why would be teaching this shit in school? It's disgusting. Children don't need to be taught sexuality, all they need is a decent sex education class, not actually sexuality.
rethinking math talks about our terrible gov, so why does the left love big gov so much?
Great BF impersonation.
The debt ceiling is meaningless because whenever we approach it, it is immediately raised.
8 years rape by bush on liberties & fiscal conservatism and you HEAR SHIT from these conservofaggots and now they want some credibility... dont think so.
It's because most of them honestly do not know the facts. They just regurgitate talking points on fox news or am radio. Read some of the comments here, they're pathetic and hilarious at the same time.
A 70 year old skydiver died in flight? I think we've just found a new way to solve some of our problems in Government. Nancy Pelosi turns 70 in March 2010, and Harry Reid just turned 70, unfortunately Joe Biden just turned 67, but still, sign all three up and let's see what happens.
I called my credit card company and asked them to increase my credit limit to 1.8 trillion. The guy on the other end of the phone just laughed. I told him I wasn't kidding. I wanted to follow my government blindly and be a good consumer. He hung up on me! The nerve. Suggest you all try it. Its' a good laugh.
You realize that Obama is governing like a centrist right? The liberals in Washington right now are so watered down they make JFK look like freakin Lenin. Just look at healthcare: forget universal healthcare (traditionally party platform of Dems), we don't even get the public option crap. Oh, and about spending, you do know that the wars that Bush started make for a way bigger chunk of our deficit than anything else right? And staying on track with his policies meant a bigger deficit.
dekotable- You do know that Obama has the biggest debt that was created within 1 year? Oh, and he also supported Bush's stupid TARP program? Fox isn't news? How so? And what valid points do you have to support that? Oh, because Olbermann said so? Democrats want to spend more. Pelosi is open to the idea of a universal-tax to help fund all sorts of bailouts. You keep pulling for this incompetent and irrelevant administration though.
Staying on course not doing anything about the economy will have meant an even bigger deficit. Most credible economists say the bailouts are working. And yes, Fox News is not news. MSNBC is not news either. Both are obviously biased and if you honestly think Fox is a credible source of news then you are a complete fool. And no shit Democrats want to spend more. In this day and age small gov't does not work... the only people small gov't benefits are the big corporations.
dekotable- What the hell has Obama's stimulus bill stimulated? More debt! Bush did the same thing, and he was wrong! The rich pay the majority of the taxes. Tax them more, they'll move out like in NYC, or move business overseas, you incompetent-sheep. How is Fox not credible? And don't list political commentators. How are bailouts working? Banks don't trust people enough to loan because of the housing mess.
The US has the lowest tax rates among developed nations. The proposed 3% increase is not going to drive them away. And i never listed political commentators. As for the bailout... as i said, most economists agree the bailout is working. Fuckin google it if you don't believe me, in fact, i implore you to research some of the shit you are spewing nonsense about.
Do you know the reason why the modern day Republican party has such a dumb ignorant base? Small gov't helps only the big corporations and the very rich. Your dumb middle-class self is screwed with little to no gov't regulation... and you are too stupid to know it. Only stupid people support a set of ideals and policies that are obviously detrimental to them... which is why only extremely gullible and retarded people make up the base of the Republican party today.
Big Government can only be manipulated by monied interests--the obscenely rich (e.g. Nazi collaborator George Soros) or very large corporations. Much of this manipulation is to keep competition out of the marketplace through regulation.
The big government position is pro-monopoly, and anti-social mobility. Small government is less able to interfere with entrepreneurs. allows more people to become rich and a better life for everyone else
kinglyturnip- I couldn't agree more. Small Government is less intervention. I think people like dekotable should quit generalizing and demonizing big-business.
Wow. I am honestly curious as to which AM radio host you got that from. I want to know who is so ballsy as to shove a big ass lie like that down people's throats. You ever heard of trickle-down economics, you know, the main economic strategy of Republicans? Regulations protect small businesses. Regulations break up monopolies. De-regulations are how corporations are able to run wild, like Enron. Wow, seriously, just wow... you people are so gullible and clueless it's ridiculous.
And wtf.. you quote Reagan defending trickle down economics... and yet you spew all that crap in direct opposition to the logic of the quote. Talk about an inability to process information, wow.
dekotable- I don't want BIG government taxing the hell out of businesses, you idiot! That's why jobs go over-seas. Only an idiot would believe that big govt. is the ticket. More regulations on banks and pressure on GM. The only increase in jobs, under Obama is govt. jobs. Is your head so far up Obama's rectum you can't see that? Small govt. never hurt me. Lower taxes on businesses mean...MORE JOBS! stop denying common sense.
Excessive government regulation and excessive tax burdens and devaluation of the dollar by excessive government spending are EXACTLY why jobs are going overseas.
No amount of deregulation can stop globalization, not that anyone has ever suggested that. You can have a totally deregulated market in the US and corporations are still going to ship jobs overseas, because it will ALWAYS be cheaper to operate in developing nations. If anything, regulating corporations to the point that they keep business in the US, if they want the benefits of being US companies, would be an example of big gov't. Again, the US has the lowest tax rates among developed nations.
dekotable- your comments get more dumb, every posting. Big Govt. is what Obama wants. Big Govt. hates corporations. So they tax them and regulate them so they eventually take up shop overseas, you incompetent fool. Your foolish president, Obama, WILL create jobs, OVERSEAS.
Let's say we remove all regulations from business. Corporations will still ship jobs overseas. Regulations and big gov't is not the reason behind jobs going to other countries. It will always be cheaper to manufacture stuff in developing countries with cheaper labor. If anything, a lack of regulation is what lets corporations go crazy with their bottom line by reaping all the benefits of being a US company, but at the same time not giving anything back in terms of job supply. Get it now?
You have it completely wrong. Regulation is very much a big reason jobs are going overseas. The foreign countries that are getting the jobs are far more competitive and less regulated. Price controlling and setting taxes and all that discourages competition. The government can't effectively control the job market and they have proven so especially recently.
Point me to any.. anything that says that. Globalization is the reason why jobs go overseas. It will always be cheaper to manufacture stuff in developing countries, regulations or no regulations. I have a friend who used to send all his manufacture work out to china and when that got too expensive due to rising wages there, he's started to send them out to vietnam. Nothing to do with regulations. That's just one small example i admit but that illustrates the most basic point of globalization.
I never mentioned globalization, you lunatic. Companies are increasingly outsourcing because the government has so many regulations and taxes in the U.S. that it's becoming increasingly cheaper to import goods and pay employees overseas. Have you ever even paid payroll tax or tried to set up a business? It's expensive and a pain in the ass. Of course businesses are going to avoid that if they can. Foreign countries welcome the business.
Because you never mention globalization it becomes moot? Read the comments before you reply to them. The whole point is that globalization is the reason jobs are going overseas. The US has some of the lowest tax rates in the world. Where od you think the jobs are going? They're not going to Europe, or Japan, or any other developed region. They're going to places like China (until recently anyway), Vietnam, S America, places with cheap labor. This is a factor of globalization.
The low tax rates apply to individual income amongst first world countries. The corporate taxes are a whole other story. European countries' corporate taxes are a hell of a lot less than their individual income taxes, and just the opposite in the U.S. In addition, Obama is trying to repeal the Bush tax breaks, so that only makes things worse. (Admittedly I don't know if he already did this.)
You contradicted yourself: You said globalization is the reason jobs are going overseas, and then later you said they're going overseas partly because of cheap labor. Globalization is the reason jobs are going overseas, but the reason for globalization is in part cheap labor? That doesn't make any sense.
Oh please, then you're arguing solely on semantics. Fine, jobs go overseas because labor is cheaper in developing countries, the sum of which process can be called globalization. Regulation of markets have nothing to do with it as labor will always be cheaper in developing nations. ALWAYS be cheaper in developing nations, and since corporations are looking out for the bottom line, will ALWAYS outsource jobs to countries with cheaper labor, regulations or no.
There are countries that forbid (regulate) their companies from sending out work like that. They are trying to reverse globalization. These countries are examples of big government. But still, that has nothing to do with regulations. It's all about producing stuff cheaper in developing nations, at the expense of the companies' home nation.
That's how business goes. You produce something as cheap as you can and sell it for as much as you can. There's nothing wrong with that. People are getting cheaper products and companies can avoid going under because of this. I'm not totally unsympathetic to these laid off workers but the fact of the matter is the government could stop a lot of this from happening if they stopped regulating and interfering so much in the market.
Your first comment demonstrates globalization. Yes, you didn't mention it, lol, but it's still the main force in jobs going overseas nevertheless. You say gov't interferes so much with the market. The latest market crash was because of deregulation. I won't even point out how moot your point becomes in the face of globalization in terms of outsourced jobs.
Globalization is not a "force" or factor; it is the consequence. Globalization occurs out of factors like cheaper labor, but in and of itself is not a cause.
Excuse me??? The housing bubble was caused directly BY government regulation. Don't espouse that bullshit that the government was not involved enough. The Fed sets artificial interest rates which portray the market inaccurately. Then there was all the meddling they had with banks. Man, you've really got it backwards!
This comment makes no fuckin sense. First we both agree that regulations shackles companies. So, a lack of regulation means companies can do whatever the fuck they want. Now, you say that companies, by doing whatever the fuck they want, results in laid off workers and them making a profit, since "that's how business goes. You produce something as cheap as you can..." This scenario so far, as you presented, has been the companies doing whatever the fuck they want, i.e. a lack of regulation.
No, it doesn't. You're straw manning. Your argument is completely fucked up.
No, it's not "semantics" to say you're confusing the cause with the effect. Globalization is caused by cheap labor; globalization is not caused by globalization.
Hmm, so if regulations will make no difference in cheap foreign labor, then why are you arguing there needs to more to prevent this? That makes no sense.
What exactly am i setting up as a straw man? And where do i actually argue that globalization can even be stopped? The argument we are having is about what sends jobs overseas. Again, you support small gov't with little regulation so that companies can do whatever they want. In such a situation, companies will obviously seek the most profit, and the most profit lies in sending jobs to countries with cheaper labor. I was pointing out that your comments are contradictory.
You're straw manning by saying because I don't want the government involved in controlling markets and prices that I want businesses to do whatever they want.
Wrong, government involvement has increased and so has outsourcing. Regulation's not working. The high taxes and stifled competition is causing businesses to send jobs overseas. Do you know what regulation involves? Tax codes for one. May want to look into it before making a silly blanket statement like regulation = good.
dekotable- Just so you know, you stated that "most economists agree with that the stimulus IS working". Of course they'll say that because 66% of them supported Obama in June of 2008. Businesses fear tax increases and penalities. Companies reap benefits of being a u.s. company? So do people who are employed by them. Keep the govt. out of small or large businesses. GM fell into the hands of the govt. and union workers. You are sooooo irrelevant. Do you comprehend?
Obama ran in the center to win the election and turned hard left when he walked thru the door. Bush did this he went to the left to but not that far. You are wrong about health care and liberals. Liberals are for government health care they don't want to pay for it. Liberals like spending other peoples money not theirs. The gov. controlled heath care is going to cost everyone and they know it. Obama is the biggest spender in the short period of time he has been in office. He doubled the deficit.
Learn the issues before you make ridiculous comments in public. Obama ran on a platform that included universal healthcare and amnesty for illegal immigrants. He ran with the most liberal voting record. His policies after being elected can be called moderate compromises at best. I bet you can't even name a single one of his policy decisions that demonstrates a blatantly "left" stance. Your clueless comment is why the Republicans of today are the laughstocks of people who actually know stuff.
Obama is so far to the left they are going to cut off his right arm and leg you FOOL! He never ran on health care you FUCKTARD. If he did he would have lost you idiot! Obama's poll # are falling fast. Faster than any president in history with less than 1 yr. in office. You ignore the facts. Obama is clueless and so are you. Why don't you get off the CNN and MSNBC coverage and learn the truth. How do you win a war when you tell the enemy when you are leaving you fucking retard?
Again, i bet you can't name a single one of his policy decisions that demonstrates a blatalntly "leftist" stance. And yes, he did run on promises of universal healthcare. Everybody that had a clue knew he was going to push healthcare reform as a priority when he got elected. You are seriously misinformed. I follow "real" news (not MSNBC) and analyze situations for myself. It is painfully obvious that you know nothing, almost to the point of hilarity.
Obama has done nothing since elected. He is a failure. Everything he does is to the left from trials of terrorists to cap and trade and health care. He ran on change you fool. Health care came along after his election. He promised transparency and bipartisanship.He won't let republicans in the room. He also promised to eliminate earmarks while setting a record with signing a stimulus bill with the most earmarks in the history of this country. One of the polls has him at 43% he is a LOSER!
And again, i ask to give me some facts. You can't because you don't KNOW anything. Specific examples of Obama's so-called "socialist" policies. Anything that shows a blatantly leftist stance.
Obama promised SEIU he'd impose a government takeover of healthcare. For the rest of us, we were only allowed to hear his vague platitudes about "hope" and "change".
So you voted for him just because he ran on "hope" and "change"? You ever watch an election debate? A single one? Youtube some of them. Try and find a single one that doesn't mention healthcare reform. Healthcare reform was one of the main tenets of his platform. In fact, it was one of clinton's main tenets too. Healthcare reform has been one of the main goals of the democratic party for awhile now. NO ONE was surprised that obama started this hc reform push...except the retards apparently.
then there should be actual REFORM, not a government takeover. what Obama and the Demoncrats are proposing is not reform, it is THEFT to be committed against the American people.
..... healthcare reform as in universal healthcare, as in a single payer system, you know, like they have in EVERY other developed nation in the entire world. THAT has been the mantra of the democrats on healthcare reform for the past couple of decades, if not longer. Obama's proposal of a public option was a compromise, and yet Fox News and co. have made him out to be some crazy radical. And now, with even the compromise being scrapped... we have to wait and see if there is REAL reform.
REAL healthcare reform is necessarily LESS government intrusion, not more. "universal" schemes are nothing but more of the same government theft, oppression, and redustribution. The ONLY real reform is LESS government intrusion into healthcare, not more.
Care to explain? You're saying stuff but none of it is logical. How is reform (you know the meaning of the word right?) brought about by NOT doing anything? You're making no sense. And how can you honestly stick up for our current system? We are the only developed nation in the world that allows corporations to make a profit off the health of its citizens. I won't go through all the statistics with you here as you can look them up yourself but even your side agrees that HC in the US is broken.
Reform is brought about by doing THE RIGHT THING. Excessive government intrusion into healthcare is the cause of all our problems. The Dems' bill will only make healthcare (and job-creation) WORSE. The RIGHT THING to do is to get the government OUT of healthcare.
And do you honestly think it is right that in our country, let's face it, the greatest country in the modern era, people go bankrupt because they have the misfortune to get sick? And because fat cat corporate types get fatter on their premiums? People who HAVE insurance go bankrupt, and you honestly think the industry should have LESS regulation? Are you insane? or just totally misinformed?
People are going bankrupt because they lose the ability to earn income while they seek medical care. They DO NOT need medical insurance; they need disability insurance and personal savings. They need government to CUT TAXES, not increase tax burdens for some misguided "universal" health Scare scheme.
Wow! Really? People go bankrupt because they can't make money and have no savings? You're a fuckin genius. Let's vote you into the senate so you can solve all our problems with your in-depth analysis of how things work. I'm done dude, have fun living in your oblivious world.
And LOL you say Bush went to the left? Wow, seriously, i read your comment again and i don't even know why i'm replying... you are just a clueless moron. No shit universal healthcare is going to cost money... but our biggest expenditure right now is on war and the military, you honestly don't think we should spend as much if not more on the health of our citizens? And you are a complete douche if you defend the big corporations that make a profit off healthcare providers and the health of.. you!
"our biggest expenditure right now is on war and the military" - That would be right if there was no such thing as social security and medicare. Does that not count as "Spending"?
I'm going to go easy because this issue is a bit convoluted. Since the Vietnam War, the gov't has instituted a practice of calculating the federal budget by combining federal spending with trust funds. Social security is a trust fund. Oh, and the US is the only gov't in the world to use such a method to calculate national spending. With that in mind, their poisition that defense takes up only 20% of fed spending is further complicated by the fact that they only use funds directed toward
directed toward the dept of defense as defense or military spending. This doesn't include military portion spending from other departments. In addition, the vastly underestimated 40-ish billion spent on the "war on terror" is also not included in the 20%. Add all that together and the military budget is way out in front of everything else. Here's a fun fact: US military spending accounts for 47% of military spending for the ENTIRE world, while only accounting for 21% of worldwide GDP. Hmm...
Police to use retaliatory force against criminals.
Military to protect citizens from foreign attacks/threats.
Military should be one of the biggest expenditures of any government, i'm not quite sure why that would be a ....bad thing?
Unless of course you're a dilusional altruist, then you'll find tons of other things to spend money on. Stop trying to act like govt spending upsets you.
Left wingers were mad the past 8 years because Republicans were spending money on republican pet projects, Republicans are mad now because Democrats are spending money on Left wing projects. It's all evil, they're both robbing you. You don't care about spending, you just want the Govt. to spend it on what YOU want it spent on. So, tell me again, how are you any better than the other side?
I think you're imposing some weird liberal hate on me. If you go through and read all of my comments again, you will find that: A) i said deregulation is why jobs go overseas, B) i am in favor of universal hc, C) think obama is governing like a centrist, and D) think that the republican base is composed of morons who do not know the issues. If you read the replies, you will also come to conclusion D. But nope, you came into into the debate with too many assumptions.
I brought up the point that the US is spending more on the military than it is on the health of its citizens. You pointed out that social security and medicare ranked ahead of the military in federal spending. I showed you why that statement was misleading, and that, in fact, military spending takes up the biggest chunk of fed spending. Then you say that there's nothing wrong with that. I never made a judgement cal either way, just brought up the fact that military > HC in the fed budget.
You dumb ass the first thing Bush did when he got in office was jump in there with the now decaying (finally got a job rotting)Teddy Kennedy and start the no child left behind. If that is not moving to the left what the fuck is moron? One of his campaign promises was to do away with the dept. of Education. I defend any legal way of making money. Last I heard Corps. are legal. You want to live in a socialist country? Then LEAVE! You are nothing but a brain washed KOOL- AID drinking FOOL!
Please stop repeating talking points i can just go read on a transcript of rush limbaugh's show. And "kool-aid drinking fool"? Hmm.. i wonder if that's a reference to obama being black.. !!! I think it is!! And as soon as i call you a racist, people are going to jump all over me and say that i'm "playing the race card." So i won't even bother, as that's not even the most depressing thing about you. The most depressing thing about you is that you are a seriously dumb retard.
You are playing the race card because you are losing the debate. Let me educate you. Jim Jones followers drank kool-aid and died at his request. You are following Obama in the same manner. Obama is your lord and savior. You have been fooled by a charismatic con artist. You chose to ignore the facts about him and what he is trying to do out of emotion. There is not one logical thought in your thick head. You are nothing so you will fall for anything. You are a FOOL!
You would not know valid if it were staring you in the face. Its obvious from the other blogs that you are living on a different planet. You are ignoring the facts. Its almost like you are some kind of puppet. Its obvious that you are a one sided fool and no one is going to turn you around. You have kool-aid drinkers mentality. You will follow your leader to hell and back. You don't have a logical or reasonable thought in your head and probably are incapable of reasoning. YOU ARE A FOOL!
You keep saying I'm a blind follower of obama. My whole point was that he's been too centrist and too much of a pussy or politician to really be effective in carrying out the liberal policies he was elected on. You haven't brought up a single example or point to show anything worth debating. You're dumb. You're a retard. I asked you a whole bunch of times to give me specific examples or points to illustrate your positions and all you can do is try and insult me. Dumbass.
Obama has been too radically LEFT-wing and that is why America is rejecting him and his rubber-stamp Congress for going along with his tyrannical agenda.
That must be why we have universal health care. Oh wait we don't. The truth is he is trying to be bipartisan and the republicans are taking advantage to water it down so when it doesn't work they can go...aha! Obama was wrong.
A country and system that allows big corporations to profit off the health of its citizens is EVIL. The opposite of EVIL is providing healthcare to everybody, not just the ones that can afford it. You are EVIL if you think that only rich people deserve to live healthy lives. You are EVIL if you think that health is somehow a privilege and not a right.
Sorry, you're wrong. It's the opposite; it's quite EVIL to force someone to provide their services. No, the government has no right to force doctors to provide health care to people, just like they don't have the right to force grocery stores to give people food or the water company to provide water to their home. The causes for why health care costs are so high has much to do with government interference in the market place. Health care in the past wasn't a service only for the rich.
I guess you think its evil firemen are forced to put out fires as well. And what regulations in the hc insurance sector? The reasons costs are so high is because a significant LACK of regulations lets them go crazy for profit. That was YOUR point, wasn't it? That there's nothing wrong with a company trying to make as much profit as it can?
The fire departments are supported by local taxes (even though many of the firemen are volunteers). Their services are paid for already. Telling a doctor he has to treat someone is something different, especially considering all the malpractice risks involved. Tell us why doctors should be forced to treat someone but a farmer shouldn't be forced to give his crops to someone or a water company, provide water to someone's home?
First of all, your firemen comment makes absolutely no sense. Local tax point moot: because you say that it's evil for taxes to be used for any kind of social service. Their services are already paid for? Telling a firemen he has to put out a fire is different from telling a doctor he has to treat someone in what way exactly? And i don't know where you live but firefighters in LA definitely don't volunteer unless theyre locked up and want to score points for good behavior during hillfire season.
No, I never said it's evil for taxes to be used for social services. Fire departments vs. doctors' offices, clinics and hospitals aren't even comparable. Fire departments don't have to have malpractice insurance for one, and like I said, fire departments are already paid for whereas health treatment often isn't.
I guess you need to get out more then. Many fire departments have volunteers. I thought everyone knew this by now. Go look it up.
I answered your silly questions now. Now are you going to tell me what the difference is between telling a doctor he has to treat someone vs. telling a farmer he has to give someone food?
The oppose anything that makes america the nations collective strength. How can you call yourself an american if everything you oppose is anything that makes the u.s.a collectively strong.That can only be an anti-american. You cant make a video that says this isnt true.Can you.
dad2ujunior 1 year ago
I think you've already betrayed your youtube name, "how the world works"
It's nothing about that.
LaGroveOwner 1 year ago
5 stars for the Barney Frank impression
RVAspeculator 1 year ago
You raise the following question when you state "we have already bankrupt our currency enough . . ." that the government should "pay off the debt. . .". How can an institution (Government) who by definition is the currency monopolist become bankrupt in issuing its own currency? To suggest that somehow it can become bankrupt and that it needs to raise/spend revenue on paying of debts, does not follow.
Sunamc 2 years ago
1:50 - and you call yourself a libertarian?
For an actual libertarian take, I recommend Rod Long:
tinyurl . com / yepylnd
LetsRapPsalms 2 years ago
2:06 ! Surely the story is that he never hit the ground?
animalbar5 2 years ago
hey you need to quit miss pronouncing the great Natzi Pelosi
ITS NATZI Pelosi
VillageIdiot8055 2 years ago
actually obama our nitwit in chief thinks your grade schoolers should be taught sex ed!!
VillageIdiot8055 2 years ago
@VillageIdiot8055 obama is a FAG
biggerturtle 11 months ago
The argument against legislating morality was made by many of our founding fathers. It is also one of the basic understanding in our system of law.
How is this being forgotten?
Looks like our mis"representatives" need a lesson in american government.
WNxShisno 2 years ago
kommisar: No one tells farmers they have to give people food. Farmers sell food. That is how they make there nasty old money. Those greedy bastards!
Flashbackjack0 2 years ago
Yes, Flashback, it's a disgrace, making people off people's hunger. How sick is that? People have a right to eat. There shouldn't be profit involved. What kind of a society actually forces people to pay money to eat? We should do what Europe is doing, where they give all their food to their citizens for "free".
kommisar 2 years ago
@kommisar
Europe doesn't give their food away for free. I live there, so I know. Private persons have to do that - that is; steal food (that has not gone bad yet!) from dumpsters, cook it and give it away so it doesn't go to waste.
TommyLongstockings 2 years ago
That must explain why English food tastes the way it does, and other nasty dishes like lutefisk and andouillette. ^_^
kommisar 2 years ago
lets just start eating people - Soylent Green
mstaff657 2 years ago
Don't blame a watered down bill on the republicans...the dummocrats now control our governement. If you can't afford health insurance now...wait until it is free
lizziehowe 2 years ago
THEY ARE NOT INSANE. They are following a plan. A plan which benefits the very wealthy.
xerxes465 2 years ago
It's amazing that republicans don't mind spending 800+billion to support a war for oil, but scream bloody murder when we try to give people health insurance. Amazing when you consider how many christians there are in the gop.
smarhaus 2 years ago
Government should NEVER be stealing from honest citizens to fund a corrupt vote buying scheme, whether the EXCUSE for their theft is "to give people health insurance" or whatever lame excuse they give for their evil schemes.
herbs814 2 years ago
800 billion was for 2 wars 1 of them was justified.
As for the health bill it is 1.3 trillion and it won't even cover everyone. Not to mention they have to raise taxes on everyone to pay for it.
blowme23 2 years ago
I know this is petty and shallow, but could you do something about the lighting and white balance in your videos? Just get a lamp, buy some GE Reveal light bulbs and learn how to manually adjust the white balance on your camera. It's really not that difficult.
Conversely, I love your videos and always watch them first when they show up in my subscription box. Keep up the good work!
Bucknik 2 years ago
Lee the 200 million left over from TARP does not exist. True we have approved it to be spent but, we are broke. In fact we have been broke most of my lifetime but, alas that does not seem to stop congress from spending more and more money we dont have. Our grandchildren should just punch us all in the nose right now.
UtherPendragan 2 years ago
The cult followers of Obama will jump off a cliff at his slightest whim and not think twice about it. Warnings of bankruptcy and the collapse of the American dollar have no meaning to them.
They're told one thing and that's what they believe and don't question it. There is no room in a cult for logic or asking questions. Being ostracized from your cult buddies is a hard thing to handle and can lead to anger and trust issues later in life.
To feel better, they watch MSNBC, America's Pravda.
phibes2 2 years ago
No, these people are not "totally insane". They are stealing your country in a very programmed and planned way. This makes them sane, but cunningly EVIL.
This fact:
"For feds, more get 6-figure salaries
Average pay $30,000 over private sector"
is proof that we are now a communist nation and this WILL NEVER be reversed without revolution. Bankers and Politicians should learn how to swim!
They Live... - SO FIGHT BACK!
ktmrider250xcw 2 years ago
Do you know what a "communist nation" is? When there is a very diverse distribution of wealth... that's just about the exact opposite of socialism. Let's not get into politics... let's just talk about knowing the meaning of the terms we throw around.
dekotable 2 years ago
the difference between communism and socialism is like the difference between murder and suicide.
They both have the same outcome.
(btw, if you're a tard and can't put it together yourself socialism = murder, and communism = suicide)
Twiggy269 2 years ago
lol, if you say so. Another retard that doesn't even know the what the terms actually mean. Honestly, i bet you don't even know what socialism and communism actually are. I'm not promoting either, i feel capitalism is the only viable system here in the US but at the same time i take the time to educate myself so i don't sound like a retard in public talking about the differences between socialism/communism i obviously don't know anything about.
dekotable 2 years ago
I run across pseudo intellectuals like you on youtube all the time, you're likely a post monderinst too. Just because you sound smart by talking nonsense doesn't make you intelligent. The difference between communism and socialism (philosophically) is almost nothing.
Lets call it what it is, collectivism(fascism, socialism, communism, ect.) vs. individualism (capitalism). Whats the difference? Property rights. Its not very complicated. Stop trying to make it.
Twiggy269 2 years ago
How you define property (public vs private) is the main characteristic of any government system. The word 'property' has huge implications on what type of system you get. It effects just about every governmental decision you can make on (almost) any topic.
Twiggy269 2 years ago
and please don't try and tell me you can have private property under socialism or fascism. That is laughable
Twiggy269 2 years ago
Of course it all goes back to property. Most political philosphy deals solely with property. But here's the difference between socialism and communism and how that difference is especially important in pointing out how retarded the republican base is today. Communism seeks to control both the economic and social by ensuring that property is owned collectively and that process of redistribution is controlled by a central gov't. Socialism only seeks to manage the economy through collective
dekotable 2 years ago
through collective social control. That's a huge difference and it is especially funny because the right wing base is becoming pretty rabid in condemning obama as a socialist while accusing him of taking over their american lives and values. Think about that for a minute.Another funny thing about right wing rhetoric: they think facism is somehow a leftist thing when it is ideologically an extreme right position.You lumping up socialism and facism into one proves you know nothing about the terms.
dekotable 2 years ago
How'd I know you were going to say something stupid like this.
The American government right now is closer to being fascist than capitalist, ( look at the fundamental premise of what each word means)
The main characteristic of socialism (and communism) is public ownership of the means of production, and, therefore, the abolition of private property. The right to property is the right of use and disposal. Under fascism, men retain the semblance of private property, but the government Cont...
Twiggy269 2 years ago
holds total power over its use and disposal.
Under fascism, citizens retain the responsibilities of owning property, without freedom to act and without any of the advantages of ownership. Under socialism, government officials acquire all the advantages of ownership, without any of the responsibilities, since they do not hold title to the property, but merely the right to use it as they please.
Twiggy269 2 years ago
You seem to be thinking that we are arguing over the definition of what it means for a country to be socialist or communist or w/e. Your initial post said socialist = murder, communism = suicide. I pointed out that was a stupid comment and that it demonstrated you knew nothing about those two terms. You proceeded to say it was all about private property (duh) and i explained to you the difference between the two terms.
dekotable 2 years ago
As I said before, There is no difference between communism and socialism (philosophically), except in the means of achieving the SAME ultimate end : communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism, by vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide.
Twiggy269 2 years ago
So basically, a biased definition. Communisim and socialism enslaves men, except of course i already brought up the major deifference between the two and provided examples of countries that function democratically with socialist ideals.
dekotable 2 years ago
And facism has no qualms about contorlling everything, there is no pretense of private ownership. But facism doesn't really deal with property. Facism is more about rejecting the materialistic basis of socialism and communism and instead try to set up a new definition of society apart from property. That's why the main characteristic of facism is rampant nationalism, and even heroism. Facism doesn't really advance an economic system, except to say that government should just control it all.
dekotable 2 years ago
Both socialism and fascism involve the issue of property rights. The right to property is the right of USE and DISPOSAL. Observe the difference in those two theories : socialism negates private property rights altogether, and advocates the vesting of ownership and control in the community as a whole, i.e. in the state, fascism leaves ownership in the hands of private individuals, but transfers CONTROL of the property to the government.
Twiggy269 2 years ago
The only reason why America has gone the fascist route is because its easier to keep the fassad of private property going, it has nothing(or very little) to do with Right vs. Left. It would be much easier for citizens to realize the govt. is the one destroying the economy if they owned the means of production outright. But if they're just in the background, pulling the strings, they can claim it was the "Market" that fucked up and gain even more control when the inevitable happens.
Twiggy269 2 years ago
You're starting to sound like a conspiracy theorist.
dekotable 2 years ago
Facism outright rejects the economic basis of socialism and communism and capitalism. Facism as a political philosophy rejects the property and material definition of society as defined by socialism/communism/etc. And call me stupid but how do you leave OWNERSHIP in someone's hands but retain CONTROL? If you own something you control it. If you don't you don't. One or the other has to actually do the controlling, in which the ownership becomes moot, in which case, what difference does it make?
dekotable 2 years ago
"One or the other has to actually do the controlling, in which the ownership becomes moot, in which case, what difference does it make?" - Alllllright! We're making progress D. No such thing as private property under fascism, socialism, or communism. Therfore any differences between the 3 are moot. Since the fundamental premise of them are all the SAME! Thats all I have to say about this topic, now, if you'd like to argue FOR any of the 3 vs. Capitalism, we can do that.
Twiggy269 2 years ago
I guess Mussolini had the whole state corporatist economic model but Nazi Germany certainly didn't function like that, so... point is that no real stated economic model in facism, since the whole principle is a rejection of both capitalism and socialism. The "Third way."
dekotable 2 years ago
You're not following the argument. I actually do agree that America has become more facist since W. The argument was that you said there was no real difference between socialism and communism. I explained to you the difference, and included a remark saying that it was funny that the right is accusing obama of being a socialist when they should (from their perspective) more accurately be describing him as a communist.
dekotable 2 years ago
Actually, an edit here: America's been facist every now and again even before W, one of the higher peaks coming during the McCarthy era and the red scare.
dekotable 2 years ago
Fascist is not the same as anti-communist.
During the Red Scare, I see no move toward imperial foreign policy, Corporatist economic models*, government control of vital industries through extensive regulation, dissolving large retailers and granting their assets to small businesses, consolidation of power in the Executive over Congress. The stated goals of, you know, actual Fascists.
Unless by Fascist you mean "right wing bogeyman! Boo, hiss."
* don't conflate Corporatism with Corporations.
KinglyTurnip 2 years ago
"government control of vital industries through extensive regulation, dissolving large retailers and granting their assets to small businesses, consolidation of power in the Executive over Congress" - all of this is going on right now though*, isn't it strange that Obama isn't a right winger though? I thought you had to be a neocon to be fascist? Hm.....
*It would be more accurate to say they are dissolving large (banks) and granting their assets to even larger (banks), not small ones.
Twiggy269 2 years ago
There was a move toward imperial foreign policy. Not a land grab of course but just look at S America and the power plays of the US there and in asia and the middle east. The entire cold war can be seen as imperialist policy. During the red scare, you were either american with american values or the enemy. Extreme nationalism is a main characteristic of facism. Actually, if you have the time and desire, read E.L. Doctorow's "Book of Daniel." Good book on the red scare and great book in general.
dekotable 2 years ago
You're still not looking at the big picture D.
America becoming fascist has been going on way before W. And you're still trying to create some nit picky barriers between the 3 major forms of collectivism (not that I disagree there are minor differences between the 3 systems) BUT it's still the same form of governce. There isn't enough difference between the 3 to claim they are totally separate systems. On a fundamental level they all try to achieve the same thing, the "Collective Good"
Twiggy269 2 years ago
Most countries right wingers call "socialist" actually do have private property. Sweden for example has a social democratic economy with a high redistribution of wealth via high taxes and very broad general welfare programs. And according to you people, Sweden is a socialist nation. Your comment on facism i just go lol.
dekotable 2 years ago
you're just a brainwashed college boy who listened to his control freak professors too much. It's all the same fundamentals, you can put "right wing" tags on things if you want. I'm sure you think that a govt. has to be racist to be fascist too don't ya? Did your professor from the sierra club in college tell you that one too?
Twiggy269 2 years ago
you can try and cherrypick facts about certain countries all day long. "See look at this country we call socialist, they have blah blah blah...." run from the premise of your argument all you want, context dropper. =P
Twiggy269 2 years ago
That was a valid point about sweden especially in the context of our conversation... since we're talking about the right misusing terms, why not bring up the rest of the misinformation they spew?
dekotable 2 years ago
What's wrong with college? You're making a lot of assumptions, like, "I bet you're a post-modernist," and "I'm sure you think a facist gov't is racist," among other assumptions. So let me make some too. You think you're smart, you went to college, and in fact you thought you were smarter than everybody else there, including the professors, but couldn't ever really prove it so you content yourself by telling the mirror that you're unique in your special brand of liberal hate.
dekotable 2 years ago
"you're unique in your special brand of liberal hate. "
You're right, I do dislike liberals, but unlike you, I'm logically consistent, I dislike conservatives as well. I don't sit here and point fingers at one side and say "look how dumb you are...silly republicans" and then spout on how democrats are super awesome. If W was so fascist, why is Obama continuting his policies, except putting them on steroids? W did stimulus, bailouts, tariffs, health care spending, ect ...just like obama.
Twiggy269 2 years ago
The Senate bill, which aides said had prompted Mr. Obamas comment, went much further, requiring that all manufactured goods bought by taxpayers for the stimulus be produced domestically, a requirement that would seem to exclude some of the most commonly used appliances of daily life, including most computers. On Wednesday night, Senator John McCain tried, and failed, to have the provision stripped from the bill. Look at this, Feb 2009, buy american act in the bailout bill.
Continued
Twiggy269 2 years ago
And LOOK! A republican trying to get it taken out! I thought the Right were a bunch of nationalist fascists? Seems like your buddy Obama is more fascist than McCain. So tell me again that the you have to be on the Right to be fascist? D's and R's are meaningless when it comes to political philosophy. They're both in the same camp.
(quote came from the NYTimes)
Twiggy269 2 years ago
And again, i don't support obama but still, this has been reported because why? The most astonishing thing about the story (and the reason why it's so prominently featured) is that McCain is working with the Dems. It's not McCain's initiative, he's working with (forget the name of the senator). Again, obama is a big disappointment so far to real progressives but the main party platform is there and it was behind this legislative push as well, it wasn't all McCain.
dekotable 2 years ago
Another assumption. You think i support obama. Read through all my comments and try to find a single one that says i support him. The only thing i say about him is that he's governing like a centrist and has disappointed the progressive movement that got him in office. Also, about you being logically consistent... like i said, you just think you're smarter than everybody else and special. You dislike both liberals and conservatives... woo fuckin great, want a cookie?
dekotable 2 years ago
Comment removed
dekotable 2 years ago
The problem is that idiots throw out terms like socialism, communism, facism(lol), marxism, leninism, etc without really knowing what the terms actually mean. Then some dude comes along and says it's all about property right. Well, no shit mr.obvious. But people are using the terms wrong.
dekotable 2 years ago
Since your are now referring to me as an "idiot" I guess I will chime in...
First off, glad I got your panties all in a twist and sure I will admit it: you are much smarter than me.
Anyway back to my point. The moment that Federal Government jobs are preferred over Private Sector jobs, you have a nation that is (or will be) controlled by the State (or Fed).
And I see this as a disastrous turn of events.
And for all your efforts, you sound like a pompous retard! So, bang on Dekotable!
ktmrider250xcw 2 years ago
I wasn't debating any of your points. You think there is a conspiracy to take over america, great, whatever. I was just pointing out the fact that you were misusing the term communism wrong.
dekotable 2 years ago
Hey, it's captain stare again...
TheSpankymonkey 2 years ago
Can someone please tell me why this video would get taken down if he mentioned the Obama 8th grader deal?
I can look at teen girls in their underwear but I can't watch a video about what Obama did before he became pres?
TroutFink 2 years ago
Love the Barney Frank impersonation!!! LOL
DangerFamily 2 years ago 2
Not a bad way to go, my great uncle wants to go by jumping off a waterfall.
Shad0wSquirrel 2 years ago
This stuff is truly disturbing I can't help feeling this is all going somewhere unpleasant. I hope the US isn't going through a Boris Yeltsin phase. It all puts me in mind of the proverbial Chinese curse: "May you live in interesting times" I say proverbial because it's not really Chinese, rather an Anglophone -nod- to the sublime wit of Chinese culture.
KnockoffNigeI 2 years ago
you rock lee. keep on bringing it
fcabido 2 years ago
If I chose to end my life I would ensure I had all of my lifes affairs in order, ie. a will, then I would opt for the warm embrace of an intravenous heroin overdose.
That or a heart attack as a direct consequence of a fist full of Viagra and a gorgeous, full-hipped, massive-chested woman bouncing away on top of me.
Slamming into the ground at terminal velocity several seconds to begin regretting my decision and no way of reversing it has no appeal to me.
WestRiverHillBilly 2 years ago
Nice barney frank imitation!
DrOman5596 2 years ago
I've often thought that that is the way I'd like to go. If I'm old and I know I'm going to die, might as well go out on the biggest high (pun intended) ever!
By the way, BEST BARNEY FRANK IMPERSONATION EVER!!!
moonwingmedia 2 years ago 2
QOTD: I want to die in a huge fireball (crashing rented high performance car into tree, burning up in atmosphere, getting hit by meteor, etc.)
vincenmt 2 years ago
Time 2 KILL this socialism these damn idiots in Washington need to be removed. Socialism sucks.
5tallcoolone 2 years ago 2
Your first statement is incorrect.
"The goverment wants to raise the debt ceiling TO 1.8 trillion dollars. WRONG. They want to raise it BY 1.8 trillion. (It was actually raised today by 1.1 Trillion)
2nd: You start off with a story about teenage sex, misleading the Tubers with you vid title.
When Bush took office the debt was 5.6 Trillion. By 2006 the debt ceiling had been raised to 8.965 trillion.
Why weren't you b*tchin then?
Maybe you should stick to your teen sex stories.
xetlive 2 years ago
I cant drink soda while you do Barney Frank voice, I end up laughing and spitting it all over.
darkwhitedirewolf 2 years ago
wow i just read the article in the side bar about the sex education being taught in schools, how the hell did that go on for so long? are you kidding me!!!!! DISGRACE
ceasey0xoogurl 2 years ago
Wow!1.8 trillion.!
alexei3333 2 years ago
I support gay rights and gay marriage, but why would be teaching this shit in school? It's disgusting. Children don't need to be taught sexuality, all they need is a decent sex education class, not actually sexuality.
rethinking math talks about our terrible gov, so why does the left love big gov so much?
Great BF impersonation.
The debt ceiling is meaningless because whenever we approach it, it is immediately raised.
christo930 2 years ago
@Breazable Its not for you to decide. Obama needs to be traid for treason, along with many members of his administrations
theygunaHATEME 2 years ago
8 years rape by bush on liberties & fiscal conservatism and you HEAR SHIT from these conservofaggots and now they want some credibility... dont think so.
Brezable 2 years ago
Comment removed
theygunaHATEME 2 years ago
It's because most of them honestly do not know the facts. They just regurgitate talking points on fox news or am radio. Read some of the comments here, they're pathetic and hilarious at the same time.
dekotable 2 years ago
Great job. Maybe liberals don't understand what's going on in the news because they don't watch the news.
veriteez 2 years ago
Fox News is not news.
dekotable 2 years ago
Re: 70 yr old man: If the man was enjoying life and didn't hurt anyone in the process, bravo!
LOL on Barney Frank!! Keep it up dude, ya rock!
RSands65 2 years ago
5 stars for Barney Frank impression
ducatijunker 2 years ago 2
Your Barney Frank impression made me bust a gut the moment I heard it. He and the purple dino-crap named after him need to go.
Angie2343 2 years ago
A 70 year old skydiver died in flight? I think we've just found a new way to solve some of our problems in Government. Nancy Pelosi turns 70 in March 2010, and Harry Reid just turned 70, unfortunately Joe Biden just turned 67, but still, sign all three up and let's see what happens.
wesleywildcat84 2 years ago
I called my credit card company and asked them to increase my credit limit to 1.8 trillion. The guy on the other end of the phone just laughed. I told him I wasn't kidding. I wanted to follow my government blindly and be a good consumer. He hung up on me! The nerve. Suggest you all try it. Its' a good laugh.
Shameonfed 2 years ago
DemocRATs are spending America into a broken economy. This is the quickest way to socialism and permanent power for socialists.
micsc50 2 years ago 4
You realize that Obama is governing like a centrist right? The liberals in Washington right now are so watered down they make JFK look like freakin Lenin. Just look at healthcare: forget universal healthcare (traditionally party platform of Dems), we don't even get the public option crap. Oh, and about spending, you do know that the wars that Bush started make for a way bigger chunk of our deficit than anything else right? And staying on track with his policies meant a bigger deficit.
dekotable 2 years ago
dekotable- You do know that Obama has the biggest debt that was created within 1 year? Oh, and he also supported Bush's stupid TARP program? Fox isn't news? How so? And what valid points do you have to support that? Oh, because Olbermann said so? Democrats want to spend more. Pelosi is open to the idea of a universal-tax to help fund all sorts of bailouts. You keep pulling for this incompetent and irrelevant administration though.
veriteez 2 years ago
Staying on course not doing anything about the economy will have meant an even bigger deficit. Most credible economists say the bailouts are working. And yes, Fox News is not news. MSNBC is not news either. Both are obviously biased and if you honestly think Fox is a credible source of news then you are a complete fool. And no shit Democrats want to spend more. In this day and age small gov't does not work... the only people small gov't benefits are the big corporations.
dekotable 2 years ago
dekotable- What the hell has Obama's stimulus bill stimulated? More debt! Bush did the same thing, and he was wrong! The rich pay the majority of the taxes. Tax them more, they'll move out like in NYC, or move business overseas, you incompetent-sheep. How is Fox not credible? And don't list political commentators. How are bailouts working? Banks don't trust people enough to loan because of the housing mess.
veriteez 2 years ago
The US has the lowest tax rates among developed nations. The proposed 3% increase is not going to drive them away. And i never listed political commentators. As for the bailout... as i said, most economists agree the bailout is working. Fuckin google it if you don't believe me, in fact, i implore you to research some of the shit you are spewing nonsense about.
dekotable 2 years ago
Do you know the reason why the modern day Republican party has such a dumb ignorant base? Small gov't helps only the big corporations and the very rich. Your dumb middle-class self is screwed with little to no gov't regulation... and you are too stupid to know it. Only stupid people support a set of ideals and policies that are obviously detrimental to them... which is why only extremely gullible and retarded people make up the base of the Republican party today.
dekotable 2 years ago
"I have never been given a job by a poor man"
--R. Reagan
Big Government can only be manipulated by monied interests--the obscenely rich (e.g. Nazi collaborator George Soros) or very large corporations. Much of this manipulation is to keep competition out of the marketplace through regulation.
The big government position is pro-monopoly, and anti-social mobility. Small government is less able to interfere with entrepreneurs. allows more people to become rich and a better life for everyone else
KinglyTurnip 2 years ago 2
kinglyturnip- I couldn't agree more. Small Government is less intervention. I think people like dekotable should quit generalizing and demonizing big-business.
veriteez 2 years ago
Wow. I am honestly curious as to which AM radio host you got that from. I want to know who is so ballsy as to shove a big ass lie like that down people's throats. You ever heard of trickle-down economics, you know, the main economic strategy of Republicans? Regulations protect small businesses. Regulations break up monopolies. De-regulations are how corporations are able to run wild, like Enron. Wow, seriously, just wow... you people are so gullible and clueless it's ridiculous.
dekotable 2 years ago
And wtf.. you quote Reagan defending trickle down economics... and yet you spew all that crap in direct opposition to the logic of the quote. Talk about an inability to process information, wow.
dekotable 2 years ago
dekotable- I don't want BIG government taxing the hell out of businesses, you idiot! That's why jobs go over-seas. Only an idiot would believe that big govt. is the ticket. More regulations on banks and pressure on GM. The only increase in jobs, under Obama is govt. jobs. Is your head so far up Obama's rectum you can't see that? Small govt. never hurt me. Lower taxes on businesses mean...MORE JOBS! stop denying common sense.
veriteez 2 years ago
LOL jobs are not going over-seas because of big government, i assure you my poor retarded friend.
dekotable 2 years ago
Excessive government regulation and excessive tax burdens and devaluation of the dollar by excessive government spending are EXACTLY why jobs are going overseas.
herbs814 2 years ago
No amount of deregulation can stop globalization, not that anyone has ever suggested that. You can have a totally deregulated market in the US and corporations are still going to ship jobs overseas, because it will ALWAYS be cheaper to operate in developing nations. If anything, regulating corporations to the point that they keep business in the US, if they want the benefits of being US companies, would be an example of big gov't. Again, the US has the lowest tax rates among developed nations.
dekotable 2 years ago
dekotable- your comments get more dumb, every posting. Big Govt. is what Obama wants. Big Govt. hates corporations. So they tax them and regulate them so they eventually take up shop overseas, you incompetent fool. Your foolish president, Obama, WILL create jobs, OVERSEAS.
veriteez 2 years ago
Let's say we remove all regulations from business. Corporations will still ship jobs overseas. Regulations and big gov't is not the reason behind jobs going to other countries. It will always be cheaper to manufacture stuff in developing countries with cheaper labor. If anything, a lack of regulation is what lets corporations go crazy with their bottom line by reaping all the benefits of being a US company, but at the same time not giving anything back in terms of job supply. Get it now?
dekotable 2 years ago
You have it completely wrong. Regulation is very much a big reason jobs are going overseas. The foreign countries that are getting the jobs are far more competitive and less regulated. Price controlling and setting taxes and all that discourages competition. The government can't effectively control the job market and they have proven so especially recently.
kommisar 2 years ago
Point me to any.. anything that says that. Globalization is the reason why jobs go overseas. It will always be cheaper to manufacture stuff in developing countries, regulations or no regulations. I have a friend who used to send all his manufacture work out to china and when that got too expensive due to rising wages there, he's started to send them out to vietnam. Nothing to do with regulations. That's just one small example i admit but that illustrates the most basic point of globalization.
dekotable 2 years ago
I never mentioned globalization, you lunatic. Companies are increasingly outsourcing because the government has so many regulations and taxes in the U.S. that it's becoming increasingly cheaper to import goods and pay employees overseas. Have you ever even paid payroll tax or tried to set up a business? It's expensive and a pain in the ass. Of course businesses are going to avoid that if they can. Foreign countries welcome the business.
kommisar 2 years ago
Because you never mention globalization it becomes moot? Read the comments before you reply to them. The whole point is that globalization is the reason jobs are going overseas. The US has some of the lowest tax rates in the world. Where od you think the jobs are going? They're not going to Europe, or Japan, or any other developed region. They're going to places like China (until recently anyway), Vietnam, S America, places with cheap labor. This is a factor of globalization.
dekotable 2 years ago
The low tax rates apply to individual income amongst first world countries. The corporate taxes are a whole other story. European countries' corporate taxes are a hell of a lot less than their individual income taxes, and just the opposite in the U.S. In addition, Obama is trying to repeal the Bush tax breaks, so that only makes things worse. (Admittedly I don't know if he already did this.)
kommisar 2 years ago
You contradicted yourself: You said globalization is the reason jobs are going overseas, and then later you said they're going overseas partly because of cheap labor. Globalization is the reason jobs are going overseas, but the reason for globalization is in part cheap labor? That doesn't make any sense.
kommisar 2 years ago
Please look up globalization.
dekotable 2 years ago
I know what globalization is. It is you who are confused. You are confusing the cause for the effect as I illustrated.
kommisar 2 years ago
Oh please, then you're arguing solely on semantics. Fine, jobs go overseas because labor is cheaper in developing countries, the sum of which process can be called globalization. Regulation of markets have nothing to do with it as labor will always be cheaper in developing nations. ALWAYS be cheaper in developing nations, and since corporations are looking out for the bottom line, will ALWAYS outsource jobs to countries with cheaper labor, regulations or no.
dekotable 2 years ago
There are countries that forbid (regulate) their companies from sending out work like that. They are trying to reverse globalization. These countries are examples of big government. But still, that has nothing to do with regulations. It's all about producing stuff cheaper in developing nations, at the expense of the companies' home nation.
dekotable 2 years ago
That's how business goes. You produce something as cheap as you can and sell it for as much as you can. There's nothing wrong with that. People are getting cheaper products and companies can avoid going under because of this. I'm not totally unsympathetic to these laid off workers but the fact of the matter is the government could stop a lot of this from happening if they stopped regulating and interfering so much in the market.
kommisar 2 years ago
Your first comment demonstrates globalization. Yes, you didn't mention it, lol, but it's still the main force in jobs going overseas nevertheless. You say gov't interferes so much with the market. The latest market crash was because of deregulation. I won't even point out how moot your point becomes in the face of globalization in terms of outsourced jobs.
dekotable 2 years ago
Globalization is not a "force" or factor; it is the consequence. Globalization occurs out of factors like cheaper labor, but in and of itself is not a cause.
Excuse me??? The housing bubble was caused directly BY government regulation. Don't espouse that bullshit that the government was not involved enough. The Fed sets artificial interest rates which portray the market inaccurately. Then there was all the meddling they had with banks. Man, you've really got it backwards!
kommisar 2 years ago
This comment makes no fuckin sense. First we both agree that regulations shackles companies. So, a lack of regulation means companies can do whatever the fuck they want. Now, you say that companies, by doing whatever the fuck they want, results in laid off workers and them making a profit, since "that's how business goes. You produce something as cheap as you can..." This scenario so far, as you presented, has been the companies doing whatever the fuck they want, i.e. a lack of regulation.
dekotable 2 years ago
No, it doesn't. You're straw manning. Your argument is completely fucked up.
No, it's not "semantics" to say you're confusing the cause with the effect. Globalization is caused by cheap labor; globalization is not caused by globalization.
Hmm, so if regulations will make no difference in cheap foreign labor, then why are you arguing there needs to more to prevent this? That makes no sense.
kommisar 2 years ago
What exactly am i setting up as a straw man? And where do i actually argue that globalization can even be stopped? The argument we are having is about what sends jobs overseas. Again, you support small gov't with little regulation so that companies can do whatever they want. In such a situation, companies will obviously seek the most profit, and the most profit lies in sending jobs to countries with cheaper labor. I was pointing out that your comments are contradictory.
dekotable 2 years ago
You're straw manning by saying because I don't want the government involved in controlling markets and prices that I want businesses to do whatever they want.
Wrong, government involvement has increased and so has outsourcing. Regulation's not working. The high taxes and stifled competition is causing businesses to send jobs overseas. Do you know what regulation involves? Tax codes for one. May want to look into it before making a silly blanket statement like regulation = good.
kommisar 2 years ago
You sir, are a tool.
The way labor is kept in your nation is by a little thing called tariffs.
Please, read "Harmony of Interests" by Henry C. Carey.
Thanks!
WNxShisno 2 years ago
dekotable- Just so you know, you stated that "most economists agree with that the stimulus IS working". Of course they'll say that because 66% of them supported Obama in June of 2008. Businesses fear tax increases and penalities. Companies reap benefits of being a u.s. company? So do people who are employed by them. Keep the govt. out of small or large businesses. GM fell into the hands of the govt. and union workers. You are sooooo irrelevant. Do you comprehend?
veriteez 2 years ago
I just cannot believe that you actually buy your own BS.
You are cracking me up!
I guess we need people like you to round out the spectrum. Are you really 29 years old?
I am sure you don't care what i say since i am just part of the "dumb ignorant base".
Bang on Kotex boy !
ktmrider250xcw 2 years ago
What BS? That globalization is the reason why jobs go overseas?
dekotable 2 years ago
Obama ran in the center to win the election and turned hard left when he walked thru the door. Bush did this he went to the left to but not that far. You are wrong about health care and liberals. Liberals are for government health care they don't want to pay for it. Liberals like spending other peoples money not theirs. The gov. controlled heath care is going to cost everyone and they know it. Obama is the biggest spender in the short period of time he has been in office. He doubled the deficit.
micsc50 2 years ago
Learn the issues before you make ridiculous comments in public. Obama ran on a platform that included universal healthcare and amnesty for illegal immigrants. He ran with the most liberal voting record. His policies after being elected can be called moderate compromises at best. I bet you can't even name a single one of his policy decisions that demonstrates a blatantly "left" stance. Your clueless comment is why the Republicans of today are the laughstocks of people who actually know stuff.
dekotable 2 years ago
Obama is so far to the left they are going to cut off his right arm and leg you FOOL! He never ran on health care you FUCKTARD. If he did he would have lost you idiot! Obama's poll # are falling fast. Faster than any president in history with less than 1 yr. in office. You ignore the facts. Obama is clueless and so are you. Why don't you get off the CNN and MSNBC coverage and learn the truth. How do you win a war when you tell the enemy when you are leaving you fucking retard?
micsc50 2 years ago
Again, i bet you can't name a single one of his policy decisions that demonstrates a blatalntly "leftist" stance. And yes, he did run on promises of universal healthcare. Everybody that had a clue knew he was going to push healthcare reform as a priority when he got elected. You are seriously misinformed. I follow "real" news (not MSNBC) and analyze situations for myself. It is painfully obvious that you know nothing, almost to the point of hilarity.
dekotable 2 years ago
Obama has done nothing since elected. He is a failure. Everything he does is to the left from trials of terrorists to cap and trade and health care. He ran on change you fool. Health care came along after his election. He promised transparency and bipartisanship.He won't let republicans in the room. He also promised to eliminate earmarks while setting a record with signing a stimulus bill with the most earmarks in the history of this country. One of the polls has him at 43% he is a LOSER!
micsc50 2 years ago
And again, i ask to give me some facts. You can't because you don't KNOW anything. Specific examples of Obama's so-called "socialist" policies. Anything that shows a blatantly leftist stance.
dekotable 2 years ago
Obama promised SEIU he'd impose a government takeover of healthcare. For the rest of us, we were only allowed to hear his vague platitudes about "hope" and "change".
herbs814 2 years ago
So you voted for him just because he ran on "hope" and "change"? You ever watch an election debate? A single one? Youtube some of them. Try and find a single one that doesn't mention healthcare reform. Healthcare reform was one of the main tenets of his platform. In fact, it was one of clinton's main tenets too. Healthcare reform has been one of the main goals of the democratic party for awhile now. NO ONE was surprised that obama started this hc reform push...except the retards apparently.
dekotable 2 years ago
then there should be actual REFORM, not a government takeover. what Obama and the Demoncrats are proposing is not reform, it is THEFT to be committed against the American people.
herbs814 2 years ago
..... healthcare reform as in universal healthcare, as in a single payer system, you know, like they have in EVERY other developed nation in the entire world. THAT has been the mantra of the democrats on healthcare reform for the past couple of decades, if not longer. Obama's proposal of a public option was a compromise, and yet Fox News and co. have made him out to be some crazy radical. And now, with even the compromise being scrapped... we have to wait and see if there is REAL reform.
dekotable 2 years ago
REAL healthcare reform is necessarily LESS government intrusion, not more. "universal" schemes are nothing but more of the same government theft, oppression, and redustribution. The ONLY real reform is LESS government intrusion into healthcare, not more.
herbs814 2 years ago
Care to explain? You're saying stuff but none of it is logical. How is reform (you know the meaning of the word right?) brought about by NOT doing anything? You're making no sense. And how can you honestly stick up for our current system? We are the only developed nation in the world that allows corporations to make a profit off the health of its citizens. I won't go through all the statistics with you here as you can look them up yourself but even your side agrees that HC in the US is broken.
dekotable 2 years ago
Reform is brought about by doing THE RIGHT THING. Excessive government intrusion into healthcare is the cause of all our problems. The Dems' bill will only make healthcare (and job-creation) WORSE. The RIGHT THING to do is to get the government OUT of healthcare.
herbs814 2 years ago
And do you honestly think it is right that in our country, let's face it, the greatest country in the modern era, people go bankrupt because they have the misfortune to get sick? And because fat cat corporate types get fatter on their premiums? People who HAVE insurance go bankrupt, and you honestly think the industry should have LESS regulation? Are you insane? or just totally misinformed?
dekotable 2 years ago
People are going bankrupt because they lose the ability to earn income while they seek medical care. They DO NOT need medical insurance; they need disability insurance and personal savings. They need government to CUT TAXES, not increase tax burdens for some misguided "universal" health Scare scheme.
herbs814 2 years ago
Wow! Really? People go bankrupt because they can't make money and have no savings? You're a fuckin genius. Let's vote you into the senate so you can solve all our problems with your in-depth analysis of how things work. I'm done dude, have fun living in your oblivious world.
dekotable 2 years ago
"...of people that actually know stuff."
I FREAKING LOL'D, ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING ME???
Turn your computer off before you computer off before you do anymore damage to yourself. You "knower of knowing stuff".
ktmrider250xcw 2 years ago
And LOL you say Bush went to the left? Wow, seriously, i read your comment again and i don't even know why i'm replying... you are just a clueless moron. No shit universal healthcare is going to cost money... but our biggest expenditure right now is on war and the military, you honestly don't think we should spend as much if not more on the health of our citizens? And you are a complete douche if you defend the big corporations that make a profit off healthcare providers and the health of.. you!
dekotable 2 years ago
"our biggest expenditure right now is on war and the military" - That would be right if there was no such thing as social security and medicare. Does that not count as "Spending"?
Twiggy269 2 years ago
I'm going to go easy because this issue is a bit convoluted. Since the Vietnam War, the gov't has instituted a practice of calculating the federal budget by combining federal spending with trust funds. Social security is a trust fund. Oh, and the US is the only gov't in the world to use such a method to calculate national spending. With that in mind, their poisition that defense takes up only 20% of fed spending is further complicated by the fact that they only use funds directed toward
dekotable 2 years ago
directed toward the dept of defense as defense or military spending. This doesn't include military portion spending from other departments. In addition, the vastly underestimated 40-ish billion spent on the "war on terror" is also not included in the 20%. Add all that together and the military budget is way out in front of everything else. Here's a fun fact: US military spending accounts for 47% of military spending for the ENTIRE world, while only accounting for 21% of worldwide GDP. Hmm...
dekotable 2 years ago
list of things a Govt. should spend money on :
Court system to convict criminals.
Police to use retaliatory force against criminals.
Military to protect citizens from foreign attacks/threats.
Military should be one of the biggest expenditures of any government, i'm not quite sure why that would be a ....bad thing?
Unless of course you're a dilusional altruist, then you'll find tons of other things to spend money on. Stop trying to act like govt spending upsets you.
Twiggy269 2 years ago
You're all the same.
Left wingers were mad the past 8 years because Republicans were spending money on republican pet projects, Republicans are mad now because Democrats are spending money on Left wing projects. It's all evil, they're both robbing you. You don't care about spending, you just want the Govt. to spend it on what YOU want it spent on. So, tell me again, how are you any better than the other side?
Twiggy269 2 years ago
I think you're imposing some weird liberal hate on me. If you go through and read all of my comments again, you will find that: A) i said deregulation is why jobs go overseas, B) i am in favor of universal hc, C) think obama is governing like a centrist, and D) think that the republican base is composed of morons who do not know the issues. If you read the replies, you will also come to conclusion D. But nope, you came into into the debate with too many assumptions.
dekotable 2 years ago
I brought up the point that the US is spending more on the military than it is on the health of its citizens. You pointed out that social security and medicare ranked ahead of the military in federal spending. I showed you why that statement was misleading, and that, in fact, military spending takes up the biggest chunk of fed spending. Then you say that there's nothing wrong with that. I never made a judgement cal either way, just brought up the fact that military > HC in the fed budget.
dekotable 2 years ago
You dumb ass the first thing Bush did when he got in office was jump in there with the now decaying (finally got a job rotting)Teddy Kennedy and start the no child left behind. If that is not moving to the left what the fuck is moron? One of his campaign promises was to do away with the dept. of Education. I defend any legal way of making money. Last I heard Corps. are legal. You want to live in a socialist country? Then LEAVE! You are nothing but a brain washed KOOL- AID drinking FOOL!
micsc50 2 years ago
Please stop repeating talking points i can just go read on a transcript of rush limbaugh's show. And "kool-aid drinking fool"? Hmm.. i wonder if that's a reference to obama being black.. !!! I think it is!! And as soon as i call you a racist, people are going to jump all over me and say that i'm "playing the race card." So i won't even bother, as that's not even the most depressing thing about you. The most depressing thing about you is that you are a seriously dumb retard.
dekotable 2 years ago
You are playing the race card because you are losing the debate. Let me educate you. Jim Jones followers drank kool-aid and died at his request. You are following Obama in the same manner. Obama is your lord and savior. You have been fooled by a charismatic con artist. You chose to ignore the facts about him and what he is trying to do out of emotion. There is not one logical thought in your thick head. You are nothing so you will fall for anything. You are a FOOL!
micsc50 2 years ago
Call me a fool all you want but you haven't bought up a single valid point... as least the other guy twiggy is actually trying to debate.
dekotable 2 years ago
You would not know valid if it were staring you in the face. Its obvious from the other blogs that you are living on a different planet. You are ignoring the facts. Its almost like you are some kind of puppet. Its obvious that you are a one sided fool and no one is going to turn you around. You have kool-aid drinkers mentality. You will follow your leader to hell and back. You don't have a logical or reasonable thought in your head and probably are incapable of reasoning. YOU ARE A FOOL!
micsc50 2 years ago
You keep saying I'm a blind follower of obama. My whole point was that he's been too centrist and too much of a pussy or politician to really be effective in carrying out the liberal policies he was elected on. You haven't brought up a single example or point to show anything worth debating. You're dumb. You're a retard. I asked you a whole bunch of times to give me specific examples or points to illustrate your positions and all you can do is try and insult me. Dumbass.
dekotable 2 years ago
Obama has been too radically LEFT-wing and that is why America is rejecting him and his rubber-stamp Congress for going along with his tyrannical agenda.
herbs814 2 years ago
That must be why we have universal health care. Oh wait we don't. The truth is he is trying to be bipartisan and the republicans are taking advantage to water it down so when it doesn't work they can go...aha! Obama was wrong.
smarhaus 2 years ago
Obama is an evil heartless thug. "universal" healthcare is an EVIL system that steals from the honest and only benefits the corrupt.
herbs814 2 years ago
A country and system that allows big corporations to profit off the health of its citizens is EVIL. The opposite of EVIL is providing healthcare to everybody, not just the ones that can afford it. You are EVIL if you think that only rich people deserve to live healthy lives. You are EVIL if you think that health is somehow a privilege and not a right.
dekotable 2 years ago
Sorry, you're wrong. It's the opposite; it's quite EVIL to force someone to provide their services. No, the government has no right to force doctors to provide health care to people, just like they don't have the right to force grocery stores to give people food or the water company to provide water to their home. The causes for why health care costs are so high has much to do with government interference in the market place. Health care in the past wasn't a service only for the rich.
kommisar 2 years ago
I guess you think its evil firemen are forced to put out fires as well. And what regulations in the hc insurance sector? The reasons costs are so high is because a significant LACK of regulations lets them go crazy for profit. That was YOUR point, wasn't it? That there's nothing wrong with a company trying to make as much profit as it can?
dekotable 2 years ago
The fire departments are supported by local taxes (even though many of the firemen are volunteers). Their services are paid for already. Telling a doctor he has to treat someone is something different, especially considering all the malpractice risks involved. Tell us why doctors should be forced to treat someone but a farmer shouldn't be forced to give his crops to someone or a water company, provide water to someone's home?
kommisar 2 years ago
First of all, your firemen comment makes absolutely no sense. Local tax point moot: because you say that it's evil for taxes to be used for any kind of social service. Their services are already paid for? Telling a firemen he has to put out a fire is different from telling a doctor he has to treat someone in what way exactly? And i don't know where you live but firefighters in LA definitely don't volunteer unless theyre locked up and want to score points for good behavior during hillfire season.
dekotable 2 years ago
No, I never said it's evil for taxes to be used for social services. Fire departments vs. doctors' offices, clinics and hospitals aren't even comparable. Fire departments don't have to have malpractice insurance for one, and like I said, fire departments are already paid for whereas health treatment often isn't.
I guess you need to get out more then. Many fire departments have volunteers. I thought everyone knew this by now. Go look it up.
kommisar 2 years ago
I answered your silly questions now. Now are you going to tell me what the difference is between telling a doctor he has to treat someone vs. telling a farmer he has to give someone food?
kommisar 2 years ago