This is quite frightening. To learn what "the new world order" and "globalization" and "social justice" means, study "United Nations Agenda 21." Everyone should know what this agenda means to their everyday life. It's happening NOW!
Exactly what does the person mean the Democrats are supposed to work towards the goal of Social Justice. Of course here we go again with Social Justice.
It's refreshing to watch a video like this. No emotional, heavy handed language. No Michael Moore style splicing and dicing. No "Democrats are always wrong, Republicans are always right," BS.
Liberal policies fail nearly every time they are tried. California is a fine example. The only tools leftist politicians have to (attempt to) achieve their high minded objectives are regulation, taxation & spending. The next thing that happens is costs increase, businesses leave & jobs are lost. Then the overtaxed & under employed seek greener pastures, usually in red states. Unfortunately, they repeat the cycle, not believing their voting habits generate the environment they seek to escape.
There r divisions & systematic failures very wont touch & far right says toss baby with bathwater 2 resolve.
This budget includes provision for voters to decide on issues. Hard cuts & GOP with no REAL alternate budget plan, but said ooh your so mean? The people who historically wanted to cut it ALL Only the strong survive.
Yeah , some far left are crazy, but same 4your general claims. OC collaborative courts fix issues. Can both extremes & propaganda.
Everyone should learn about United Nations Agenda 21. "Social Justice" and redistribution of wealth sounds cool to American liberals. Wait until they find that their money is not being redistributed in America, but to other countries. Is that really what they want? I don't think so. Remember the blacks waiting in line for their "Obama money?" They really thought redistribution of wealth was coming to them. People on welfare in America are richer than many people in 3rd world countries.
And this is why I no longer read the San Diego U-T...
Read starts out with a valid assertion but then goes into trademark U-T union bashing (leafleting--no proof,) chides democrats regarding "welfare reform" without specifics, promotes the virtues of Wal-Mart (regardless of their track record of poor wages and working conditions.)
I had to stop watching after that. What happened to objective reporting? Maybe its the same thing as Social Justice.
Great Report ! Unfortunately, the scene in California is just repeated everywhere Liberals run the show. Look at every metropolitan area. They are suffering, just like California is suffering from the idiocy of Liberal Policy. None so blind as those who will not see.
Germany, England, Finland, etc are much, much more homogeneous populations than the US. As to your argument about poverty being poverty, you obviously have not studied economics or statistics. When looking at such things at poverty, etc, you have to break it down to the different groups to see what the differences are and then examine why those differences exist.
I know you libs don't like to look at issues like personal responsibility, family structure, etc, but they have an impact
"Germany, England, Finland, etc are much, much more homogeneous populations than the US." POVERTY IS POVERTY!!!! Nobody asks you who is poor or why they are poor, they just see that they are poor and here not as much.
Again, you ignore my statement about statistical fact - you find a much higher incidence of lack of educational attainment, out of wedlock births, single parent families, etc, etc, among our Black and Hispanic populations. Thus, you get a much higher poverty rate among those groups as I cited. Thus, you have a much higher child poverty rate there.
You can wish to ignore those facts, but much like the Earth goes around the Sun, they are still the facts
If you have 20% child poverty you have 20% child poverty. It doesn't matter if they are black or white, they are living in poverty, that is what i mean and have you seen the graphic on wikipedia showing the correlation between low taxes and child poverty??? That is the fact DUDE!!!
"Thus, you have a much higher child poverty rate there."
Because the UK education system has many private schools, but the UK has scored worst in the PISA study and the OECD has written that the private schools are worse than the public in the UK, although they were low regulated by the government.
And I saw a couple of email updates where you posted a comment but they are now gone. Oh well, I shall address them.
Germany does not have a population of 20% foreign born as you claimed. The numbers I just looked up cite about 9% foreign - mainly a mix of other European heritages. Another 10% of the population are foreign born but German citizens.
And do they have the birthrate of our Hispanic population? I highly doubt it
The US Census declared that in 2008 13.2% of the general population lived in poverty:[27]
8.6% of all non-Hispanic White
11.8% of all Asian-American
23.2% of all Hispanic (of any nationality)
24.7% of all African-American.
Wikipedia
Since Hispanic and Blacks make up a good 10% and 12% of the population respectively, the far higher poverty rates there, lower educational attainment, higher birthrates - especially among Hispanics,
Well, what do you know!!! I went to the OECD website directly and found a some items. The most recent being from Sept 2009
QUOTE - "Child poverty rates at 16.3% in Germany exceed the OECD average (12.4%)."
Yes, it is higher here in the US, but you would need to adjust/control for the fact that urban minority families tend to have more children which will skew it dramatically.
Remember, Germany does not have nearly the % of minority population that the US does (black and latino)
And you ignore the religious private schools such as those run by the Catholic Church, which by their definition, are NON-PROFIT. Their operating expenses are lower than the high end private schools in DC that Coulson noted.
The District receives about $85.5 million in federal funding. And the D.C. Council contributes an extra $81 million. Divide all that by the 49,422 students enrolled (for the 2007-08 year) and you end up with about $24,600 per child.
For comparison, total per pupil spending at D.C. area private schools -- among the most upscale in the nation -- averages about $10,000 less. For most private schools, the difference is even greater.
April 6,2008 Washington Post article by Andrew J. Coulson
I also want to point out that although California may seem "liberal", most of the people in California are really conservatives. And government (both dems and republicans) do everything in their power to hurt the poor. I don't know if it's different in the other states. But California in general is really fucked up.
When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the beginning of the end of any nation.
The unemployment rate was higher here before the crisis bc of the people from the GDR. Now our is much lower than yours. And we have no trade deficit.
This guy is obsessed with "minorities". Otherwise, I approve of what he's saying. Liberals need to take him seriously, because right now, they're just the "left" wing of the Republicrat duopoly.
basically california has been ceded to the illegal vermin and that is the problems. They dont champion minorities, they pander to them. The reality is that they need to keep their base down. If minorites become sucessful they might not vote democrat to redistribute the wealth
"Social Justice" is just another form of collectivism. All forms of collectivism are completely contrary to the founding ideals of America. America was formed and built on principles of individual rights. Collectivism always tramples and disincentives the individual.
But what he has discovered is correct. All left liberal & neocon programs always enrich & empower the already rich & powerful while creating more poor. Remember that Wall Street is dominated by progressives.
Democrats in California do need to start standing up for minorities--and a big giant step would be working on a path for citizenship for many Hispanics in the state.
Wrong, you don't reward illegal and contemptuous behavior. Unless of course you want to thoroughly enrage & dispirit the people who came the right way. And don't give me any of that centuries old anti-European nonsense.
Complete rubbish and we have already seen just this year how wrong you are. Illegal alien invaders will self deport when you take away their reasons for stating.
I don't agree with his characterization of Wal-Mart, but on the whole, he really summarized this quite well. In particular, the topic of the drug war couldn't have been better described. Anyone who thinks that voting for Democratic candidates is going to lead to decriminalization of drugs is either stupid or embarrassingly ignorant. They're owned by the pharmaceutical lobbyists, too.
That's a bold thing to say for someone talking about other peoples ignorance when what you say is a little ignorant. I'm not talking about the first part, that i agree with, but about the "Anyone who thinks that voting for Democratic candidates is going to lead to decriminalization of drugs is either stupid or embarrassingly ignorant" is what i don't entirely agree with.
@rqbuchanan I'm a libertarian that leans if anything to the right. I do believe that both parties are out of control and don't care about representing the will of its people BUT in certain situations like here in Michigan it was appropriate to vote Dem on one candidate. I voted pretty much straight Lib accept for attorney general which i voted Dem. Maybe he would be more receptive to let legalization pass since medical just passed here and because the Rep he ran against swore against it.
@blurbum9 "Maybe" is bullshit. Decriminalization or legalization as a platform stance actually means something. As much as I criticize Libertarians, at least they have solid, mostly admirable principles that they don't compromise on.
Now, if this atty gen. actually makes real steps toward what you've suggested, then I'd certainly acknowledge it, but only as the rare exception to the rule that it would be.
Yes, in general what you say is true. That voting dem typically wont get you want either, specifically legalizing marijuana. In this instance it was "either or" and there was no libertarian candidate or i would have voted for him/her. The Rep candidate was strongly against medical marijuana that just passes and he swore against any new such laws. I'm just saying that circumstances create situations like this despite our beliefs and its not ignorant its just how it is.
@blurbum9 Well, I can't argue that voting against somebody who'd surely do more harm is a bad idea. I just don't think that people should expect something from a party that's never done anything to warrant such hope. Obviously, you made the right choice, but you didn't do it under the naive assumption that I was referring to.
There are so many statements in this thread which attempt to extrapolate a broad pattern based on a single or a few examples. These people oversimplify the issues and then claim things are as black and white as they say. Capitalism strikes, they respond by advocating for kicking the fallen. Have fun running in circles.
@beta447 There are natural laws that we can deduce principles from which we can then derive capitalism as a value. Over-simplification is not needed when the issues are simpler then you believe. They become complex when trying to justify values that are not based on objectivity. Regardless of how righteous you "feel" your position is it wont make it superior to others without a stem from reality. Government strikes, they respond by advocating for kicking the fallen. Have fun running in circles.
This guy is inconsistent - first he claims that Walmart is great for the poor, then he complains that environmentalists are hurting small business, which is bad for the poor. But anti-competitive practices, like those of Walmart, hurt small businesses much more.
He also uses a straw man: progressives aren't saying that Walmart's low prices hurt the poor, it's their low wages that are the problem.
@sharrynuk Your analysis is misguided. Low wages are better than no wages at all. Wal Mart provides entry-level jobs to people that don't yet have the skills necessary to do higher wage jobs. We don't live in a utopia where it's possible to require employers pay cashiers and janitors $50 an hour.
I live in California (San Diego) and Chris Reeds is explaining exactly the problems in California. Chris Reeds is anti-establishment moderate, he is neither liberal or conservative.
@FumingPoliticalPunk Right, someone who has spent the majority of there life studying a subject is totally the same as someone who has read a book or two on the subject. Is there a study of what economic's believed before and after their eduction or is your statement that "education is very unlikely to change" just your meaningless guess?
How nice it is to see that the same old self-interested empathy-dead right-wing arguments are still being dragged through their own excrement on life support.
@beta447 Yes because we all know how that bastion of "right-wing" ideology, California, ruined itself through fiscally conservative spending, opposing unions, eliminating the minimum wage and promoting school choice over the last 20 years.
@beta447 "How nice it is to see that the same old self-interested empathy-dead right-wing arguments" I see your head oozes as much as your heart bleeds. You do realize Chris Reed is a libertarian and neither left or right wing, right? Or perhaps you can't stomach the fact that democrats, neoliberals, progressives, what ever, are screwing up our country. Unintentionally of course, but I suspect it's just a lack of education and reasoning skills.
The eight GOP senators who voted to preserve earmark spending include: Thad Cochran (Miss.), Susan Collins (Maine), James Inhofe (Okla.), Dick Lugar (Ind.), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Richard Shelby (Ala.), retiring Sen. George Voinovich (Ohio) and defeated Sen. Bob Bennett (Utah).
I thought government was about governing responsibly so equal opportunity is available to all. Did I miss something? @B190489 has it right - they need their hangers-on, so they institute programs that are impossible to get out of and get into productive society. Believe me - I KNOW! It took me 8 years to get out of "the system" but I finally did.
Chris Reed is one of the sharpest guys in news. If more newspapers had editorial talent like him ... maybe the public would be better informed. And maybe we'd be less likely to keep electing the same idiots who are driving this state into the ground.
@klrdotorg As Bill O would say... He's a stand up guy. Yes, we need more news people who tell the truth. As for the Charter school pamphlets...I'm sure it was the work of the super powerful Teachers Union...they didnt get so rich, and triple teachers pay by being sweet. And I think threatening deportation is a dirty trick....HOWEVER, I'm pretty sick of outlaws who should not even be here, DEMANDING anything. The message is counterproductive.
"Minorities"? What a farce. There is no majority in CA anymore. Social justice crusaders need a new term for the category designating their preferred racial groups. And the term needs to exclude Asians and Semites, since they tend to have lower unemployment, more wealth, more education, and better health than Caucasians (which is quite inconvenient for pushers of the "white privilege" theory).
if dems are for poor people. they need poor people. if they need poor people they need to keep the poor people poor and expand their numbers. if repubs are for the rich they need the rich. if they need the rich they need to keep the rich people rich and expand their numers. How people can't figure out this is beyond me.
@anime1973 that's an interesting conspiracy theory, but it's just plain false. Democrats keep poor people poor because they didn't take economics classes during high school or in college. Therefore, they have no concept of incentives and what actually motivates people.
@sugarkang I think you are on the right track, but it is more that all the economics classes they took were Keynesian. I have a degree in political science, and all the econ classes I took were just a place for the professors to tell us how government intervention is what makes a healthy economy. I can't imagine that these people have much of an idea about the Austrian school, or any others for that matter.
@callisto32 Umm. I'm gonna guess that you haven't even taken an econ class yourself. Even in my econ 101 class, they teach you about basic supply demand and why something like price controls e.g., rent ceilings, max gasoline prices, etc. will result in worse supply and long lines. They don't start econ class going: Okay now we're going to teach you all about BIG GUMMINT economics known as Keynesian econ! You can demagogue Paul Krugman all you want, but he's smarter than you.
"if dems are for poor people. they need poor people. if they need poor people they need to keep the poor people poor and expand their numbers." The poverty is rising, because the US is still easily lacking right welfare.
@B190489 welfare is poverty. the right welfare is the one that either doesn't exist or at least the one that makes it so damn uncomfortable that you want out immediately.
welfare is because of poverty. Welfare which doesn't exist isn't welfare. It would mean that many of these people would die. For me this is no welfare. For this is a nazi idea.
@B190489 welfare was a cutsy idea created during the great depression. It was supposed to die at the end of the depression.. and yet it lurks on. People innovate when there is no welfare... or god forbid, they work for less than a union wage.
The introduction of welfare in the 1930's was right.
Cutting welfare means cutting innovations. Your economy is not competitive, because of lacking in welfare. Welfare activates and secures economic potential. It makes the working class more productive, because they are healthy and educated.
@B190489 you are a liar. welfare kills innovation and encourages undeserved complacency. Welfare doesn't make the working class more productive.. It pays them NOT to be productive... and with welfare wages you're likely not going to a good school or eating organic foods.
you have fucked up backwards logic. welfare provides only the very basic minimum level of survival. People on welfare live in shitty neighborhoods and go to shitty schools and eat shitty food. People on welfare are uneducated, unmotivated, more prone to crime and usually die early deaths.
Where does the money for welfare come from? It comes from the productive members of society.
Liar? I thought these kind of insult came just from Nazis.
That welfare is too low in the US and that poor people have to go to shitty schools is a pro welfare argument. If you cut welfare they will die, if it is too low the economic potential isn't used full. So the only solution is increasing welfare. More money for public education and more public healthcare. And of course if you are poor the crime rate is increasing, but if you cut it, they will rob you to survive.
@B190489 only a german nazi fuck like you would know what a nazi was like.
I think you are confusing Socialism and Welfare. Schools and the post office are run by the state and thus socialized..
People who don't work are on welfare. They get paid to do NOTHING. Now I'll argue with you respectfully if it's socialism that we're talking about. I don't agree with socialism but i can respect that decision.. I will not, however, be told that people on welfare are productive.
Oh yes of course i know what a nazi is and you are one.
Welfare is part of socialism.
No, it's wrong, people without work (mostly bc of the crysis) are on welfare to avoid that they die.
Some people who lost their job during the crisis are productive and workers who would become free healthcare and education are productive. People who were born in poverty will be productive, if the welfare system works.
welfare is not part of socialism. At least not in america.
People in america who are out of work right now are on their unemployment insurance benefits. This is NOT wefare. While on unemployment they are required to look for work.
Socialism = running of business by government.
Welfare = Paying people to not work
i don't agree with socialism but i will respect peoples ideas with that.
I will never respect people not working and getting paid for it.
Welfare is part of socialism, trust me i'm a socialist i know it.
I talk about the people who don't find a job and who felt into the welfare system. They are productive economic potential.
Socialism is more than public businesses. Socialism is not just one idea, there are hundreds of different ideas how a society looks like. I'm a social democrat and social democracy is part of the socialist ideology.
I respect every human, even criminals. No respect no peace.
And most times free healthcare and education is called as welfare program too.
This means justice too the working class, bc many of them don't earn what they deserve and so the free public services paid by the taxes from the capitalists strengthen the health and inteligence of the people to work more productively.
@B190489 The rich are not fond of getting taxed despite how moral you think it is. They have a right to their money just as any other individual, and if you over tax them, they will leave and take their capital (industrial machines and equipment) with them, thus leaving the poor with out a recourse for attaining wealth.
Oh everybody has bring his part and the strongest the rich have to pay the most of the money, especially if their money is based on the working class work.
If they leave the country they should go, but do you think they will leave the country just bc of taxation. If they love this country they wouldn't do this. Rich = traitors.
@B190489 I'm sure they will leave eventually; That's what I would do if I were them. It's not just taxes, it is also difficult to do business because some regulations make it relatively costly to operate.
I have an interesting question, what is the working class money based on?
Oh yeah so much companies leave Germany that our unemployment rate is 2% lower than yours. If people want to leave this country they can go, but they can't live here without paying taxes and trust me these people want to live here. If you love your country you don't leave it. In your country rich = traitors.
@B190489 I was thinking they would go to China, and other Asian economies, and in Germany if the taxes and regulation are lower.
Not loving your country, or not enough, presupposes the action of leaving it, which is possible for rich people when their country hates them (I wouldn't see taxation as an act of affection).
Calling them traitors doesn't make all of them criminals, except for the corporatist. You didn't answer my question though, what is the working class money based on?
No, they came back for years, bc in China they don't find a good business environment. The german educated and healthy worker costs more but brings also more. Here they have a good infastructure and less transportation costs.
Outsourcing is no problem in Germany, it's just a problem of the US. The USA is not Germany. Our economy is stronger than yours.
@B190489 I'm sure china has been growing well for a few decades. There should be business there. I'm glad Germany has less outsourcing, but here the minimum wage causes the outsourcing. How are the wages in Germany?
Yes, labor is what the poor have, but they don't have capital, with out capital they can't make money: A factory worker can't make anything without the machines he doesn't own.
@B190489 Well the stuff you get isn't totally free in Germany either; Presuming you have a progressive tax, the rich and middle class finance it.
The workers create many things they end up not owning, but they always get a cut of the earnings. That's because they trade the one thing they always own, which is their labor. The rich wouldn't be able to make the stuff with out it, so they pay wages in accordance with the available supply of labor.
I didn't say that everything is free, but here more things are free than in the US.
Yes, but without workers no capital. That means that the whole economy is dependent on the working class, but the rich are shitting on it. That's the opposite of justice.
More things here are free than in the US and we have child and housing benefits here.
Without workers no capital. That's the reason why the working clas should own more money than the capitalists. The problem is, without capital no power. So you can rule the world without doing anything. That's the problem of capitalism.
@B190489 it's not the government job to make your getting the lifestyle you think you deserve. The rich are rich because they earned that money and they deserve to keep it.
@B190489 no. it's not the job to secure the lifestyle of our society.
it is our job to secure the lifestyle we want for ourselves and our family. No one else.
The rich are rich because they stand out. They are more motivated, work longer hours, are better educated, or have more vision the rest. They deserve to be raised up by society, not to be robbed by lesser men.
It is our job to secure the lifestyle of the society. Are you a fucking a cowboy?
The rich are rich, because they have money. Most rich don't work for the money they earn. Rich have more freetime and people in the lower middle-class are working the fucking day and even lack with a health insurance.
That they are more educated is bc they have the money to get the education they want.
@B190489 that's certainly doesn't sound like the rich people i know. The ones i know work 12-15 hour days obcessing over their business and wondering how they are going to continue to make payroll or whether they should expand their business and hire or wonder how the next government regulation is going to fuck it up.
again. you cannot be considered robbed if you accepted the terms of your employment.
Do you really think that a rich guy who owns a factory produces more than people who are working in it???
What the hell are you talking about? I talk about rich people and not every business owner! The richest 1% of your society own more than 20% of your wealth by speculating on the stock exchange. They do nothing.
@B190489 you always have a choice to bargon your wage a bit higher or to get full time status w/ benefits. Most people live in the delusion that they should just accept what they are given. That's why these people are failures.
Libertarians and conservatives hates America, the hate their government and their democracy which they use to invent reasons to start wars. Your whole ideology is full of contradictions and everybody outside the US laughing about your fucking uneducated people brainwashed by Cato and Fox. Do you know how stupid you sound if you say that the rich are working more than the working class???
@B190489 we hate our country? really? And you say that the world is lauging at us? I'm laughing at how your overindulgance in your socialism has brought all of itaily, spain, and ireland to complete financial collapse and that large parts of your socialised system will be torn down in austerity.
Em, idiot, our GDP felt so much, bc it so high. Look at the CURRENT data. Our growth rate is 3.9%, yours 3%, our unemployment rate is 7%, yours is 9,6%.
What in the hell are you talking about? All data (survey and census) that I've ever seen shows decisively that the vast majority of millionaires are actually first generation millionaires. It is not inherited as you seem to suggest.
And what exactly is the problem with someone owning capital in a business? Whether it be the small caterer/baker one utilizes for a party or wedding, the tailor I go to for alterations, the machine shop owner, or the investors who own stock in large companies such as BMW or Mercedes
Owning capital = power to get money just by owning capital
Your unions are so weak that the wages can set by the capitalists. This unequal distribution of power is supported by the right wing media and hollywood, telling the people the old fairy tale of the american dream.
The result is that without a large taxation, the rich are getting richer and the middle-class and poors not. That is called the gap. The middle class is more and more split between rich and poor.
I'll break my response down over multiple responses
1. to "owning capital = power to get money just by owning capital"
- does that mean you oppose the very basic reason that someone opens a business? The desire to do something you are passionate about and to make money doing it.
If you are opposed to that, then what exactly is your alternative? And please do not give the usual marxian/socialist response of a theoretical "just" society. Give an example that has proven to work
"does that mean you oppose the very basic reason that someone opens a business?" No, but i want to limit the power of the richest to bring balance into the system.
Yes your unions are very weak compared to the rest of the world. That's one of the reason why your net worth is so unequal how it is.
You call health coverage luxury? How poor is your country? If you give all workers a premium health package your distribution is still unfair.
If you are advocating ever stronger unions and greater taxation, then please explain why two German automotive greats BMW and Mercedes have located automotive plants here in the southern US? Where the average line employee earns well above the regional or national average. And all without the benefit of the UAW.
The richest 1% in your country own ~50% of your financial net worth. The lower 80% in your country own less than 7% of all money. That is america baby yeah, what a dream. lol
Because your demand to our cars from our social democratic country is so big, that they can not ship all the cars. Not a single job in Germany were cut because of that. Our unemployment rate is 3% lower than in the US. Look it up!
Ummm.... dude, your employment rate is lower now yes. But go look at the DECADES of the 70s, 80s and 90s (though reunification caused problems). Germany routinely ran unemployment right near 10%, as did France. While the US ran unemployment usually at half of that.
I'm talking about the current unemployment rate. We had our problem in the past too, like any other industrial country. Germany has shown that social democracy works. We have invented a efficient mixture of welfare and market economy.
Dude, you obviously have not studied economics, or have a very skewed study of it. A large company is NOT going to spend hundreds of millions of Deutsch Marks (or Dollars) to build manufacturing plants on foreign soil just for that reason, when they could expand production at existing plants by increasing shifts or actually expanding the facility itself.
They did it because of lower labor and regulatory costs.
"A large company is NOT going to spend hundreds of millions of Deutsch Marks (or Dollars) to build manufacturing plants on foreign soil just for that reason, when they could expand production at existing plants by increasing shifts or actually expanding the facility itself."
Dude, not a single job was cut because of that, they just want to expand to the US, because they are working under full load here.
At the time of those plants being built, Germany was still on the Deutsch Mark. You guys didn't switch until 1999 with the actual Euros being physically available in 2002.
Those plants were built back in the 80s and early 90s.
So who is there idiot there?
Have you actually ever worked in a for-profit business? It would have been more cost effective to add a 3rd shift (assuming 8 hour shifts) or to expand the physical plant itself, rather than build overseas.
No, moste of the plants are in planning or build in the last years, like the BMW plant in spartanburg, california. That was just because of the increasing demand in the US. No transportation costs, no problems with currency fluctuations. That is all. Ask BMW!!!
Obviously you have not read much about the United Auto Workers and their impact upon the U.S. automakers. Their average income is WELL above the national average with a benefits package (health insurance with little or no co-pay, etc.) that is simply unsustainable.
Or the public employee unions which have seen their average income rise to well above the national average.
And if you actually think the media and Hollywood are "right wing", you must be smoking some serious drugs or somewhere on par with Marx and Engle.
Actually cite examples of this bias. And don't just say Fox News as most left wingers do. Give examples of ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN or MSNBC being "right wing". Actual examples.
Do the same for Hollywood please.
And how exactly is the American dream a fairytale? Have you ever actually lived here in the US? No, not visited. Actually lived
What is about movies like Transformers, Spider-Man, 300, Batmen, The Pursuit of Happyness??? All blockbusters are 100% propaganda movies.
That MSNBC is there doesn't mean that your right wing propaganda by Fox News doesn't rule your brains. Real democracy in the media means neutralism and not polarization, where the rich will always win.
The american dream is propaganda. 20% of your children are living in poverty. That's a nightmare.
Ummm, let me clue you in there Sherlock, the movies you cite are .........
ENTERTAINMENT. Please explain how they advocate a particular economic model? If you can explain vs. just reciting off the mantra you learned in university class and in SPD literature
Again, cite actual examples of any of the news organizations being right wing. It is easy to claim a bias one way or the other without citing actual evidence.
There are large analysis out there about american movies. I do not want to list all up here. It's obviously that pursuit of happiness is propaganda made for the working class to say them you can do everything you want. Fairy tale.
Ummm, again I'll clue you in here. Most Americans are well aware that the elementary school version of the Pilgrims is exactly that .... an elementary version.
Are you just reciting off the stuff you heard in university or at SPD lectures?
What part of Germany are you from and where do you live now?
I see on your profile page the SPD's info -
" ...it ceaselessly labors to raise the worker from the social position of a proletarian to that of a citizen and thus make citizenship universal. It does not want to replace civil society with a proletarian society but a capitalist order of society with a socialist one."
Increasing productivity by itself cannot possibly compensate for the massive future liabilities of the social security system. It will take a combination of phasing in a raising of the eligibility age, means testing, along with raising the cap on the income level subject to SSI taxation here in the US
You missed my point. I said increasing productivity and raising taxes for the rich.
1% in your country own more than 50% of your financial net worth, of course you can finance it. Currently your system is made for going bankrupt, because you need a reason to privatize it and to get the profit from the insurance companies.
What tax rates do you propose exactly? And starting at what income levels and why?
Then you run into the issue of inflation creep. That is, as people earn more thru normal raises, or thru inflationary pressures, they will find themselves in those higher tax brackets. Thus you have an negative incentive to actually earn more.
And .... " ....because you need a reason to privatize it and to get the profit from the insurance companies."
I don't know the american taxation system. All what i have to know that you need more taxation for the richest 1%. Also you have to strengthen your unions.
"The rich are always going to say that, you know, 'Just give us more money, and we'll go out and spend more, and then it will all trickle down to the rest of you.' But that has not worked the last 10 years, and I hope the American public is catching on." Who said this?
NOT NEARLY enough money with the richest 1% to pay for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. NOT EVEN CLOSE. You're talking tens of TRILLIONS in unfunded liabilities out into the future for those programs.
It is not true that public schools provide poor education. It is still competitive but it just lacks class. That's all.
felpaluche 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This is quite frightening. To learn what "the new world order" and "globalization" and "social justice" means, study "United Nations Agenda 21." Everyone should know what this agenda means to their everyday life. It's happening NOW!
vechorik 6 months ago
Public Schools were mainly made for the poor but poor quality Education is wrong just because the majority to 100 percent of students are poor.
v19d 6 months ago
The problem in California is that waste led to the problems in California.
v19d 6 months ago
Riots are coming soon. Social Justice on top of Obama and Bush will be blamed.
v19d 6 months ago
Exactly what does the person mean the Democrats are supposed to work towards the goal of Social Justice. Of course here we go again with Social Justice.
v19d 6 months ago
It's refreshing to watch a video like this. No emotional, heavy handed language. No Michael Moore style splicing and dicing. No "Democrats are always wrong, Republicans are always right," BS.
We need more commong sense like this.
CRL73hippo 10 months ago 7
Liberal policies fail nearly every time they are tried. California is a fine example. The only tools leftist politicians have to (attempt to) achieve their high minded objectives are regulation, taxation & spending. The next thing that happens is costs increase, businesses leave & jobs are lost. Then the overtaxed & under employed seek greener pastures, usually in red states. Unfortunately, they repeat the cycle, not believing their voting habits generate the environment they seek to escape.
tungstencarbide100 10 months ago 9
The Gop would cut it all- u left that out.
There r divisions & systematic failures very wont touch & far right says toss baby with bathwater 2 resolve.
This budget includes provision for voters to decide on issues. Hard cuts & GOP with no REAL alternate budget plan, but said ooh your so mean? The people who historically wanted to cut it ALL Only the strong survive.
Yeah , some far left are crazy, but same 4your general claims. OC collaborative courts fix issues. Can both extremes & propaganda.
macdoodled 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Everyone should learn about United Nations Agenda 21. "Social Justice" and redistribution of wealth sounds cool to American liberals. Wait until they find that their money is not being redistributed in America, but to other countries. Is that really what they want? I don't think so. Remember the blacks waiting in line for their "Obama money?" They really thought redistribution of wealth was coming to them. People on welfare in America are richer than many people in 3rd world countries.
vechorik 6 months ago
What you've in effect said is that you have studied a lot, but you still have no clue?
englanddg 1 year ago
I think if economists really knew what they were talking about, they would be able to produce results. Why do you think that is so complicated?
englanddg 1 year ago
And this is why I no longer read the San Diego U-T...
Read starts out with a valid assertion but then goes into trademark U-T union bashing (leafleting--no proof,) chides democrats regarding "welfare reform" without specifics, promotes the virtues of Wal-Mart (regardless of their track record of poor wages and working conditions.)
I had to stop watching after that. What happened to objective reporting? Maybe its the same thing as Social Justice.
getme2thegym 1 year ago
@MareahTekin593 SPAM FAIL
natdavi 1 year ago
Great Report ! Unfortunately, the scene in California is just repeated everywhere Liberals run the show. Look at every metropolitan area. They are suffering, just like California is suffering from the idiocy of Liberal Policy. None so blind as those who will not see.
averagejoe040 1 year ago
@wyleehokie
Oh and look at this! Google pictures: Household-wealth_June
Haha
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489
nothing there
wyleehokie 1 year ago
@B190489
Germany, England, Finland, etc are much, much more homogeneous populations than the US. As to your argument about poverty being poverty, you obviously have not studied economics or statistics. When looking at such things at poverty, etc, you have to break it down to the different groups to see what the differences are and then examine why those differences exist.
I know you libs don't like to look at issues like personal responsibility, family structure, etc, but they have an impact
wyleehokie 1 year ago
@wyleehokie
"Germany, England, Finland, etc are much, much more homogeneous populations than the US." POVERTY IS POVERTY!!!! Nobody asks you who is poor or why they are poor, they just see that they are poor and here not as much.
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489
What do you mean?
Again, you ignore my statement about statistical fact - you find a much higher incidence of lack of educational attainment, out of wedlock births, single parent families, etc, etc, among our Black and Hispanic populations. Thus, you get a much higher poverty rate among those groups as I cited. Thus, you have a much higher child poverty rate there.
You can wish to ignore those facts, but much like the Earth goes around the Sun, they are still the facts
wyleehokie 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wyleehokie
If you have 20% child poverty you have 20% child poverty. It doesn't matter if they are black or white, they are living in poverty, that is what i mean and have you seen the graphic on wikipedia showing the correlation between low taxes and child poverty??? That is the fact DUDE!!!
"Thus, you have a much higher child poverty rate there."
16% is not lower than 20%????? Lol
B190489 1 year ago
@wyleehokie
Do you know what should fear you? What wikipedia writes about the private schools in the UK:
"Private schools generally prefer to be called independent schools, because of their freedom to operate outside of government regulation"
Oh and they are so bad? That is crazy or? lol
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489
Why should that "fear" me?
Your logic eludes me
wyleehokie 1 year ago
@wyleehokie
Because the UK education system has many private schools, but the UK has scored worst in the PISA study and the OECD has written that the private schools are worse than the public in the UK, although they were low regulated by the government.
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489
And I saw a couple of email updates where you posted a comment but they are now gone. Oh well, I shall address them.
Germany does not have a population of 20% foreign born as you claimed. The numbers I just looked up cite about 9% foreign - mainly a mix of other European heritages. Another 10% of the population are foreign born but German citizens.
And do they have the birthrate of our Hispanic population? I highly doubt it
wyleehokie 1 year ago
@wyleehokie
Wikipedia about Germany: "In 2009, 20% of the population had immigrant roots, ..."
I don't know why i've deleted it, i'm mental disabled you know.
In 2008 15.4% of the americans had a hispanic ethnicity.
B190489 1 year ago
to B190489
The US Census declared that in 2008 13.2% of the general population lived in poverty:[27]
8.6% of all non-Hispanic White
11.8% of all Asian-American
23.2% of all Hispanic (of any nationality)
24.7% of all African-American.
Wikipedia
Since Hispanic and Blacks make up a good 10% and 12% of the population respectively, the far higher poverty rates there, lower educational attainment, higher birthrates - especially among Hispanics,
will skew the numbers greatly
wyleehokie 1 year ago
the OECD document was:
GERMANY
Country Highlights
OECD (2009), Doing Better for Children
wyleehokie 1 year ago
Well, what do you know!!! I went to the OECD website directly and found a some items. The most recent being from Sept 2009
QUOTE - "Child poverty rates at 16.3% in Germany exceed the OECD average (12.4%)."
Yes, it is higher here in the US, but you would need to adjust/control for the fact that urban minority families tend to have more children which will skew it dramatically.
Remember, Germany does not have nearly the % of minority population that the US does (black and latino)
wyleehokie 1 year ago
Comment removed
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489
why are you removing comments?
Afraid of something?
wyleehokie 1 year ago
And you ignore the religious private schools such as those run by the Catholic Church, which by their definition, are NON-PROFIT. Their operating expenses are lower than the high end private schools in DC that Coulson noted.
wyleehokie 1 year ago
The District receives about $85.5 million in federal funding. And the D.C. Council contributes an extra $81 million. Divide all that by the 49,422 students enrolled (for the 2007-08 year) and you end up with about $24,600 per child.
For comparison, total per pupil spending at D.C. area private schools -- among the most upscale in the nation -- averages about $10,000 less. For most private schools, the difference is even greater.
April 6,2008 Washington Post article by Andrew J. Coulson
wyleehokie 1 year ago
Oh B190489
My source was Wikipedia. Stats from 2005 so they obviously are higher now with the recession. So there is no way the German child poverty rate is 11%
wyleehokie 1 year ago
@wyleehokie
Fact is that you taxation of GDP is 20% lower than in Sweden. I don't know how you should get the money idiot, that's your task.
Oh you mean 2005, no problem a OECD study from 2005 is showing that the US has a child poverty rate of 21,9%, Germany 10,2%.
And i'm sure you have seen the graphic which shows the correlation between low taxes and child poverty. ;) Hahaha
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489
Alas, Youtube is not allowing me to post the hyperlinks to my citations. I shall try again.
Cite for me the OECD study, title, and date
wyleehokie 1 year ago
@B190489
Alas, Youtube is not allowing me to post the hyperlinks to my citations. I shall try again.
Cite for me the OECD study, title, and date
The stats at the Wikipedia were directly cited from a German source
wyleehokie 1 year ago
It's worth keeping in mind that anecdotal evidence isn't the best source in the world. Sometimes it's just rumors.
FatherTime89 1 year ago
I also want to point out that although California may seem "liberal", most of the people in California are really conservatives. And government (both dems and republicans) do everything in their power to hurt the poor. I don't know if it's different in the other states. But California in general is really fucked up.
FireGuyX 1 year ago
When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the beginning of the end of any nation.
You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.
welkinator 1 year ago 3
@welkinator nice
dayvidiot 1 year ago
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
welkinator 1 year ago
@welkinator I thumbs upped this but I don't think it does it justice. Perfect summary of the problem with the welfare state.
LunaticFringe20 1 year ago
indexmundiDOTcom/united_states/unemployment_rate.html
indexmundiDOTcom/germany/unemployment_rate.html
i think i'll stick with my chances of staying employed here in the USA.
anime1973 1 year ago
@anime1973
The unemployment rate was higher here before the crisis bc of the people from the GDR. Now our is much lower than yours. And we have no trade deficit.
B190489 1 year ago
This guy is obsessed with "minorities". Otherwise, I approve of what he's saying. Liberals need to take him seriously, because right now, they're just the "left" wing of the Republicrat duopoly.
WelfareRobot 1 year ago
basically california has been ceded to the illegal vermin and that is the problems. They dont champion minorities, they pander to them. The reality is that they need to keep their base down. If minorites become sucessful they might not vote democrat to redistribute the wealth
utubecenseorstruth 1 year ago
Wow! This is a great video.
Great job, Reason!
freesk8 1 year ago 5
I can see now why states look at libertarians as terrorists.
beta447 1 year ago
"Social Justice" is just another form of collectivism. All forms of collectivism are completely contrary to the founding ideals of America. America was formed and built on principles of individual rights. Collectivism always tramples and disincentives the individual.
But what he has discovered is correct. All left liberal & neocon programs always enrich & empower the already rich & powerful while creating more poor. Remember that Wall Street is dominated by progressives.
kmg501 1 year ago 4
Democrats in California do need to start standing up for minorities--and a big giant step would be working on a path for citizenship for many Hispanics in the state.
DillonDee1 1 year ago
@DillonDee1
Wrong, you don't reward illegal and contemptuous behavior. Unless of course you want to thoroughly enrage & dispirit the people who came the right way. And don't give me any of that centuries old anti-European nonsense.
kmg501 1 year ago 3
@kmg501 -- come back to the real world. The costs to drive the immigrants out of the county would be more'n the Iraq War.
DillonDee1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DillonDee1
Complete rubbish and we have already seen just this year how wrong you are. Illegal alien invaders will self deport when you take away their reasons for stating.
preview . tinyurl . com /2w3x8w6
kmg501 1 year ago 2
6 ppl r commi's
strawberEfieldz4ever 1 year ago
I don't agree with his characterization of Wal-Mart, but on the whole, he really summarized this quite well. In particular, the topic of the drug war couldn't have been better described. Anyone who thinks that voting for Democratic candidates is going to lead to decriminalization of drugs is either stupid or embarrassingly ignorant. They're owned by the pharmaceutical lobbyists, too.
rqbuchanan 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rqbuchanan
That's a bold thing to say for someone talking about other peoples ignorance when what you say is a little ignorant. I'm not talking about the first part, that i agree with, but about the "Anyone who thinks that voting for Democratic candidates is going to lead to decriminalization of drugs is either stupid or embarrassingly ignorant" is what i don't entirely agree with.
blurbum9 1 year ago
@rqbuchanan I'm a libertarian that leans if anything to the right. I do believe that both parties are out of control and don't care about representing the will of its people BUT in certain situations like here in Michigan it was appropriate to vote Dem on one candidate. I voted pretty much straight Lib accept for attorney general which i voted Dem. Maybe he would be more receptive to let legalization pass since medical just passed here and because the Rep he ran against swore against it.
blurbum9 1 year ago
@blurbum9 "Maybe" is bullshit. Decriminalization or legalization as a platform stance actually means something. As much as I criticize Libertarians, at least they have solid, mostly admirable principles that they don't compromise on.
Now, if this atty gen. actually makes real steps toward what you've suggested, then I'd certainly acknowledge it, but only as the rare exception to the rule that it would be.
rqbuchanan 1 year ago
@rqbuchanan
Yes, in general what you say is true. That voting dem typically wont get you want either, specifically legalizing marijuana. In this instance it was "either or" and there was no libertarian candidate or i would have voted for him/her. The Rep candidate was strongly against medical marijuana that just passes and he swore against any new such laws. I'm just saying that circumstances create situations like this despite our beliefs and its not ignorant its just how it is.
blurbum9 1 year ago
@blurbum9 Well, I can't argue that voting against somebody who'd surely do more harm is a bad idea. I just don't think that people should expect something from a party that's never done anything to warrant such hope. Obviously, you made the right choice, but you didn't do it under the naive assumption that I was referring to.
rqbuchanan 1 year ago
There are so many statements in this thread which attempt to extrapolate a broad pattern based on a single or a few examples. These people oversimplify the issues and then claim things are as black and white as they say. Capitalism strikes, they respond by advocating for kicking the fallen. Have fun running in circles.
beta447 1 year ago
@beta447 There are natural laws that we can deduce principles from which we can then derive capitalism as a value. Over-simplification is not needed when the issues are simpler then you believe. They become complex when trying to justify values that are not based on objectivity. Regardless of how righteous you "feel" your position is it wont make it superior to others without a stem from reality. Government strikes, they respond by advocating for kicking the fallen. Have fun running in circles.
GeminiK 1 year ago
Man this video has to getting the demorats butthurt. LOL the truth always pisses them off.
plainbob13 1 year ago 3
This guy is inconsistent - first he claims that Walmart is great for the poor, then he complains that environmentalists are hurting small business, which is bad for the poor. But anti-competitive practices, like those of Walmart, hurt small businesses much more.
He also uses a straw man: progressives aren't saying that Walmart's low prices hurt the poor, it's their low wages that are the problem.
sharrynuk 1 year ago
@sharrynuk Your analysis is misguided. Low wages are better than no wages at all. Wal Mart provides entry-level jobs to people that don't yet have the skills necessary to do higher wage jobs. We don't live in a utopia where it's possible to require employers pay cashiers and janitors $50 an hour.
electroplate 1 year ago 3
I live in California (San Diego) and Chris Reeds is explaining exactly the problems in California. Chris Reeds is anti-establishment moderate, he is neither liberal or conservative.
FireGuyX 1 year ago
If only our economy could regulate our government...
Poverty would be rare, taxes would be low, incomes would be high, and the dollar would be strong.
To me, that's social justice.
DOHC2L 1 year ago 3
@FumingPoliticalPunk Right, someone who has spent the majority of there life studying a subject is totally the same as someone who has read a book or two on the subject. Is there a study of what economic's believed before and after their eduction or is your statement that "education is very unlikely to change" just your meaningless guess?
Loathomar 1 year ago
How nice it is to see that the same old self-interested empathy-dead right-wing arguments are still being dragged through their own excrement on life support.
beta447 1 year ago
@beta447 Yes because we all know how that bastion of "right-wing" ideology, California, ruined itself through fiscally conservative spending, opposing unions, eliminating the minimum wage and promoting school choice over the last 20 years.
Wait a minute...
kev3d 1 year ago 4
@beta447 "How nice it is to see that the same old self-interested empathy-dead right-wing arguments" I see your head oozes as much as your heart bleeds. You do realize Chris Reed is a libertarian and neither left or right wing, right? Or perhaps you can't stomach the fact that democrats, neoliberals, progressives, what ever, are screwing up our country. Unintentionally of course, but I suspect it's just a lack of education and reasoning skills.
cowboy1165 1 year ago 2
The eight GOP senators who voted to preserve earmark spending include: Thad Cochran (Miss.), Susan Collins (Maine), James Inhofe (Okla.), Dick Lugar (Ind.), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Richard Shelby (Ala.), retiring Sen. George Voinovich (Ohio) and defeated Sen. Bob Bennett (Utah).
Fockersnextdoor 1 year ago
I thought government was about governing responsibly so equal opportunity is available to all. Did I miss something? @B190489 has it right - they need their hangers-on, so they institute programs that are impossible to get out of and get into productive society. Believe me - I KNOW! It took me 8 years to get out of "the system" but I finally did.
dittomarks 1 year ago
Chris Reed is one of the sharpest guys in news. If more newspapers had editorial talent like him ... maybe the public would be better informed. And maybe we'd be less likely to keep electing the same idiots who are driving this state into the ground.
Great video ReasonTV!
klrdotorg 1 year ago 4
@klrdotorg As Bill O would say... He's a stand up guy. Yes, we need more news people who tell the truth. As for the Charter school pamphlets...I'm sure it was the work of the super powerful Teachers Union...they didnt get so rich, and triple teachers pay by being sweet. And I think threatening deportation is a dirty trick....HOWEVER, I'm pretty sick of outlaws who should not even be here, DEMANDING anything. The message is counterproductive.
JayJayhope 1 year ago
"Minorities"? What a farce. There is no majority in CA anymore. Social justice crusaders need a new term for the category designating their preferred racial groups. And the term needs to exclude Asians and Semites, since they tend to have lower unemployment, more wealth, more education, and better health than Caucasians (which is quite inconvenient for pushers of the "white privilege" theory).
LibertarianRealist 1 year ago 3
if dems are for poor people. they need poor people. if they need poor people they need to keep the poor people poor and expand their numbers. if repubs are for the rich they need the rich. if they need the rich they need to keep the rich people rich and expand their numers. How people can't figure out this is beyond me.
anime1973 1 year ago
@anime1973 that's an interesting conspiracy theory, but it's just plain false. Democrats keep poor people poor because they didn't take economics classes during high school or in college. Therefore, they have no concept of incentives and what actually motivates people.
sugarkang 1 year ago
@sugarkang He's quoting Alfonzo Rachel.
sdhubbard 1 year ago
@sugarkang I think you are on the right track, but it is more that all the economics classes they took were Keynesian. I have a degree in political science, and all the econ classes I took were just a place for the professors to tell us how government intervention is what makes a healthy economy. I can't imagine that these people have much of an idea about the Austrian school, or any others for that matter.
callisto32 1 year ago
@callisto32 Umm. I'm gonna guess that you haven't even taken an econ class yourself. Even in my econ 101 class, they teach you about basic supply demand and why something like price controls e.g., rent ceilings, max gasoline prices, etc. will result in worse supply and long lines. They don't start econ class going: Okay now we're going to teach you all about BIG GUMMINT economics known as Keynesian econ! You can demagogue Paul Krugman all you want, but he's smarter than you.
sugarkang 1 year ago
@anime1973
"if dems are for poor people. they need poor people. if they need poor people they need to keep the poor people poor and expand their numbers." The poverty is rising, because the US is still easily lacking right welfare.
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489 welfare is poverty. the right welfare is the one that either doesn't exist or at least the one that makes it so damn uncomfortable that you want out immediately.
anime1973 1 year ago 2
@anime1973
welfare is because of poverty. Welfare which doesn't exist isn't welfare. It would mean that many of these people would die. For me this is no welfare. For this is a nazi idea.
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489 welfare was a cutsy idea created during the great depression. It was supposed to die at the end of the depression.. and yet it lurks on. People innovate when there is no welfare... or god forbid, they work for less than a union wage.
anime1973 1 year ago
@anime1973
The introduction of welfare in the 1930's was right.
Cutting welfare means cutting innovations. Your economy is not competitive, because of lacking in welfare. Welfare activates and secures economic potential. It makes the working class more productive, because they are healthy and educated.
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489 you are a liar. welfare kills innovation and encourages undeserved complacency. Welfare doesn't make the working class more productive.. It pays them NOT to be productive... and with welfare wages you're likely not going to a good school or eating organic foods.
anime1973 1 year ago
@anime1973
If you have no arguments, don't insult me!
Welfare provides the basis of productivity. It makes the workers healthier and more educated = more productivity.
You can not be healthy and educated without money.
Without money you can not buy any food or healthcare = you die = you can not go to school or to work
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489 again you are a liar. YOU ARE A LIAR.
you have fucked up backwards logic. welfare provides only the very basic minimum level of survival. People on welfare live in shitty neighborhoods and go to shitty schools and eat shitty food. People on welfare are uneducated, unmotivated, more prone to crime and usually die early deaths.
Where does the money for welfare come from? It comes from the productive members of society.
anime1973 1 year ago
@anime1973
Liar? I thought these kind of insult came just from Nazis.
That welfare is too low in the US and that poor people have to go to shitty schools is a pro welfare argument. If you cut welfare they will die, if it is too low the economic potential isn't used full. So the only solution is increasing welfare. More money for public education and more public healthcare. And of course if you are poor the crime rate is increasing, but if you cut it, they will rob you to survive.
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489 only a german nazi fuck like you would know what a nazi was like.
I think you are confusing Socialism and Welfare. Schools and the post office are run by the state and thus socialized..
People who don't work are on welfare. They get paid to do NOTHING. Now I'll argue with you respectfully if it's socialism that we're talking about. I don't agree with socialism but i can respect that decision.. I will not, however, be told that people on welfare are productive.
anime1973 1 year ago
@anime1973
Oh yes of course i know what a nazi is and you are one.
Welfare is part of socialism.
No, it's wrong, people without work (mostly bc of the crysis) are on welfare to avoid that they die.
Some people who lost their job during the crisis are productive and workers who would become free healthcare and education are productive. People who were born in poverty will be productive, if the welfare system works.
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489 takes one to know one .
welfare is not part of socialism. At least not in america.
People in america who are out of work right now are on their unemployment insurance benefits. This is NOT wefare. While on unemployment they are required to look for work.
Socialism = running of business by government.
Welfare = Paying people to not work
i don't agree with socialism but i will respect peoples ideas with that.
I will never respect people not working and getting paid for it.
anime1973 1 year ago
Comment removed
B190489 1 year ago
@anime1973
Think what is the solution?
1. Cutting welfare = killing these people
2. Let them have a minimum standard of life
3. Help these people to find a job, means to increase the spendings on education, healthcare and social work.
By the way, your view of points doesn't sound like that you are a 100% libertarian.
B190489 1 year ago
Comment removed
B190489 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@anime1973
Welfare is part of socialism, trust me i'm a socialist i know it.
I talk about the people who don't find a job and who felt into the welfare system. They are productive economic potential.
Socialism is more than public businesses. Socialism is not just one idea, there are hundreds of different ideas how a society looks like. I'm a social democrat and social democracy is part of the socialist ideology.
I respect every human, even criminals. No respect no peace.
B190489 1 year ago
@anime1973
Welfare is part of the socialist ideology, especially the social democratic part.
I talk about the people who don't find a job and who felt into the welfare system. They are productive economic potential.
I respect each human, even criminals, bc they are still humans.
B190489 1 year ago
@anime1973
And most times free healthcare and education is called as welfare program too.
This means justice too the working class, bc many of them don't earn what they deserve and so the free public services paid by the taxes from the capitalists strengthen the health and inteligence of the people to work more productively.
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489 education is socialized in america.. but healthcare is not. The people of america vastly do not want socialized healthcare.
People earn what they accept. If you accept $7/hour then that is what you deserve.
anime1973 1 year ago
@anime1973
But it's very bad, bc of low spendings. So if you want to activate more economic potential, you have to increase your spendings and tax the rich.
"People earn what they accept. If you accept $7/hour then that is what you deserve."
If you accept to get stabbed instead of killed you deserve it??? You have no choice.
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489 The rich are not fond of getting taxed despite how moral you think it is. They have a right to their money just as any other individual, and if you over tax them, they will leave and take their capital (industrial machines and equipment) with them, thus leaving the poor with out a recourse for attaining wealth.
GeminiK 1 year ago
@GeminiK
Oh everybody has bring his part and the strongest the rich have to pay the most of the money, especially if their money is based on the working class work.
If they leave the country they should go, but do you think they will leave the country just bc of taxation. If they love this country they wouldn't do this. Rich = traitors.
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489 I'm sure they will leave eventually; That's what I would do if I were them. It's not just taxes, it is also difficult to do business because some regulations make it relatively costly to operate.
I have an interesting question, what is the working class money based on?
GeminiK 1 year ago
@GeminiK
Oh yeah so much companies leave Germany that our unemployment rate is 2% lower than yours. If people want to leave this country they can go, but they can't live here without paying taxes and trust me these people want to live here. If you love your country you don't leave it. In your country rich = traitors.
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489 I was thinking they would go to China, and other Asian economies, and in Germany if the taxes and regulation are lower.
Not loving your country, or not enough, presupposes the action of leaving it, which is possible for rich people when their country hates them (I wouldn't see taxation as an act of affection).
Calling them traitors doesn't make all of them criminals, except for the corporatist. You didn't answer my question though, what is the working class money based on?
GeminiK 1 year ago
@GeminiK
No, they came back for years, bc in China they don't find a good business environment. The german educated and healthy worker costs more but brings also more. Here they have a good infastructure and less transportation costs.
Outsourcing is no problem in Germany, it's just a problem of the US. The USA is not Germany. Our economy is stronger than yours.
The working class money based on their own work.
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489 I'm sure china has been growing well for a few decades. There should be business there. I'm glad Germany has less outsourcing, but here the minimum wage causes the outsourcing. How are the wages in Germany?
Yes, labor is what the poor have, but they don't have capital, with out capital they can't make money: A factory worker can't make anything without the machines he doesn't own.
GeminiK 1 year ago
@GeminiK
The wages are lower here, but the taxes are much higher and the people get more from the government which you have to pay for in the US.
Yes, the workers don't own the capital which they've created.
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489
*where not which
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489 Well the stuff you get isn't totally free in Germany either; Presuming you have a progressive tax, the rich and middle class finance it.
The workers create many things they end up not owning, but they always get a cut of the earnings. That's because they trade the one thing they always own, which is their labor. The rich wouldn't be able to make the stuff with out it, so they pay wages in accordance with the available supply of labor.
GeminiK 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GeminiK
I didn't say that everything is free, but here more things are free than in the US.
Yes, but without workers no capital. That means that the whole economy is dependent on the working class, but the rich are shitting on it. That's the opposite of justice.
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489 Yes, I understand that not every thing you have is free, but my point was that someone still has to pay for it.
Did you mean workers should own more capital? If so, the workers would then become the capitalist.
Have to run, I'll reply on your other point later. This is a good chat :).
GeminiK 1 year ago
@GeminiK
I didn't say that everything is free here, i said that more things are free here.
Not just one worker, but the workers = democracy.
B190489 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GeminiK
More things here are free than in the US and we have child and housing benefits here.
Without workers no capital. That's the reason why the working clas should own more money than the capitalists. The problem is, without capital no power. So you can rule the world without doing anything. That's the problem of capitalism.
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489 it's not the government job to make your getting the lifestyle you think you deserve. The rich are rich because they earned that money and they deserve to keep it.
anime1973 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@anime1973
It's the job of us all, it's also the government job.
"The rich are rich because they earned that money and they deserve to keep it." WRONG!!!
B190489 1 year ago
@anime1973
It's the job of us all to secure the lifestyle of OUR society.
The rich are rich, because of the working class.
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489 no. it's not the job to secure the lifestyle of our society.
it is our job to secure the lifestyle we want for ourselves and our family. No one else.
The rich are rich because they stand out. They are more motivated, work longer hours, are better educated, or have more vision the rest. They deserve to be raised up by society, not to be robbed by lesser men.
anime1973 1 year ago
@anime1973
It is our job to secure the lifestyle of the society. Are you a fucking a cowboy?
The rich are rich, because they have money. Most rich don't work for the money they earn. Rich have more freetime and people in the lower middle-class are working the fucking day and even lack with a health insurance.
That they are more educated is bc they have the money to get the education they want.
Robbed is just the working class here.
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489 that's certainly doesn't sound like the rich people i know. The ones i know work 12-15 hour days obcessing over their business and wondering how they are going to continue to make payroll or whether they should expand their business and hire or wonder how the next government regulation is going to fuck it up.
again. you cannot be considered robbed if you accepted the terms of your employment.
anime1973 1 year ago
@anime1973
Do you really think that a rich guy who owns a factory produces more than people who are working in it???
What the hell are you talking about? I talk about rich people and not every business owner! The richest 1% of your society own more than 20% of your wealth by speculating on the stock exchange. They do nothing.
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489 well shouldn't all your downtroddened masses feel quite stupid for not doing the same.
anime1973 1 year ago
@anime1973
If you have the option between death and a job your accepting of this job isn't a freedom choice, it's slavery based on indirect force.
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489 you always have a choice to bargon your wage a bit higher or to get full time status w/ benefits. Most people live in the delusion that they should just accept what they are given. That's why these people are failures.
anime1973 1 year ago
@anime1973
Libertarians and conservatives hates America, the hate their government and their democracy which they use to invent reasons to start wars. Your whole ideology is full of contradictions and everybody outside the US laughing about your fucking uneducated people brainwashed by Cato and Fox. Do you know how stupid you sound if you say that the rich are working more than the working class???
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489 we hate our country? really? And you say that the world is lauging at us? I'm laughing at how your overindulgance in your socialism has brought all of itaily, spain, and ireland to complete financial collapse and that large parts of your socialised system will be torn down in austerity.
anime1973 1 year ago
@anime1973
Yes you hate America and i hate America bc you are so stupid.
I'm from Germany man, socialism works here. I don't care about Spain and Italy.
by the way, ireland is more capitalist than America and it has the highest debt in the EU.
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489 yeah. socialism works so well in germany. that's why your GDP fell 3.5% last year.
anime1973 1 year ago
@anime1973
Em, idiot, our GDP felt so much, bc it so high. Look at the CURRENT data. Our growth rate is 3.9%, yours 3%, our unemployment rate is 7%, yours is 9,6%.
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489
"The rich are rich, because they have money"????
"Most rich don't work for the money they earn"???
What in the hell are you talking about? All data (survey and census) that I've ever seen shows decisively that the vast majority of millionaires are actually first generation millionaires. It is not inherited as you seem to suggest.
wyleehokie 1 year ago
@wyleehokie
Also a first generation millionaire can get rich by owning the capital.
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489
And what exactly is the problem with someone owning capital in a business? Whether it be the small caterer/baker one utilizes for a party or wedding, the tailor I go to for alterations, the machine shop owner, or the investors who own stock in large companies such as BMW or Mercedes
wyleehokie 1 year ago
@wyleehokie
Owning capital = power to get money just by owning capital
Your unions are so weak that the wages can set by the capitalists. This unequal distribution of power is supported by the right wing media and hollywood, telling the people the old fairy tale of the american dream.
The result is that without a large taxation, the rich are getting richer and the middle-class and poors not. That is called the gap. The middle class is more and more split between rich and poor.
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489
I'll break my response down over multiple responses
1. to "owning capital = power to get money just by owning capital"
- does that mean you oppose the very basic reason that someone opens a business? The desire to do something you are passionate about and to make money doing it.
If you are opposed to that, then what exactly is your alternative? And please do not give the usual marxian/socialist response of a theoretical "just" society. Give an example that has proven to work
wyleehokie 1 year ago
@wyleehokie
"does that mean you oppose the very basic reason that someone opens a business?" No, but i want to limit the power of the richest to bring balance into the system.
Yes your unions are very weak compared to the rest of the world. That's one of the reason why your net worth is so unequal how it is.
You call health coverage luxury? How poor is your country? If you give all workers a premium health package your distribution is still unfair.
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489
Our net worth - what exactly do you mean by that?
Are you talking national GDP?
If you are advocating ever stronger unions and greater taxation, then please explain why two German automotive greats BMW and Mercedes have located automotive plants here in the southern US? Where the average line employee earns well above the regional or national average. And all without the benefit of the UAW.
Please explain
wyleehokie 1 year ago
@wyleehokie
The richest 1% in your country own ~50% of your financial net worth. The lower 80% in your country own less than 7% of all money. That is america baby yeah, what a dream. lol
Because your demand to our cars from our social democratic country is so big, that they can not ship all the cars. Not a single job in Germany were cut because of that. Our unemployment rate is 3% lower than in the US. Look it up!
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489
Ummm.... dude, your employment rate is lower now yes. But go look at the DECADES of the 70s, 80s and 90s (though reunification caused problems). Germany routinely ran unemployment right near 10%, as did France. While the US ran unemployment usually at half of that.
wyleehokie 1 year ago
@wyleehokie
I'm talking about the current unemployment rate. We had our problem in the past too, like any other industrial country. Germany has shown that social democracy works. We have invented a efficient mixture of welfare and market economy.
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489
Dude, you obviously have not studied economics, or have a very skewed study of it. A large company is NOT going to spend hundreds of millions of Deutsch Marks (or Dollars) to build manufacturing plants on foreign soil just for that reason, when they could expand production at existing plants by increasing shifts or actually expanding the facility itself.
They did it because of lower labor and regulatory costs.
Same reason the Japanese auto companies did it.
wyleehokie 1 year ago
@wyleehokie
"A large company is NOT going to spend hundreds of millions of Deutsch Marks (or Dollars) to build manufacturing plants on foreign soil just for that reason, when they could expand production at existing plants by increasing shifts or actually expanding the facility itself."
Dude, not a single job was cut because of that, they just want to expand to the US, because they are working under full load here.
We have no Deutsch Marks idiot. We have Euro.
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489
At the time of those plants being built, Germany was still on the Deutsch Mark. You guys didn't switch until 1999 with the actual Euros being physically available in 2002.
Those plants were built back in the 80s and early 90s.
So who is there idiot there?
Have you actually ever worked in a for-profit business? It would have been more cost effective to add a 3rd shift (assuming 8 hour shifts) or to expand the physical plant itself, rather than build overseas.
wyleehokie 1 year ago
@wyleehokie
No, moste of the plants are in planning or build in the last years, like the BMW plant in spartanburg, california. That was just because of the increasing demand in the US. No transportation costs, no problems with currency fluctuations. That is all. Ask BMW!!!
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489
2. our unions are weak???
Obviously you have not read much about the United Auto Workers and their impact upon the U.S. automakers. Their average income is WELL above the national average with a benefits package (health insurance with little or no co-pay, etc.) that is simply unsustainable.
Or the public employee unions which have seen their average income rise to well above the national average.
wyleehokie 1 year ago
@B190489
And if you actually think the media and Hollywood are "right wing", you must be smoking some serious drugs or somewhere on par with Marx and Engle.
Actually cite examples of this bias. And don't just say Fox News as most left wingers do. Give examples of ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN or MSNBC being "right wing". Actual examples.
Do the same for Hollywood please.
And how exactly is the American dream a fairytale? Have you ever actually lived here in the US? No, not visited. Actually lived
wyleehokie 1 year ago
@wyleehokie
What is about movies like Transformers, Spider-Man, 300, Batmen, The Pursuit of Happyness??? All blockbusters are 100% propaganda movies.
That MSNBC is there doesn't mean that your right wing propaganda by Fox News doesn't rule your brains. Real democracy in the media means neutralism and not polarization, where the rich will always win.
The american dream is propaganda. 20% of your children are living in poverty. That's a nightmare.
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489
Ummm, let me clue you in there Sherlock, the movies you cite are .........
ENTERTAINMENT. Please explain how they advocate a particular economic model? If you can explain vs. just reciting off the mantra you learned in university class and in SPD literature
Again, cite actual examples of any of the news organizations being right wing. It is easy to claim a bias one way or the other without citing actual evidence.
Give me evidence
wyleehokie 1 year ago
@wyleehokie
There are large analysis out there about american movies. I do not want to list all up here. It's obviously that pursuit of happiness is propaganda made for the working class to say them you can do everything you want. Fairy tale.
B190489 1 year ago
@wyleehokie The same with the myths about the pilgrims. It's the same bullshit like the myth of the long march in China.
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489
Ummm, again I'll clue you in here. Most Americans are well aware that the elementary school version of the Pilgrims is exactly that .... an elementary version.
Are you just reciting off the stuff you heard in university or at SPD lectures?
wyleehokie 1 year ago
@wyleehokie
How much pilgrims died?
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489
Ummm..... what the hell does that have to do with any discussion here.
Again, I will ask. Are you just spouting the usual Marxian line you learned in university?
wyleehokie 1 year ago
@B190489
What part of Germany are you from and where do you live now?
I see on your profile page the SPD's info -
" ...it ceaselessly labors to raise the worker from the social position of a proletarian to that of a citizen and thus make citizenship universal. It does not want to replace civil society with a proletarian society but a capitalist order of society with a socialist one."
Please explain what they mean there
wyleehokie 1 year ago
@wyleehokie
What does that matter where in Germany i come from?
If you want to know what that means take a look at the wikipedia article. I'm not here to discuss about my party.
Yes, i agree with you, the finance of social security is unsustainbale. Demographics are no problem, because you have increasing productivity.
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489
You ever actually study economics?
Increasing productivity by itself cannot possibly compensate for the massive future liabilities of the social security system. It will take a combination of phasing in a raising of the eligibility age, means testing, along with raising the cap on the income level subject to SSI taxation here in the US
wyleehokie 1 year ago
@wyleehokie
You missed my point. I said increasing productivity and raising taxes for the rich.
1% in your country own more than 50% of your financial net worth, of course you can finance it. Currently your system is made for going bankrupt, because you need a reason to privatize it and to get the profit from the insurance companies.
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489
What tax rates do you propose exactly? And starting at what income levels and why?
Then you run into the issue of inflation creep. That is, as people earn more thru normal raises, or thru inflationary pressures, they will find themselves in those higher tax brackets. Thus you have an negative incentive to actually earn more.
And .... " ....because you need a reason to privatize it and to get the profit from the insurance companies."
What in the heck do you mean by that?
wyleehokie 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wyleehokie
I don't know the american taxation system. All what i have to know that you need more taxation for the richest 1%. Also you have to strengthen your unions.
"The rich are always going to say that, you know, 'Just give us more money, and we'll go out and spend more, and then it will all trickle down to the rest of you.' But that has not worked the last 10 years, and I hope the American public is catching on." Who said this?
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489
NOT NEARLY enough money with the richest 1% to pay for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. NOT EVEN CLOSE. You're talking tens of TRILLIONS in unfunded liabilities out into the future for those programs.
wyleehokie 1 year ago