Hey everybody! the only way we're going to have "economic justice" in this country is when we're all living in dirt poor shantytowns. then we won't have any rich man to be jealous about anymore.
The GOP refers to fairness in taxes as "warfare" and "socialism." It's what they do because the richest among them are selfish and greedy. Period. There is no "warfare." There probably isn't much "socialism." Then they get "Joe the plumber" to vote for them by tucking their greed under arms and abortion laws, "Christian values," gay and minority rights fears. Man, I wouldn't have bailed out the banks OR the auto makers. I DO believe in free markets. Nothing to do with capital gains taxes.
Oh class warfare class warfare SHUT THE FUCK UP! If finding it bullshit that you give yourselves far too large a paycheck, give yourself and your other rich asshole friends bonuses all the time, profit off people having to work shitty jobs for you because you drove small businesses into the ground, talk about free market economics, and then give a big middle finger to Americans by sending jobs over seas to keep your paycheck, THEN FUCK YOUR CLASS! I'll tax the fuck out of you greedy tools.
Is class warfare something new? There has always been greedy rich people (not all rich people) shortchanging hard-working working-class people. There's always been poor people (not all poor people) robbing more well-to-do people. "Class Warfare" is another buzz word for sheep to repeat.
@CosmicFork Why dont you enlighten the rest of us with your uneducated opinion? Tax the rich? Why? I know, because its "not fair" that they have ambition to actually get a job and work hard to make a living but people like you are too lazy to do anything like that and would rather be spoon fed by the government who rely on hard worker's tax money.
@bushwackersftw I'm pretty sure that most of the major concentrations of the world's wealth, despite being controlled by a small minority or what you call 'hard workers', was in reality created by the sweat and blood of people who break their backs, create real solutions, provide valuable contribution to society thru their work -- as opposed to the wealthy power elite whose only function is to sell labor and products without ever having produced anything of real use.
@skoockum You don't think those wealthy people started somewhere? Working hard is what made them wealthy, which could very well be the people who you are refering to. Or they could just be a simple office worker at the start but they still had to work hard to get wealthy.
@bushwackersftw What does a wealthy person's starting point have to do with why it's ok for the wealthy/power elite to treat the rest of humanity as a resource for their own personal consumption?
@skoockum Because clearly "the rest of humanity" as you call them, do not have a job and are not contributing to society in any way shape or form, other than begging for money from hard working tax payers. Wat I meant by their starting point is that is seems as though all you hippie tree hugger socialists just assume that rich people magically get money in their pocket for no apparent reason but in reality, they all started somewhere in life to eventually get a better job and make more money.
@bushwackersftw ....sez the doofus who can't wait to give up what little he has to the power elite just so he can stick it to those worse off than he is for a little while in order to delude himself with the idea that at least he's better than SOMEbody.
Your logical disconnect is astounding, but not nearly as mystifying as your worship of the people who are eventually going to turn the middle & lower classes into serfs and use us like so much livestock.
@skoockum I dont understand how you assume I "worship" someone, but I'll just ignore that. Its simple, I believe in freedom, not socialism/communism. Basically, you want lower class people to be treated equal to the others right? Well why cant you/they just get a job and instantly be treated the same as others? Everyone being treated equal (in a good or bad way) is communism, and I'm pretty sure America is known for its freedom and stupid ideas like those will not work well with society.
@skoockum are you a fucking idiot? laborers are a dim a dozen, they get payd so little because they are elastic, in todays society the more you understand about economy the more inelastic you are, there for you get payed more, its simple those people who shed sweat and blood, have numerous people that can take their place, however do you have the qualifications to lead a fortune 500 company? stop bitching you fucking closet-socialist pig
@skoockum clearly thats all your gonna address because you don't have shit to come back with... hopefully you saw the big gaping hole in your logic, your welcome
@skoockum nice, calling someone punk ass bitch, and a cunt surely shows how your the least insecure virgin in the world, but go ahead continue to insult me without ever trying to challenge my initial argument that owners push business, not laborers and that with out these "elitests" there would be no wealth or progress for you to leach off of. go ahead keep mindlessly bantering like the uneducated twat you are, nice to see how intelligent these anti-capitalist hippies are...
@ChannelGameshow Bullshit... Tax 'em! And then, make the Government the employer of last resort if we have to. We've had over 10 YEARS of Tax Breaks for Billionaires, and where are all the jobs??? NO WHERE TO BE SEEN !!!!
@CosmicFork Not billionaries... Some people who make 300,000 are in the 1%, im not even sure if more than a thousand people are billionares
Also the number of jobs did not drop because of the Tax cuts, they dropped because of the housing crisis.
The tax rates before the cuts were too high, could you imagine paying 60-70% making 300,000. You would only keep about 100,000... how is that fair? You would be a slave to the government for 8 months!
@CosmicFork - yes, we need to tax the wealthy until we balance out our "collective wealth". this happened in the gilded age, so it's not unprecedented. our country is too stratified, thus we see uprisings like the occupy movement.
-
tax the rich at 60-70% until we as a nation become successful again. it's the only honest, intelligent approach.
@CosmicFork Great! But seriously, why should the wealthy be taxed more? If the more money you made, the more you get taxed, why would anyone have any ambition to start their own business knowing that they wont make any more money?
Btw, I take the Right Wing 4 wheeler as a compliment.
@bushwackersftw Its simple, you are making millions and they take half your money, you still made millions. You aren't living in poverty, you own many homes and cars. The more you work, the more money you get. Its not like you are stagnate, you have just about as much incentive to work as anyone else, but only paying in some cases 6-7% of your wealth in taxes while others need help to gain social mobility is wrong. There is no honor in poverty.
@bigbass141 And I might add, it may be selfish to think the way I do, but it is a cold world out there. Everyone is fighting to survive, so everyone is looking to better, themselves. So in that world it is is still justified because whether the dagger is in my hand or the rich man's hand we would use it to make out living situation better.
@bigbass141 Trust me, I do not approve of poverty at all. But, taxing the rich more is not going to help the poor like it would if they would just get a job, right?
@bushwackersftw " If the more money you made, the more you get taxed, why would anyone have any ambition to start their own business" they simply wont, unfortunately all these 99% ers dont understand how people react to scarcity, maybe if these motherfuckers would have picked up a book or took an econ 101 class they would understand
: an insurgent or a member of an insurgent group especially in a political party : radical; broadly : one advocating changes within a usually established group
If this guy loves income equality, why is he pushing to change our heritage. Why not preach to the choir in the countries he listed and let us keep working harder to reach a greater point in our lives. In return, the perseverance will pay off.
The goal of the ruling interests in this country is the Third Worldization of America. I'm convinced the rich elites have this in mind for all of us, (working poor) (lower Middle Class) (ordinary Middle Class)... they don't care! It's part of their larger goal of the Third Worldization of the great mass of humanity. Why do the rich elites want to do this to us? Simple. It's all about power and control. That's why it's so important to speak out against this. Agitate, don't let the bastards win!
@hntr15 because they lure one on too there uploads, the never add a picture of them sitting and discussing whatever. if i want to watch the news, i will look for it, not stumple upon it like this. They are just always in the way. simple..
@ChannelGameshow "it started for America, which is all that matters"
Then why bother referring to it as the insignificant "world" war, and not the "U.S." War? Oh wait, I know -- it's because the world matters more than America.
Just having a larf at your expense there.
The truth is, you were really just talking out of your ass when you said WWII didn't start until 1941-42, weren't you? Just like you were talking out of your ass when you said that the world was insignificant compared to Murica.
@ChannelGameshow Nope. They called it WWII because it involved many counties not just the US. It's true, you can look it up yourself.
If you're still confused, just remember: it isn't called the America War. It's called the World War. That's cuz the World is more important than America.
But the truth is, you were just talking out your ass, like 6 posts ago, instead of using your head. Admit it. Everyone else knows it's true. Go the facts, just this once.
@skoockum Funny thing is im not denying it ,point is AMERICA DOES NOT NEED TO FUCKING PAY FOR A WAR IF THEY ARE NOT ENGAGED IN IT! not when poland was invaded... when America was attacked and joined the war.
@ChannelGameshow Here's what's happened so far: U answered a Q, claiming that what so dramatically happened in 1941-42 was that WWII began. You were wrong: WWII began earlier. You responded by claiming that no definition of the beginning of WWII that isn't centered around USA's concerns are relevant. Now you imply that you were right all along because [entirely unrelated to any part of what has transpired in our interaction] the USA should not pay for a war it's not involved in.
@ChannelGameshow "I never said that, I said WWII began for America..."
You're lying. Here's the proof.
1 month ago tph2010 asked "2:20 What happened so dramatically in 1941-42?"
You answered "@tph2010 WWII starts"
So you see, you clearly stated that WWII started in 1941-42. Which is wrong. It's possible that you intended to say something else, but you didn't. You said that WWII started in 1941-42, no exceptions, no qualifications, no do-overs.
@ChannelGameshow Interesting. Your wrong about the rich paying too much. They dont make most of their money from a salary, a lot of it comes from capital gain, for which they pay only 15%. Poor people also have to pay a greater percentage of their income in payroll taxes than the rich do, a regressive system.
@tph2010 You are incorrect, my father is in the upper bracket, he makes no money from capital gains (which the few hundred steryotypical rich people use, not the majority of rich people) My father pays 42% taxes (State and national). Poor people? 75% of poor (lower two quintiles) people dont pay taxes!
@ChannelGameshow No, your incorrect. Even if poor people dont end up paying federal income taxes, they still have to play state income taxes, payroll taxes, and sales taxes, all of which take up a greater percentage of their wealth than the rich.
@ChannelGameshow "75% of poor (lower two quintiles) people dont pay taxes"
30% don't pay taxes? What if that's because 30% are living so far below a reasonable living wage that taxing their income seems obscene even to the IRS?
But the truth is, pert near everyone who buys goods and services pays taxes, nest pas?
And how is it a bad thing that those who can't afford a healthy diet for their children are not required to put in for infrastructure?
If 1% of the population is earning 99% of the income, why is making them pay 99% of the taxes 'class warfare'?
How can rightwingnuts so consistently characterize the idea of corporations and the obscenely rich paying taxes proportional to their slice of the pie as being 'class warfare', and yet miss the fact that the Republican attack on social concerns (ie: national health care, welfare, education, unions, civil rights...) are blatant acts of class warfare inflicted on the 99%ers?
Karl Marx wanted to end "class struggle(conflict)" or..what the revisionists GOP are calling it now...."class warfare". Which party is guilty of this sin? The very people who are throwing irrational words of sin...the GOP! So, the GOP created this game...1%(some of them) vs. 99%(the rest of us)!!! They wanted this game not us! Ofcourse,the 1% does the hiring but....they need us to work! and to bank! and to purchase products. Now,they are preventing many US citizens from voting. Who is guilty?
"class warfare". This is something which K. Marx wanted to eliminate because he theorized that when the workers wins the state(central gov.) then they take over the Corporate entity and then by ending the Corporate entity ..." Class warfare " would end!! READ HIS BOOKS!!! No! I am not a marxist nor a communist but decided to read his books to understand his points. K. Marx simply observed the problem (class struggle(conflict)) and then theorized a solution to the problem(Workers Gov.).
We need to go much farther than taking away the Bush tax cuts. Corporations only tax break on net profit should be 25% of median wage paid * number of US citizens employed. CEOs and executives of publicly traded companies should be prevented from owning stocks in those companies and they shouldn't be able to receive more than 25x median employee wage.
the wealthy create jobs, but tax breaks isn't what spurs them to do so. What spurs them is the ability to make a profit by selling goods and services at a profit and needing employees to provide those goods and services. When 1/2 of society has no money left after paying for basic necessities, there is no demand, and therefore no incentive to expand or create business to produce goods nobody will buy.
Tax increases on the rich will have no effect whatsoever. He could raise the bracket to 100% and nothing would change. It is the loopholes, credits, tax havens, and foundations that need the reform as those are the real reasons they pay less. Even if he could get more taxes out of the rich, it would eliminate what is left of the middle class because, "fees" would get handed down to consumers. Consumers have nobody to dump on, we are the dumping ground. Class warfare? You bet it's coming.
The rich run the country, it is ever so apparent. In a few years two classes of people, rich and poor. When all the poor people working people, all get together and stop paying taxes, then we can get our country back,.
this income inequality talk is all bullshit. maybe the rich did better than most, but everyone did better overall. but democrats can't be happy, they have to scream out class envy because someone else did better.
they would be happier if everyone suffered than to let some people excel more than others because they made better decisions. unless of course it's them doing the excelling.
honestly, move to Venezuela and tell me how much better your life gets. it's a fucking joke.
Taking into consideration that 40% of the job creation from 1990 through 2008 was government or healthcare related, tell me, why exactly are we coddling the rich? And I don't want to hear that crap about the corporate rate being the highest in the industrialized world. Loopholes and crooked politicians make damn sure that not a hair on their fat heads gets ruffled. I'm not railing on the rich, because hard work = success, but lets get real, the poor cannot foot the bill.
we can't do shit about this. even the democrats are too corrupt and incompetent to help the middle class. it will have to be another great depression, for us to fix the fucking country.
THE PYRAMIDS OF EGYPT REPRESENTED THE CLASS STRUCTURE OF THEIR SOCIETY'S -UPPER -MIDDLE-LOWER-UNDER - THIS PYRAMID STRUCTURE IS OUR OUR SOCIETY STILL WORKS TO DAY - THE UPPER AND MIDDLE STAND ON THE LOWER TO RAISE THEM SELF'S UP, BUT THE WEIGHT IS TO MUCH AND THEY ARE SINKING IN THE MUD ,BECOMING THE UNDER CLASS - WELL YOUR F*CKING TIME IS OVER- THEIR IS MORE OF US THAN THEIR IS OF YOU - WE ARE YOUR ARMY'S -WE ARE YOUR POLICE- WE SUPPLY YOUR FOOD AND WATER- F*CK YOU , YOU GREEDY C*NTS,
If you’re interested in the problems with the world like social problems, environment ,education, politics, banking, and government even if you have an ounce of question or doubt on the problems you know that exist in this world please watch Zeitgeist Addendum here on youtube and Zeitgeist Moving Forward which is part two. It answers most of the problems we have today. Keep Posting this on more vidoes.
10% OWN 90% of US wealth, 400 people control 65%. put simply if you have ten people and ten cents one of them takes nine and the others so greatfully share a penny. if that sounds appropriate you are either rich or to damn stupid to know any better. the wealthy are destroying this country not social security and the poor..these greedy bastards should meet with the guillotine. republicans are either stupid or wealthy trust babies..tax these rich bastards. class warfare exist beware.its coming.
@Salvysahagun As Buffet told Ben stein. there is a class warfare. It's being done by the rich and the rich are winning. Republican Ben stein agreed. The country did better when more people made more of the income.
Those Murders are what symbolize the greatest period in American History.
the ideals of Abraham Lincoln and his dreams expanded.
But when Teddy Roosevelt took over for Mckinley And introduced Free Trade and canceling mckinleys infastructure thus destroying all forms of American progress.
@Salvysahagun "The fastest industrial growth in America was..."
No reply?
You brought up something as an example of success maybe not at all related to taxation system but only happened to be in the time of no income tax.
It could be that the same reason started the boom caused the end of boom? Nearly all tax cut had some bubble before it collapsed except W. Bush tax cut.
Don't you think you should have some knowledge to offer answers before you bring up something as an example?
tax rates have NEVER caused a Major economic collapse
Depression of 1894- Government over subsidized railroads. Railroad Speculation hits the fans and the Train industry collapses. 17% unemployment. Government makes major cuts to spending recovery takes 3 years.
Depression of 1920- Governments inability to pay war debts takes it toll as Federal Reserve makes poor monetary choices. Production -7% Prices -18% Unemployment 12% 2 year recovery after Harding takes austerity measures
@Salvysahagun "Depression of 1894- Government over subs....Hrding takes austerity measures"
Source?
It has to be a solidly accepted view, not by one persons opinion.
And yes, there are many cases of collapse by tax cuts. In fact, just about all economic advisers worked for those president warned them, ie, Hank Paulson to W. Bush etc.
I want to see who said such thing, never caused major collapse.
Austrian PHD economist Thom Woods Explains how doing nothing got America Out of a depression. The 1920 depressions 1st year was worse than the 1st year of the GD.
Thats the problem with Mainstream Economist. their scientist. its impossible to have an equation for human actions.
To leave economics to science and math is an insult on human inteligence.
You can't have a planned economy in a Free society.
And that one portfolio is now worth more than before the crash.
Every stock went down in 2008. And if you understand finance you'd realize that the 1st thing Americans would want to sell is foreign stocks because they aren't regulated by the SEC. But in reality foriegn exchanges are much better investments than domestic ones because they are not attached to the dollar
Just because Cenk Uygur says tax cuts for the rich causes depression doesn't mean its true. Considering he never predicted a crash like the two men i linked to you did. Oh and he was against Bush's stimulus but when Obama proposed on it all of a sudden a "GREAT" idea.
explain to me how only 2 mainstream economist called 07
Dean Baker & Krugman. when 100% of Austrian students & Economist could tell you EXACTLY what was going to happen with 100% certainty. Schiff (student), Paul (student) TWoods(phd), , Horowitz (phd)
all made accurate predicitions.
And who do we turn to? Krugman the guy who said its impossible to tell.
oh and the dot com bust here is Krugmans cure
"Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble."
@allgoo tax cuts do lead to positive economic results. i could point out that in the years following tax cuts government revenue increased, but just look this up and you will easily see three.
it is only after tax cuts in the last 100 years that we have had stable gdp growth. when taxes are high we have a boom and bust gdp and this might be good for some people but not for employment. as a rule, when gdp growth is stable employers are more likely 2 high full time employees and give better wages.
@allgoo19 each one of the events you mentioned have liberal federal policy at their core.
the reason you THINK it takes around 8 to ten years for a negative result is that is about as long as it takes for liberals to implement big policies to fuck up the good effects the tax cuts had on the economy. i mean honestly, it takes a fair amount of mental retardation to think that the 2008 market crash was caused by tax cuts. affordable housing act, sub prime, freddie and fannie ring any bells?
@allgoo19 name those?, well i think i just gave you two or three for the 2008, the aha, feddie and frannie, the upcoming election with the democrat tax policy of raising taxes on employers (oh wait, i'm sorry "the rich"), the stupidity of over-inflating the housing market through heavy subsidizing started by Clinton, that W. kept right along with. for the other ones, i just don't have time right now, maybe later, maybe you could look it up yourself. look at other sides of the argument.
@allgoo19 "Bush drive for home ownership fueled housing bubble"
i mentioned that, however the "blame bush" articles omit the fact that it was a clinton policy that bush continued. it was certainly not a conservative policy. but, as any will tell you, bush was NOT a conservative. not a real one at any rate.
you think fannie and freddie had no involvement? is your memory so short?
and has it gone unnoticed to you obama has double downed on the housing policies that led to the bubble?
@allgoo19 i have neither the time nor inclination to re-research and provide links to information to counter every tiny thing you have a problem with. and honestly the point you bring up here is rather inconsequential, if you can't remember all the shenanigans F and F were pulling in 2007 and 2008 there is no reason to tell you now because you will more than likely pretend it doesn't exist and forget it all over again the next time you try to blame the 2008 crash on the bush tax cuts.
@allgoo19 well if salvyshagun says so i guess it has to be true... i question EVERY point, i just don't feel like doing searches and reading through articles and spending all that time on something so immaterial. i didn't say F & F were the driving force, just one of many. it was the irresponsibility they engaged in, hush money, the unending bailouts, if you really are so keen to read some articles and your memory is so short just google their name and 400 billion to jog your memory.
@allgoo19 a lot of the bush policies were bad, as i have already admitted to and conceeded due to the fact that bush was not a conservative, especially not a fiscal one. bush basically did the same thing that clinton did when it came down to it. and because of the affordable housing act the only way to conform was to have the rules on anti-predatory lending loosened so the banks could offer adjustable rate loans as required of them by federal law. but obama has done far more than bush did.
@allgoo19 fiscally responsible, small government yada yada yada.
understand i am libertarian so there are issues i don't agree with on the typical conservative side. mainly on social issues.
but who? reagan. reagan was a conservative who had to deal with a democrat controlled congress. the compromise he made with the democrats was with spending. he let democrats spend money on their pet projects in return for tax cuts and de-regulation. but reagan was blamed for the deficits. funny
@allgoo19 perhaps you hadn't read the rest of the comment. Reagan. bachman, perry, rand paul, choose any top tea party pick and it will more than likely be a real conservative. although perry has only been conservative for the last 4 years or so...
now get back to whatever point you were making about the number of times where we have experienced negative growth. i can't wait for you to have some sort of valid point.
@allgoo19 the Reagan admin. unparalleled job growth, wealth creation, and standard of living increases for all. true, some did better that others, but EVERYONE'S life got better.
now, i want you to get to the point you started. you asked:
"Tell me, then. How many times in the history GDP actually went down?"
those of us that actually understand economics call that negative growth. i answered, now get to the point you were making.
@allgoo19 a list made by a keynesian economist uber liberal lawyer and screenwriter ranked democrats over a republican?? get right out of town!!! this whole list is void because his #1 is clinton, clinton inherited an awesome economy from reagan and bush, and it was the massive republican win in house and senate in 94 that led to the fiscal responsibility and consumer confidence. all clinton did was talk slick and get blowjobs.
now, stop changing the subject, get to you point about gdp downturns
@allgoo19 you have no point, you can't stay on topic. you're hopeless. your entire strategy is to pick apart something the other person says without having any original thought yourself.
i didn't bring up reagan i responded to another question off the top of my head, unlike you i don't let other people do the thinking for me.
@allgoo19 no i gave you three links to actual data. you gave me two references to stories written by liberals as though that was some kind of fact.
my only concession is that it is certainly pointless to argue with you , you give no actual evidence for any of your claims and will not stay anywhere near topic, you have no actual argument other than trying to pick apart what other people say. grow a brain and have an original thought or shut up. I'd prefer the first but will settle for the second.
Hey everybody! the only way we're going to have "economic justice" in this country is when we're all living in dirt poor shantytowns. then we won't have any rich man to be jealous about anymore.
CopperheadViper 4 days ago
Obama is in a class all by himself WARFARE !!!
411American 2 weeks ago
The GOP refers to fairness in taxes as "warfare" and "socialism." It's what they do because the richest among them are selfish and greedy. Period. There is no "warfare." There probably isn't much "socialism." Then they get "Joe the plumber" to vote for them by tucking their greed under arms and abortion laws, "Christian values," gay and minority rights fears. Man, I wouldn't have bailed out the banks OR the auto makers. I DO believe in free markets. Nothing to do with capital gains taxes.
brelfan 1 month ago
Oh class warfare class warfare SHUT THE FUCK UP! If finding it bullshit that you give yourselves far too large a paycheck, give yourself and your other rich asshole friends bonuses all the time, profit off people having to work shitty jobs for you because you drove small businesses into the ground, talk about free market economics, and then give a big middle finger to Americans by sending jobs over seas to keep your paycheck, THEN FUCK YOUR CLASS! I'll tax the fuck out of you greedy tools.
lewiskyle11 1 month ago
Comment removed
alexjxcx 1 month ago
theyoungturks is fucking gross, i honestly h8 these twats more than cnbc
alexjxcx 2 months ago
Daniel James Rader, MD did not attend an elite school.
MrFaisel34 2 months ago
Is class warfare something new? There has always been greedy rich people (not all rich people) shortchanging hard-working working-class people. There's always been poor people (not all poor people) robbing more well-to-do people. "Class Warfare" is another buzz word for sheep to repeat.
mohinderbauer 2 months ago
WAAHH WAHHH I WANT WHAT YOU HAVE!!! GIMME YOUR SHIT YOU DONT DESERVE IT!! ITS NOT FAIR THAT YOU HAVE MORE THAN ME!!! WAHHHHHHHHHHH!!
...fucking lemmings
TheAspietunes 2 months ago
Here's MY Plan:
Tax the rich.
Tax the rich.
And tax the rich some more!
CosmicFork 3 months ago 17
@CosmicFork Why dont you enlighten the rest of us with your uneducated opinion? Tax the rich? Why? I know, because its "not fair" that they have ambition to actually get a job and work hard to make a living but people like you are too lazy to do anything like that and would rather be spoon fed by the government who rely on hard worker's tax money.
bushwackersftw 3 months ago
@bushwackersftw Why don't you STFU and go watch another Peter Schiff video !!!
CosmicFork 3 months ago
@bushwackersftw you are wrong
jose123001 3 months ago
@bushwackersftw I'm pretty sure that most of the major concentrations of the world's wealth, despite being controlled by a small minority or what you call 'hard workers', was in reality created by the sweat and blood of people who break their backs, create real solutions, provide valuable contribution to society thru their work -- as opposed to the wealthy power elite whose only function is to sell labor and products without ever having produced anything of real use.
skoockum 2 months ago
@skoockum You don't think those wealthy people started somewhere? Working hard is what made them wealthy, which could very well be the people who you are refering to. Or they could just be a simple office worker at the start but they still had to work hard to get wealthy.
bushwackersftw 2 months ago
@bushwackersftw What does a wealthy person's starting point have to do with why it's ok for the wealthy/power elite to treat the rest of humanity as a resource for their own personal consumption?
skoockum 2 months ago
@skoockum Because clearly "the rest of humanity" as you call them, do not have a job and are not contributing to society in any way shape or form, other than begging for money from hard working tax payers. Wat I meant by their starting point is that is seems as though all you hippie tree hugger socialists just assume that rich people magically get money in their pocket for no apparent reason but in reality, they all started somewhere in life to eventually get a better job and make more money.
bushwackersftw 2 months ago
@bushwackersftw ....sez the doofus who can't wait to give up what little he has to the power elite just so he can stick it to those worse off than he is for a little while in order to delude himself with the idea that at least he's better than SOMEbody.
Your logical disconnect is astounding, but not nearly as mystifying as your worship of the people who are eventually going to turn the middle & lower classes into serfs and use us like so much livestock.
skoockum 2 months ago
@skoockum I dont understand how you assume I "worship" someone, but I'll just ignore that. Its simple, I believe in freedom, not socialism/communism. Basically, you want lower class people to be treated equal to the others right? Well why cant you/they just get a job and instantly be treated the same as others? Everyone being treated equal (in a good or bad way) is communism, and I'm pretty sure America is known for its freedom and stupid ideas like those will not work well with society.
bushwackersftw 2 months ago
@bushwackersftw you're living proof that stupidity never sleeps
skoockum 2 months ago
@skoockum What ever makes you feel better.
bushwackersftw 2 months ago
@bushwackersftw Nothing about stupidity makes me feel good. Not even yours.
skoockum 2 months ago
@skoockum Please enlighten me on why or how my opinion is stupid.
bushwackersftw 2 months ago
@bushwackersftw Well, for one, you ignore things you don't understand... That sorta thing goes way the fuck down into the bedrock of stupidity.
skoockum 2 months ago
@skoockum are you a fucking idiot? laborers are a dim a dozen, they get payd so little because they are elastic, in todays society the more you understand about economy the more inelastic you are, there for you get payed more, its simple those people who shed sweat and blood, have numerous people that can take their place, however do you have the qualifications to lead a fortune 500 company? stop bitching you fucking closet-socialist pig
alexjxcx 2 months ago
@alexjxcx "are you a fucking idiot?"
Of course not ..which is probably why you feel compelled to disagree with me.
skoockum 2 months ago
@skoockum clearly thats all your gonna address because you don't have shit to come back with... hopefully you saw the big gaping hole in your logic, your welcome
alexjxcx 2 months ago
@alexjxcx well well well... what a spineless little cunt you turned out to be
xD
skoockum 2 months ago
@skoockum yet you continue to avoid admiting you were wrong xD what a worthless cunt born of a cunt and of course spawning from a crusty cunt XD
alexjxcx 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@skoockum nice, calling someone punk ass bitch, and a cunt surely shows how your the least insecure virgin in the world, but go ahead continue to insult me without ever trying to challenge my initial argument that owners push business, not laborers and that with out these "elitests" there would be no wealth or progress for you to leach off of. go ahead keep mindlessly bantering like the uneducated twat you are, nice to see how intelligent these anti-capitalist hippies are...
alexjxcx 1 month ago
@CosmicFork Then this is the course of action
The Rich move away
The Rich move away
And then the revenues fall!
ChannelGameshow 2 months ago
@ChannelGameshow Bullshit... Tax 'em! And then, make the Government the employer of last resort if we have to. We've had over 10 YEARS of Tax Breaks for Billionaires, and where are all the jobs??? NO WHERE TO BE SEEN !!!!
CosmicFork 2 months ago
@CosmicFork Not billionaries... Some people who make 300,000 are in the 1%, im not even sure if more than a thousand people are billionares
Also the number of jobs did not drop because of the Tax cuts, they dropped because of the housing crisis.
The tax rates before the cuts were too high, could you imagine paying 60-70% making 300,000. You would only keep about 100,000... how is that fair? You would be a slave to the government for 8 months!
ChannelGameshow 2 months ago
@CosmicFork - yes, we need to tax the wealthy until we balance out our "collective wealth". this happened in the gilded age, so it's not unprecedented. our country is too stratified, thus we see uprisings like the occupy movement.
-
tax the rich at 60-70% until we as a nation become successful again. it's the only honest, intelligent approach.
tnoyy34rt 2 months ago
@CosmicFork
Here's MY Plan:
Learn Economics.
Learn Economics.
Learn Economics.
simonburbank 2 months ago 2
@CosmicFork Here's MY Plan:
Get a job.
Get a job.
And eventually get a better job!
...Socialist.
bushwackersftw 2 months ago
@bushwackersftw Got a Job! Fuck-Off, Right-Wing, 4-Wheelin' Twat!!!
CosmicFork 2 months ago
@CosmicFork Great! But seriously, why should the wealthy be taxed more? If the more money you made, the more you get taxed, why would anyone have any ambition to start their own business knowing that they wont make any more money?
Btw, I take the Right Wing 4 wheeler as a compliment.
bushwackersftw 2 months ago
@bushwackersftw Its simple, you are making millions and they take half your money, you still made millions. You aren't living in poverty, you own many homes and cars. The more you work, the more money you get. Its not like you are stagnate, you have just about as much incentive to work as anyone else, but only paying in some cases 6-7% of your wealth in taxes while others need help to gain social mobility is wrong. There is no honor in poverty.
bigbass141 2 months ago
@bigbass141 And I might add, it may be selfish to think the way I do, but it is a cold world out there. Everyone is fighting to survive, so everyone is looking to better, themselves. So in that world it is is still justified because whether the dagger is in my hand or the rich man's hand we would use it to make out living situation better.
bigbass141 2 months ago
@bigbass141 Trust me, I do not approve of poverty at all. But, taxing the rich more is not going to help the poor like it would if they would just get a job, right?
bushwackersftw 2 months ago
@bushwackersftw " If the more money you made, the more you get taxed, why would anyone have any ambition to start their own business" they simply wont, unfortunately all these 99% ers dont understand how people react to scarcity, maybe if these motherfuckers would have picked up a book or took an econ 101 class they would understand
alexjxcx 2 months ago
@alexjxcx i suppose that you have alot of money but you seem to forget we the people dosent mean just rich snobs like you
wades623 1 month ago
@wades623 i dont if anything im lower middle class u arrogant dumb cunt
alexjxcx 1 month ago
Comment removed
alexjxcx 2 months ago
Income equality = communism or maybe socialism
Definition of YOUNG TURK
: an insurgent or a member of an insurgent group especially in a political party : radical; broadly : one advocating changes within a usually established group
If this guy loves income equality, why is he pushing to change our heritage. Why not preach to the choir in the countries he listed and let us keep working harder to reach a greater point in our lives. In return, the perseverance will pay off.
burgrman 3 months ago
The goal of the ruling interests in this country is the Third Worldization of America. I'm convinced the rich elites have this in mind for all of us, (working poor) (lower Middle Class) (ordinary Middle Class)... they don't care! It's part of their larger goal of the Third Worldization of the great mass of humanity. Why do the rich elites want to do this to us? Simple. It's all about power and control. That's why it's so important to speak out against this. Agitate, don't let the bastards win!
CosmicFork 3 months ago 21
John McCain is such an ass.... they must have beat him too much as a POW...
depena 4 months ago
The Top 1% share of income will always be the rate of unemployment.
SacredSocietyAP 4 months ago
money is trash . its about the stuff people that make $50,000 a year have $300
in the bank . how much can you buy with no house .
sha370z 4 months ago
FUcking hate the young turks channel!!!!!!
allermann1 4 months ago
@allermann1 why? and also dont watch/listen to them
hntr15 3 months ago in playlist More videos from TheYoungTurks
@hntr15 because they lure one on too there uploads, the never add a picture of them sitting and discussing whatever. if i want to watch the news, i will look for it, not stumple upon it like this. They are just always in the way. simple..
allermann1 3 months ago
Comment removed
tph2010 4 months ago
2:20 What happened so dramatically in 1941-42?
tph2010 4 months ago
@tph2010 WWII starts
ChannelGameshow 4 months ago
@ChannelGameshow Ackshully, WWII started in 1939 with the invasion of Poland. You can look it up if you like.
skoockum 4 months ago
@skoockum it started for America, which is all that matters, you could also argue that WWII started in 1937 with the Sino-Japanese War.
ChannelGameshow 4 months ago
@ChannelGameshow "it started for America, which is all that matters"
Then why bother referring to it as the insignificant "world" war, and not the "U.S." War? Oh wait, I know -- it's because the world matters more than America.
Just having a larf at your expense there.
The truth is, you were really just talking out of your ass when you said WWII didn't start until 1941-42, weren't you? Just like you were talking out of your ass when you said that the world was insignificant compared to Murica.
skoockum 4 months ago
@skoockum If America wasn't at war, why would they need to raise taxes on the rich to pay for the war effort....
Thats why it only mattered when America entered.
ChannelGameshow 4 months ago
@ChannelGameshow Nope. They called it WWII because it involved many counties not just the US. It's true, you can look it up yourself.
If you're still confused, just remember: it isn't called the America War. It's called the World War. That's cuz the World is more important than America.
But the truth is, you were just talking out your ass, like 6 posts ago, instead of using your head. Admit it. Everyone else knows it's true. Go the facts, just this once.
skoockum 4 months ago
@skoockum Funny thing is im not denying it ,point is AMERICA DOES NOT NEED TO FUCKING PAY FOR A WAR IF THEY ARE NOT ENGAGED IN IT! not when poland was invaded... when America was attacked and joined the war.
ChannelGameshow 4 months ago
@ChannelGameshow Here's what's happened so far: U answered a Q, claiming that what so dramatically happened in 1941-42 was that WWII began. You were wrong: WWII began earlier. You responded by claiming that no definition of the beginning of WWII that isn't centered around USA's concerns are relevant. Now you imply that you were right all along because [entirely unrelated to any part of what has transpired in our interaction] the USA should not pay for a war it's not involved in.
skoockum 2 months ago
@skoockum ...So at this point, your assertion that WWII began in 1941-42 stands as blatantly incorrect.
Care to disagree some more on that point?
Or are you just going to change the subject again?
skoockum 2 months ago
@skoockum
ChannelGameshow 2 months ago
@skoockum I never said that, I said WWII began for America...
ChannelGameshow 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ChannelGameshow "I never said that, I said WWII began for America..."
You're lying. Here's the proof.
1 month ago tph2010 asked "2:20 What happened so dramatically in 1941-42?"
You answered "@tph2010 WWII starts"
So you see, you clearly stated that WWII started in 1941-42. Which is wrong. It's possible that you intended to say something else, but you didn't. You said that WWII started in 1941-42, no exceptions, no qualifications, no do-overs.
skoockum 2 months ago
@ChannelGameshow What does WWII starting have to do with a sharp drop in the Top 10% income share?
tph2010 4 months ago
@tph2010 during WWII FDR taxed the rich at 91-94 %.... your not gonna make much money then
ChannelGameshow 4 months ago
@ChannelGameshow Interesting. Your wrong about the rich paying too much. They dont make most of their money from a salary, a lot of it comes from capital gain, for which they pay only 15%. Poor people also have to pay a greater percentage of their income in payroll taxes than the rich do, a regressive system.
tph2010 4 months ago 3
@tph2010 You are incorrect, my father is in the upper bracket, he makes no money from capital gains (which the few hundred steryotypical rich people use, not the majority of rich people) My father pays 42% taxes (State and national). Poor people? 75% of poor (lower two quintiles) people dont pay taxes!
ChannelGameshow 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ChannelGameshow No, your incorrect. Even if poor people dont end up paying federal income taxes, they still have to play state income taxes, payroll taxes, and sales taxes, all of which take up a greater percentage of their wealth than the rich.
tph2010 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ChannelGameshow "75% of poor (lower two quintiles) people dont pay taxes"
30% don't pay taxes? What if that's because 30% are living so far below a reasonable living wage that taxing their income seems obscene even to the IRS?
But the truth is, pert near everyone who buys goods and services pays taxes, nest pas?
And how is it a bad thing that those who can't afford a healthy diet for their children are not required to put in for infrastructure?
And how the fuck is abetting the rich good?
skoockum 4 months ago
If 1% of the population is earning 99% of the income, why is making them pay 99% of the taxes 'class warfare'?
How can rightwingnuts so consistently characterize the idea of corporations and the obscenely rich paying taxes proportional to their slice of the pie as being 'class warfare', and yet miss the fact that the Republican attack on social concerns (ie: national health care, welfare, education, unions, civil rights...) are blatant acts of class warfare inflicted on the 99%ers?
skoockum 4 months ago
@skoockum because in our current system, the top 1% rich who make 35% of the income pay 40% of the taxes.... they DO pay too much
ChannelGameshow 4 months ago
@ChannelGameshow Really. And where did you come across this "data" of yours?
skoockum 4 months ago
Karl Marx wanted to end "class struggle(conflict)" or..what the revisionists GOP are calling it now...."class warfare". Which party is guilty of this sin? The very people who are throwing irrational words of sin...the GOP! So, the GOP created this game...1%(some of them) vs. 99%(the rest of us)!!! They wanted this game not us! Ofcourse,the 1% does the hiring but....they need us to work! and to bank! and to purchase products. Now,they are preventing many US citizens from voting. Who is guilty?
cris750 4 months ago in playlist cris750's favorites
"class warfare". This is something which K. Marx wanted to eliminate because he theorized that when the workers wins the state(central gov.) then they take over the Corporate entity and then by ending the Corporate entity ..." Class warfare " would end!! READ HIS BOOKS!!! No! I am not a marxist nor a communist but decided to read his books to understand his points. K. Marx simply observed the problem (class struggle(conflict)) and then theorized a solution to the problem(Workers Gov.).
cris750 4 months ago
You left out the crime statistics..and the retribution.
MisterTymes 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
We need to go much farther than taking away the Bush tax cuts. Corporations only tax break on net profit should be 25% of median wage paid * number of US citizens employed. CEOs and executives of publicly traded companies should be prevented from owning stocks in those companies and they shouldn't be able to receive more than 25x median employee wage.
upsetDavid 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
the wealthy create jobs, but tax breaks isn't what spurs them to do so. What spurs them is the ability to make a profit by selling goods and services at a profit and needing employees to provide those goods and services. When 1/2 of society has no money left after paying for basic necessities, there is no demand, and therefore no incentive to expand or create business to produce goods nobody will buy.
upsetDavid 5 months ago
Tax increases on the rich will have no effect whatsoever. He could raise the bracket to 100% and nothing would change. It is the loopholes, credits, tax havens, and foundations that need the reform as those are the real reasons they pay less. Even if he could get more taxes out of the rich, it would eliminate what is left of the middle class because, "fees" would get handed down to consumers. Consumers have nobody to dump on, we are the dumping ground. Class warfare? You bet it's coming.
paulcoonan 5 months ago
@paulcoonan sickles and torches, the mob is at the castle gates
skoockum 4 months ago
The rich run the country, it is ever so apparent. In a few years two classes of people, rich and poor. When all the poor people working people, all get together and stop paying taxes, then we can get our country back,.
dinoing07 5 months ago
its 700 billion over 10 years if we can raise taxes on just the top 2%
josh1492 5 months ago
this income inequality talk is all bullshit. maybe the rich did better than most, but everyone did better overall. but democrats can't be happy, they have to scream out class envy because someone else did better.
they would be happier if everyone suffered than to let some people excel more than others because they made better decisions. unless of course it's them doing the excelling.
honestly, move to Venezuela and tell me how much better your life gets. it's a fucking joke.
tiggstah 6 months ago
Taking into consideration that 40% of the job creation from 1990 through 2008 was government or healthcare related, tell me, why exactly are we coddling the rich? And I don't want to hear that crap about the corporate rate being the highest in the industrialized world. Loopholes and crooked politicians make damn sure that not a hair on their fat heads gets ruffled. I'm not railing on the rich, because hard work = success, but lets get real, the poor cannot foot the bill.
stutwostep 6 months ago
storm the white house, kill and eat the rich
afaultytoaster 6 months ago 2
we can't do shit about this. even the democrats are too corrupt and incompetent to help the middle class. it will have to be another great depression, for us to fix the fucking country.
aglorincz 6 months ago
THE PYRAMIDS OF EGYPT REPRESENTED THE CLASS STRUCTURE OF THEIR SOCIETY'S -UPPER -MIDDLE-LOWER-UNDER - THIS PYRAMID STRUCTURE IS OUR OUR SOCIETY STILL WORKS TO DAY - THE UPPER AND MIDDLE STAND ON THE LOWER TO RAISE THEM SELF'S UP, BUT THE WEIGHT IS TO MUCH AND THEY ARE SINKING IN THE MUD ,BECOMING THE UNDER CLASS - WELL YOUR F*CKING TIME IS OVER- THEIR IS MORE OF US THAN THEIR IS OF YOU - WE ARE YOUR ARMY'S -WE ARE YOUR POLICE- WE SUPPLY YOUR FOOD AND WATER- F*CK YOU , YOU GREEDY C*NTS,
SLAVERISING 6 months ago
If you’re interested in the problems with the world like social problems, environment ,education, politics, banking, and government even if you have an ounce of question or doubt on the problems you know that exist in this world please watch Zeitgeist Addendum here on youtube and Zeitgeist Moving Forward which is part two. It answers most of the problems we have today. Keep Posting this on more vidoes.
Shnimberz 7 months ago
10% OWN 90% of US wealth, 400 people control 65%. put simply if you have ten people and ten cents one of them takes nine and the others so greatfully share a penny. if that sounds appropriate you are either rich or to damn stupid to know any better. the wealthy are destroying this country not social security and the poor..these greedy bastards should meet with the guillotine. republicans are either stupid or wealthy trust babies..tax these rich bastards. class warfare exist beware.its coming.
yesgyes 7 months ago
Top 25% pay 80% of the income Taxes!!!!
Salvysahagun 8 months ago
@Salvysahagun As Buffet told Ben stein. there is a class warfare. It's being done by the rich and the rich are winning. Republican Ben stein agreed. The country did better when more people made more of the income.
jrwel14 8 months ago
@jrwel14
Please look into the discussion of with Dylan Ratigan and Peter Schiff.
We need a culture war not a a class war.
USA did best when their was no income tax at all.
the Greatest economic boom in American history was the murder of Abraham Lincoln to the murder of William Mckinley.
Tarriffs and exise sales taxes should be the only way a government should raise money.
Look into the American School of Economics please
Salvysahagun 7 months ago
@Salvysahagun Then. lets go back to the days of daniel Boone. Noticed you said ,"murder" of 2 presidents. Shows your mindset.
jrwel14 7 months ago
@jrwel14
To be honest I said murder because I couldn't spell assassination.
you can't refute the greatest most period of economic growth came to us under the National System.
0% income tax. Government should have its funds through Excise sales tax, Tariffs and A National Bank.
Protectionism > Free Trade.
Salvysahagun 7 months ago
@Salvysahagun But to use the killing of 2 presidents as a timeline. Question your thinking a great deal. Could have said 1865- ...
jrwel14 7 months ago
@jrwel14
Those Murders are what symbolize the greatest period in American History.
the ideals of Abraham Lincoln and his dreams expanded.
But when Teddy Roosevelt took over for Mckinley And introduced Free Trade and canceling mckinleys infastructure thus destroying all forms of American progress.
Salvysahagun 7 months ago
@Salvysahagun "USA did best when their was no income tax at all.."
Any document backs that up?
Where did you find it?
allgoo19 6 months ago
@allgoo19
Look up the Gilded Age.
The fastest industrial growth in America was during the The National System.
We still had revenue. We had a 15% tarrif rate as an average. today its 1.5% average.
Tarrifs made up 45% - 65%of the Federal Budget. Excise taxes would handle the rest.
That money was used to lay the foundation of America.
If we had real American School economist then we would never have the Federal Reserve or Income tax and never even got involved in ww1
Salvysahagun 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Salvysahagun "Look up the Gilded Age.."
There's nothing the documents I found comparing to the economic success of New Deal(see the graph in the video)
And if it was so successful, why it(gilded age) ended in deep depression(according to Wiki)?
allgoo19 6 months ago
@Salvysahagun "The fastest industrial growth in America was..."
No reply?
You brought up something as an example of success maybe not at all related to taxation system but only happened to be in the time of no income tax.
It could be that the same reason started the boom caused the end of boom? Nearly all tax cut had some bubble before it collapsed except W. Bush tax cut.
Don't you think you should have some knowledge to offer answers before you bring up something as an example?
allgoo19 6 months ago
@allgoo19
tax rates have NEVER caused a Major economic collapse
Depression of 1894- Government over subsidized railroads. Railroad Speculation hits the fans and the Train industry collapses. 17% unemployment. Government makes major cuts to spending recovery takes 3 years.
Depression of 1920- Governments inability to pay war debts takes it toll as Federal Reserve makes poor monetary choices. Production -7% Prices -18% Unemployment 12% 2 year recovery after Harding takes austerity measures
Salvysahagun 6 months ago
@Salvysahagun "Depression of 1894- Government over subs....Hrding takes austerity measures"
Source?
It has to be a solidly accepted view, not by one persons opinion.
And yes, there are many cases of collapse by tax cuts. In fact, just about all economic advisers worked for those president warned them, ie, Hank Paulson to W. Bush etc.
I want to see who said such thing, never caused major collapse.
where are they?
allgoo19 6 months ago
@allgoo19
Concerning the Depression of 1920 and Presidents Warren Hardings Federal Downsizing. The Lecture is given by PHD Economist Thom Woods
tinyurl(dot)com/Thomwood-1920-Auesterity-Cure
How the Recession was REALLY caused. Financial Expert Peter Schiff, the only man to have called the Economic Collapse
tinyurl(dot)com/07recession-prime-cause
Salvysahagun 6 months ago
@Salvysahagun "tinyurl(dot)com/Thomwood-1920-Auesterity-Cure"
Link is not working even after (dot) replaced to .
Peter Schiff is not an economist but an investor, neither Austrian School economics is a legitimate mainstream economics.
Google, "Austrian school"
In short, "stays in the distinct minority" "Lacks scientific rigor"
Basically, it's an economics version of Creationism, a religion in disguise.
allgoo19 6 months ago
@allgoo19
watch?v=czcUmnsprQI
Austrian PHD economist Thom Woods Explains how doing nothing got America Out of a depression. The 1920 depressions 1st year was worse than the 1st year of the GD.
Thats the problem with Mainstream Economist. their scientist. its impossible to have an equation for human actions.
To leave economics to science and math is an insult on human inteligence.
You can't have a planned economy in a Free society.
Salvysahagun 6 months ago
@Salvysahagun "Financial Expert Peter Schiff,.."
Financial expert who's good at predicting economy? Yeah, right.
Google, "Peter Schiff’s Euro Pacific Capital Down 40 – 70% in 2008?"
By the way, he's not the only one predicted economic collapse, in fact many, like US president's own adviser?
Schiff was the only one, that's what Schiff says and that's his advertizement.
allgoo19 6 months ago
@allgoo19
That was only one person's portfolio.
And that one portfolio is now worth more than before the crash.
Every stock went down in 2008. And if you understand finance you'd realize that the 1st thing Americans would want to sell is foreign stocks because they aren't regulated by the SEC. But in reality foriegn exchanges are much better investments than domestic ones because they are not attached to the dollar
Salvysahagun 6 months ago
@Salvysahagun "That was only one person's portfolio..."
Why he didn't predict it?
You mean he predicted it but lost the money by design?
allgoo19 6 months ago
@allgoo19
One persons portfolio. EuroPac has thousands of clients.
Salvysahagun 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Salvysahagun "One persons portfolio. EuroPac has thousands of clients..."
Read the article.
It wasn't only for one client.
allgoo19 6 months ago
@allgoo19
Just because Cenk Uygur says tax cuts for the rich causes depression doesn't mean its true. Considering he never predicted a crash like the two men i linked to you did. Oh and he was against Bush's stimulus but when Obama proposed on it all of a sudden a "GREAT" idea.
tinyurl(dot)com/stimi-good
tinyurl(dot)com/Stimi-Yes
Salvysahagun 6 months ago
@Salvysahagun "tax rates have NEVER caused a Major economic collapse."
It usually takes several to 10 yrs. before the result shows.
Coolidge tax cut - 1929 market crash followed by Great Depression
Reagan tax cut - Black Monday of 1987
Bush II tax cut - market crash of 2008
No positive long term effect from any of them except some bubble before the crash.
allgoo19 6 months ago
@allgoo19
Great Depression was caused by the Federal Reserves excess liquidity. If Tax rates where the case than 1776-1913 would be one GIANT depression.
Bush Tax cuts where in 2002. thats 6 years not 10. I guess you don't understand the Housing bubble thats be uneducated.
Salvysahagun 6 months ago
@Salvysahagun "Great Depression was caused by th.."
You can make up any excuse. How about showing some documents that back it up?
I showed you 3 examples of negative effect of tax cut.
Now, you show me 3 positive effect of tax cut.
Any incident that tax cut lead to great economic success?
Let's see them.
allgoo19 6 months ago
@allgoo19
Go look up Federal Reserve interest rates before the GD.
I debunked your example.
JFK and the 60s
the PC boom began in the 80s
and the Gilded Age when their was no income tax
Salvysahagun 6 months ago
@allgoo19
explain to me how only 2 mainstream economist called 07
Dean Baker & Krugman. when 100% of Austrian students & Economist could tell you EXACTLY what was going to happen with 100% certainty. Schiff (student), Paul (student) TWoods(phd), , Horowitz (phd)
all made accurate predicitions.
And who do we turn to? Krugman the guy who said its impossible to tell.
oh and the dot com bust here is Krugmans cure
"Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble."
Salvysahagun 6 months ago
@Salvysahagun "explain to me how only 2 mainstream economist called 07.."
Don't make a question on your assumption.
Show your source first.
Ok?
allgoo19 6 months ago
@allgoo19
Idk I gave you thier names. the names of the Economist that saw it comming.
and showed you Krugmans last solution. Which failed.
Stop Cherry picking
Salvysahagun 6 months ago
@Salvysahagun "Idk I gave you thier names. the names.."
Post the page title of the article like I do.
Is there any reason you can't?
allgoo19 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@allgoo19
Ok?
Krugman
watch?v=qo4ExWEAl_k
Baker
tinyurl(dot)com/DeanBakerhousingbubble
Salvysahagun 6 months ago
@allgoo19
Oh you want the Austrian predicitons
Schiff
watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpw
Paul
watch?v=mnuoHx9BINc
Woods
watch?v=eGOM5iUlZ8w
Don't forget that FA Hayek was one of the only Major Economist to cal Black Friday
Thats common knowelge you can look it up yourself
Salvysahagun 6 months ago
@Salvysahagun "Oh you want the Austrian predicitons."
I didn't ask you that.
What I asked you was *un-biased*journalistic documents, not minority opinion that has no credibility in the academia.
Are those only info. source you have, Schiff & Paul?
Where's the (unbiased)article says, "Only two main stream economists.."?
allgoo19 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@allgoo19
Ok?
Krugman
watch?v=qo4ExWEAl_k
Baker
tinyurl(dot)com/DeanBakerhousi ngbubble
Salvysahagun 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ok?
Krugman
watch?v=qo4ExWEAl_k
Baker
tinyurl(dot)com/DeanBakerhousingbubble
Salvysahagun 6 months ago
@Salvysahagun
3 examples of tax cut lead to positive economic result?
allgoo19 6 months ago
@allgoo19
I already did that but I'll repost since your too lazy to read all the comments.
JFK and the 60s
the PC boom began in the 80s
and the Gilded Age when their was no income tax
Salvysahagun 6 months ago
@Salvysahagun "I already did that but I'll repost since your too lazy .."
You did only one of them.
Look at the graph shown in the video.
Does that look like in 60s & 80s economy improved?
60s for sure, 91% tax was still active then momentum continued into 70s then started slowing down.
The graph shows that that was when boom ended followed by bubbles and busts.
Do you know how to read a graph and analyze it? Or you take all the words from someone else like Schiff & Paul?
allgoo19 6 months ago
@allgoo19
no top marginal rates where lowerd from 91% to 70%. Nice try.
The 70s where horrible and I've coverd this multiple times on multiple threads.
If we didn't find away to get more money into the economy with out the adhering to inflation America would be in MUCH worse shape.
OH, I love how most of you libtards don't think a President can inherit a good thing only bad.
Clinton would not have had a good economy where it not for H.W.Bush commercialization of the internet.
Salvysahagun 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Salvysahagun "no top marginal rates where lowerd from .."
Tax cut went effect 1964, economy kept going till 60s. ends.
PC boom is no economic boom, see the graph in the video.
Gilded Age didn't result from tax cut, it was from no tax to no tax.
You don't seem to know the difference between boom and bubble. Bubble is not sustainable but the boom is, as long as the same system is effective.
"3 examples of tax cut lead to positive economic result?"
Still waiting for the answer.
allgoo19 6 months ago
@allgoo tax cuts do lead to positive economic results. i could point out that in the years following tax cuts government revenue increased, but just look this up and you will easily see three.
it is only after tax cuts in the last 100 years that we have had stable gdp growth. when taxes are high we have a boom and bust gdp and this might be good for some people but not for employment. as a rule, when gdp growth is stable employers are more likely 2 high full time employees and give better wages.
tiggstah 6 months ago
@tiggstah "tax cuts do lead to positive economic results..."
Show me a couple of examples in the history.
Read all my comments and you'll find my answer for that. If you don't know how to read, I'll post it again for you.
And your answer is?
allgoo19 6 months ago
@allgoo19 here is the tax rates: ntu(dot)org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-1.html
here is the growth of gdp: tradingeconomics(dot)com/united-states/gdp-growth
after every tax cut there is a period of steady gdp growth, other major contributing factors not-with-standing.
my answer is the actual history and empirical data. yours are platitudes and wishful thinking.
most of your arguments are invalid because they are structured upon fallacies.
sorry for the (dot) wont let me typ yrl
tiggstah 6 months ago
@tiggstah *url
tiggstah 6 months ago
@tiggstah "here is the tax rates.."
Neither tax cut nor hike don't show immediate result.
Since you didn't bother to look at my previous comments, here's the copy.
Just learn to read other posts before respond to someone, ok?
It usually takes several to 10 yrs. before the result shows.
Coolidge tax cut - 1929 market crash followed by Great Depression
Reagan tax cut - Black Monday of 1987
Bush II tax cut - market crash of 2008
allgoo19 6 months ago
@allgoo19 each one of the events you mentioned have liberal federal policy at their core.
the reason you THINK it takes around 8 to ten years for a negative result is that is about as long as it takes for liberals to implement big policies to fuck up the good effects the tax cuts had on the economy. i mean honestly, it takes a fair amount of mental retardation to think that the 2008 market crash was caused by tax cuts. affordable housing act, sub prime, freddie and fannie ring any bells?
tiggstah 6 months ago
@tiggstah "each one of the events you mentioned have liberal federal polic..."
Like what?
Name those.
allgoo19 6 months ago
@allgoo19 name those?, well i think i just gave you two or three for the 2008, the aha, feddie and frannie, the upcoming election with the democrat tax policy of raising taxes on employers (oh wait, i'm sorry "the rich"), the stupidity of over-inflating the housing market through heavy subsidizing started by Clinton, that W. kept right along with. for the other ones, i just don't have time right now, maybe later, maybe you could look it up yourself. look at other sides of the argument.
tiggstah 6 months ago
@tiggstah "i just gave you two or three for the 2008, the aha, feddie and frannie.."
Are you kidding?
Fannie Mae existed way before the housing market crash of 2007.
How they can affect the economy collapse? I have never seen any credible article saying that.
Show me those articles you saw.
As far as houseing market crash goes, this is the real reason.
Google, "Bush drive for home ownership fueled housing bubble"
allgoo19 6 months ago
@allgoo19 "Bush drive for home ownership fueled housing bubble"
i mentioned that, however the "blame bush" articles omit the fact that it was a clinton policy that bush continued. it was certainly not a conservative policy. but, as any will tell you, bush was NOT a conservative. not a real one at any rate.
you think fannie and freddie had no involvement? is your memory so short?
and has it gone unnoticed to you obama has double downed on the housing policies that led to the bubble?
tiggstah 6 months ago
@tiggstah "i mentioned that, howeve..'
Google, "Fannie Mae Wiki" then scroll down to "2000s".
Dropping of "Anti-predatory lending" in 2004 moved the market away from F. Mae standard of safe loan.
Most of the damage came from bogus lenders took advantage of W. Bush deregulation, not F. Mae.
If you have a article contradicts this, post a link.
That's what I'm asking.
Where is it?
allgoo19 6 months ago
@allgoo19 i have neither the time nor inclination to re-research and provide links to information to counter every tiny thing you have a problem with. and honestly the point you bring up here is rather inconsequential, if you can't remember all the shenanigans F and F were pulling in 2007 and 2008 there is no reason to tell you now because you will more than likely pretend it doesn't exist and forget it all over again the next time you try to blame the 2008 crash on the bush tax cuts.
tiggstah 6 months ago
@tiggstah "i have neither the time nor inclination to re-research.."
Because you only heard about it from someone talking and never looked at the source of it.
You are not kind of person says, "But is this true?" and tries to confirm the info.
Now, you have trouble finding something doesn't exist. Even my old friend Salvysahagun seems to agree on this.
allgoo19 6 months ago
@allgoo19 well if salvyshagun says so i guess it has to be true... i question EVERY point, i just don't feel like doing searches and reading through articles and spending all that time on something so immaterial. i didn't say F & F were the driving force, just one of many. it was the irresponsibility they engaged in, hush money, the unending bailouts, if you really are so keen to read some articles and your memory is so short just google their name and 400 billion to jog your memory.
tiggstah 6 months ago
@tiggstah "well if salvyshagun says so i guess it has to be true..."
You have noone to support your claim. Saying, "I don't have the proof but you can search on the net.", basically the same as , " I made it up."
My question,
"Economic booms created by tax cut?"
"Any proof that F. Mae was one of the cause just as big as W. Bush deregulation of "anti-predatory lending" law?"
I searched them and came up empty, Now it's your turn to search.
Where are they?
allgoo19 6 months ago
@allgoo19 a lot of the bush policies were bad, as i have already admitted to and conceeded due to the fact that bush was not a conservative, especially not a fiscal one. bush basically did the same thing that clinton did when it came down to it. and because of the affordable housing act the only way to conform was to have the rules on anti-predatory lending loosened so the banks could offer adjustable rate loans as required of them by federal law. but obama has done far more than bush did.
tiggstah 6 months ago
@tiggstah "bush was not a conservative"
Another interesting comment.
Who is true conservative?
allgoo19 5 months ago
@allgoo19 fiscally responsible, small government yada yada yada.
understand i am libertarian so there are issues i don't agree with on the typical conservative side. mainly on social issues.
but who? reagan. reagan was a conservative who had to deal with a democrat controlled congress. the compromise he made with the democrats was with spending. he let democrats spend money on their pet projects in return for tax cuts and de-regulation. but reagan was blamed for the deficits. funny
tiggstah 5 months ago
@tiggstah "yada yada yada.."
So, your answer is nobody, correct?
How about any country in the world, your ideal policy is working successfully?
allgoo19 5 months ago
@allgoo19 perhaps you hadn't read the rest of the comment. Reagan. bachman, perry, rand paul, choose any top tea party pick and it will more than likely be a real conservative. although perry has only been conservative for the last 4 years or so...
now get back to whatever point you were making about the number of times where we have experienced negative growth. i can't wait for you to have some sort of valid point.
tiggstah 5 months ago
@tiggstah "i can't wait for you to have some.."
Make your question easy to understand, if you want my answer.
So, basically your ideal policy is along the tea party, correct?
"No regulation, no tax"?
If you are to pick one time of the last 100 yrs, which part US had the most economic success?
allgoo19 5 months ago
@allgoo19 the Reagan admin. unparalleled job growth, wealth creation, and standard of living increases for all. true, some did better that others, but EVERYONE'S life got better.
now, i want you to get to the point you started. you asked:
"Tell me, then. How many times in the history GDP actually went down?"
those of us that actually understand economics call that negative growth. i answered, now get to the point you were making.
tiggstah 5 months ago
@tiggstah "the Reagan admin. unparalleled.."
Google, "Presidents And Prosperity Forbes"
Reagan ranked 4th behind 3 democrats.
Show me the article that told you Reagan was such a great economic president.
allgoo19 5 months ago
@allgoo19 a list made by a keynesian economist uber liberal lawyer and screenwriter ranked democrats over a republican?? get right out of town!!! this whole list is void because his #1 is clinton, clinton inherited an awesome economy from reagan and bush, and it was the massive republican win in house and senate in 94 that led to the fiscal responsibility and consumer confidence. all clinton did was talk slick and get blowjobs.
now, stop changing the subject, get to you point about gdp downturns
tiggstah 5 months ago
@tiggstah "made by a keynesian economis.."
Your old bad habit, trying to make a point without providing anything to back it up.
Where is it?
"now, stop changing the subject," It's you, brought up how great Reagan was. I'm just play along. Here's other Regan facts.
Reagan was warned by his economic adviser of danger of tax cut can do to economy but ignored it and went ahead.
He later gave in and hiked it back after the Black Monday.
Flip flap?
Any document says Reagan was the greatest? Show me.
allgoo19 5 months ago
@allgoo19 you have no point, you can't stay on topic. you're hopeless. your entire strategy is to pick apart something the other person says without having any original thought yourself.
i didn't bring up reagan i responded to another question off the top of my head, unlike you i don't let other people do the thinking for me.
goodbye and good luck.
tiggstah 5 months ago
@tiggstah "you have no point,."
Is that your concession? I expected something nicer from a person who uses word like "retard".
How many evidence, proof you have presented to make your points? I can't remember any.
So, who's real "retard" now?
Any document says Reagan was the greatest? Show me.
allgoo19 5 months ago
@allgoo19 no i gave you three links to actual data. you gave me two references to stories written by liberals as though that was some kind of fact.
my only concession is that it is certainly pointless to argue with you , you give no actual evidence for any of your claims and will not stay anywhere near topic, you have no actual argument other than trying to pick apart what other people say. grow a brain and have an original thought or shut up. I'd prefer the first but will settle for the second.
tiggstah 5 months ago
@tiggstah "o i gave you three links to actual data."
Post them again. I don't see them.
Any document says Reagan was the greatest? Show me.
allgoo19 5 months ago