what idiots like this guy and all these 'free-market' voluntaryist cunts fail to realize is that state is the reason why capitalism still even exists. capitalism and 'free-markets' have a natural gravitation towards monopolies and exploitative slave labor. the 'state' and regulations are what have allowed for a more level playing field so the vast wealth disparity and inequality isn't as painfully apparent to most. the 'free-market' has never favored equality, that burden has rested on the state
I wish that there were other nations that didn't have welfare programs, or periods of our own nation's history where such programs weren't in place, so we could look at those and check out how well not having government-run welfare works out.
Not all of welfare spending is on cash assistance, parts of it go to work and child care programs, the actual percent spent on administration is 7.4%.
That aside, private charities don't have the resources to replace welfare programs. It's why the poverty rate has never been as high as it was in the 1950s or the 1800s for that matter.
If charities were so successful we wouldn't of had 30-50% of Americans in poverty in the 1800s.
1. Are you saying education and healthcare have no positive externalities? If you think that, you're unbelievably stupid.
2. What history books? Name a single society where charity adequately tackled the problem of poverty.
3. So what you're essentially saying is the market creates a load of hypothetical jobs that no-one wants and which don't pay and are never offered to anyone? And you call these imaginary vacancies jobs?
where do you work? what skills do you have something tells me you're living off your parents. no offense, but you're going to probably be on welfare in the future.
Charity has consistently proved itself to be inadequate in genuinely tackling social problems- pick up any economics textbook and its there, it is widely known that markets undersupply goods with high positive externalities without intervention. Welfare is that intervention, without which millions would either starve or steal.
@TheAlfonz69 ...pick up a history book and then come back with your tail between your legs....And don't waste any time on that externalities illiterate bs....Geez.
An awful lot of studies suggest that welfare dependency is a bit of a chimera- most people at the bottom of society move from short term jobs to welfare in and out on a 3-6 month cycle, occasionally topping up benefits with a bit of casual employment because the rates they're paid in both the jobs they can get and the benefits they recieve are so low. It's not addiction or 'sloth', it's just survival. No-one wants to be jobless, it's just that not everyone can actually get a job.
Welfare is not the solution to the problem of poverty and unemployment but neither is charity. The fact is that the free market fails to create enough jobs, and without the state, the jobless and disenfranchised would have nowhere to turn but to organised crime. Don't tell me charity would supply enough support, it would not, just look at 19th century England where millions starved or died of disease while a few rich people eased their conscience via empty gestures of charity.
@TheAlfonz69 .. The market creates all the jobs that are required... there are always far more jobs than people to fill them...its just a matter of whether they are worth paying to have done.
@TheAlfonz69 The 19th century england, as you said, had a high poverty rate and the rich nearly didn't donate anything cause they wanted more and more. But today with the welfare system I must say that I see much more improvement! So well anyways my point is that I feel that welfare is far nearer the goal we're trying to reach then charity.
@xexixk Just because a handful of anarchists that fed each others imagination have traumatized you, little boy, grow up and face reality. Government is only here to control. The more control they can grab, the better, for them. On the other hand you are getting upset and I am actually really happy for you, getting on a video that has a meaning and not going to look up zit popping videos. :)
@waltermelon12 Sorry to disapoint you, I'm not upset. I'm highly entertained by utopian day dreamers such as yourself. You all have something in common with the pre-revolutionary Bolsheviks in that as they could point to no historical real world examples of their ideas, yet were oh so sure they'd work out just as they do on paper, neither can you. You ignore both history & human nature. People naturally form societies and states.
@waltermelon12 You and your position is the minority position, you want to live in a stateless society then it's on your to find it or create elsewhere. Ironic you people bitch about "force" & "coercion" (usually translates as "I don't like X, therefore it's wrong) yet would happily force the majority to live in your screwed up "system". Sorry but the rest us don't want to a part of your utopian experiments. Go elsewhere & try it and prove that it won't be Lord of the Flies brought to life.
@waltermelon12 The absolute funniest thing about this argument is that you think i am an anarchist. I never said what I was or how I thought, I merely defended the thought of total freedom. Someone has sand in thier vagina.
Also, surely arbitrarily gutting the welafre state overnight and hoping charity stepped into the breach would just create a massive crime wave, as people at the bottom of society would have literally no other means of survival, at least for a time? And who would everyone else rely on to clean up such a mess? That's right, the 'wasteful', 'inefficient', 'corrupt' and 'over-bureacratic' state.
@TheAlfonz69 ..Welfare is like drug addiction..and people need weaning off of it just the same. The states legitimate role in a civilised society is that of rights protection from force. It holds the monopoly on legalised force ...and when it uses it to create such abominations as the welfare state it violates the very rights it exists to protect. Get it out of the way and you would find it was never necessary to have it involved in welfare at all.
Surely if charities operated on a scale comparable with state welfare, they would require a bureacracy so large it would generate massive overheads and 'waste' in doing so? It never would, it's a basic law of economics that the market undersupplies goods and services providing positive externalities like education and healthcare. THe only reason charities can be so efficient is because they're generally small-scale operations, not national social security providers.
@TheAlfonz69 ..Charities long preceded the welfare state and were far more efficient and economic in delivering aid to the needy. They operated on a tough love system and expected reciprocal personal responsibility from the people they gave help to to help themselves first....ensuring that the welfare life-styler's that exists to day in massive numbers on the taxpayer did not exist at all. Decentralizing welfare by privatising it would save billions and deliver far better outcomes all round.
The issue is not about wether or not donating to charity is a better system, it's that less then 10% of the money spent on welfare goes to those in need and instead fuels an excessive bureaucracy. It should be about spending tax money best, so it does not create the poverty/wealth gaps they do.
You make some very salient points, but scrapping the whole US Welfare system isn't the only alternative. You ignore, in this video, exactly what charities are and what they do. You can divide to find percentages though, congrats.
You intentionally IGNORED the more 'lavish' benefits given to recipients of the Big 3 (Medicare, Medicaid and SS), didn't you? To make it SEEM like every welfare recipient should've received anywhere from 41 to 202 grand. But if you TAKE OUT all the money already spent on the Big 3 from that figure, the amount ACTUALLY spent on the rest of the programs looks kind of tiny by comparison. People who receive Medicare and SS typically get by far the most generous benefits.
Or show me low-cost, PRIVATELY-RUN (100%) job-training programs for the poor that exist in EVERY CITY IN AMERICA. Sorry, Charlie. That's not reality. Your libertarian fantasy has never been reality. The welfare state provides assistance that GAPS in private charities can't and have never filled.
@waltermelon12 Wow, what an insightful statement (in reply to a comment that wasn't even addressed to you). Yet further proof that you people have no real argument to make and are historical know nothings.
Your "8.5x" figure ASSUMES that there is as comprehensive and wide array of low-cost, cheap charities that do all the same kinds of functions that the American welfare state does. But, alas, there isn't. The charities' goals and functions are usually more limited. I mean, WHERE can I find a privately-run food stamps program? Oh sure, there's food banks, but what if they RUN OUT? Besides, American private charity cannot and HAS NEVER raised nearly as much as the American welfare state.
Show me some real FACTS proving your case that the vast majority of the welfare state is 'wasted' on bureaucracy. Btw, it's not merely 2 million on welfare programs in America. I think you're only looking at SOME programs.
Any idiot can use basic division. Btw, where did you come up with that BOGUS $440 Billion number? Aside from SS, Medicaid and Medicare, the American welfare state spends NOWHERE NEAR THAT AMOUNT!
Besides, in MANY states in Europe where the welfare state IS more generous... GUESS WHAT: THEY HAVE FAR LOWER POVERTY RATES! Whoda thunk it. Help people get access to good education, low-cost college, job-training, etc., and they'll make use of it to become more self-sufficient and lift themselves out of poverty.
The libertarian-conservative way is to simply give more handouts to big business in the HOPES that they'll "hire people and give them opportunities" but this is a crap shoot.
@whoo689 I'd like to see just how well Europe functions without the American taxpayer subsidized Protection afforded to them by the U.S. Government Army. Think about it, it's pretty easy to spend money on social programs when your not wasting money on protecting your boarders form the next State over. libertarians also would never give any money to big business. Yes, conservatives would, but their a bunch of corporate Marxist. So who cares?
Why do conservatives and libertarians have such a self-centered anti-welfare mentality? A little assistance to help get you back on your feet is REALLY that bad?? These programs were NOT designed to give people a constant living. They're there to help TRANSITION you from poverty to a more self-sufficient, somewhat wealthier state.
@whoo689 I think most libertarians would agree that the forced assistance needs to be stopped from the top down. Corporations and the wars fought for them would be stopped way way before poor people stop getting a welfare check.
I mean, very few people go on UI simply because they wanna lounge around the house all day DOING NOTHING. They take it SHORTLY AFTER they lose their jobs as a way to tide them over UNTIL they find new jobs.
Or, in a more difficult scenario, those folks who DO become 'dependent' on the programs may well have very few opportunities IF they got off the programs tomorrow, so in that regard, we should HELP them transition through things like good job training and employment assistance. Not simply eliminate the welfare state outright and assume they'll all be able to find "good jobs" immediately.
No, welfare does NOT make people "dependent." Anyone who becomes 'dependent' does so because THAT'S WHO THEY ARE. They have that kind of personality that would make them stay on the program rather than trying to get a good job and get off the program.
This idea that all or most welfare recipients are lazy bums has never been proven, but it's been repeated by ill-informed douchebags time and again.
LOL. This is insanity. Contrary to popular belief, social insurance DOES help a lot of people who would otherwise be even WORSE OFF (sometimes far worse off) without it. No, I'm not for giving "handouts" to people willy-nilly, but that's not how welfare states generally operate. It's a GOP myth! America's welfare state is one of the LEAST-GENEROUS in the world, so to bitch about it like it's giving lavish benefits to just about anyone who applies is MAGNIFICENTLY ABSURD.
Now I'm not saying that the government efficiently uses your welfare money people but let's be serious here. Charities do not have the infrastructure to use that money properly at all, so why use it as an example. And that magical "bureaucracy" that you so easily dismiss is actually thousands of jobs.
The problem is not that the facts are wrong (assuming they are correct, I didn't check it out), but he creates a very narrow frame of reference. He sets up the terms for debate, when the truth requires a fundamental, holistic approach. Ask the basic questions - why is there poverty in this world to begin with?
@RealityChecker77 Those who have more money, are going to do whatever they can to manipulate the system to get more money and more power. What else do you expect in a system based upon differential advantage? Please answer this question. What do you expect in a system that instills a certain value set, and rewards the best game players with the means to keep, and grow their differential advantage?
This pimply adolescent whelp misses several hundred important points. People like this want to drag us all back to Dickensian squalor and the sweatshop, for the sake of their own self-aggrandisement.
@AroundSun Only in your country(probably other countries too) the gouvernement doesn't seem to manage state welfare hearing your horrible stories about them. They should try to learn from other countries where it does works. Cause then it's more effective then charities. It's not a failure by design, it's(in your case) a failure by the people running it.
Wouldn't we be helping the poor if we provided for every bodies needs? Oh wait, I understand why that may be a problem for capitalists as people are merely commodities to add to the economy to them.
@23lFrench "helping the poor if we provided for every bodies needs?"
Car's, TV's, food, housing, clothing, entertainment, cash for recreational activities, vacations, healthcare, education, phone, internet. Then everything the government subsidizes increases in cost. Then they just takeover the industries so the service and quality deteriorates. Then they HAVE to control what you eat, where to work, who to work for, what to buy, how to save, where to live, what you learn. Hear of the Soviets?
Problem is wether you get more or less money because of tax cuts or salary raises, is people then going to give more to charity? My country has now spent years cutting taxes, but I haven't heard of a massing donating to charity since then. People want make their life better Don't you see that people just want the money they get to themselves? Some people give to charity, but you need to realise that the amounts are to small to match state welfare, you will leave the poor behind...
and you are seriously thinking that even some americains would donate 1.200 dollar one year of all their savings? I think you and I know that people don't donate more than maybe 50 dollar sometimes. When people get the money in their hand, they try to make their budget fit around it, 1200dollar/year/8.5person? Except for bill gate(who donates most to africa) you have a really optimistic view of people. You need to base your statements on some realism as well, not only numbers...
well, your reason on the video doesn't make any sense and I agree with Hello that you are very optimistic and native. You need to meet a poor person and how hard they work to survive in a trouble economy. Charity don't work. I know because I'm poor myself.
@hello12363062 The whole point is that even if everyone donated $120 per year, you would still be helping the same amount of people on welfare. Since around a quarter of recipients abuse the system, you could donate even less. People who pay taxes into this system ALSO donate to charities. A good portion of the money used to fund the welfare state would be better in the hands of producers who could give these people employment and a real life. Get them out of poverty to begin with
@AroundSun I understand your point, charities in your country, seems more effective then state welfare. I won't argue against that since you guys know your country better. But understand my point, the amount of people donating today will probably not change then after this cut of taxes. Why? The donaters will rest as the donaters, the others though, will they give as well after this? Since you can't force them why would they start donating? They're happy to get more money to spend for themselves
@hello12363062 Well you won't have nearly half the amount unemployed or receiving welfare in misery and poverty if companies could use their own capital to produce and create jobs instead of having it taxed away. Broadening the base. We literally have the highest corporate marginal tax rate in the world. Also, the prices of goods and services are high as well when production is taxed. This doesn't help out the middle class or the poor
@AroundSun Then I'm sorry to say that I missunderstood the scenario, I thought it was the peoples salaries who were taxed. Because in that case if they took away that tax, they would have gotten more money in their pocket, but since it's a company tax(if I understood right) the company would get more money. Meaning as you said that they will get to employ more people, although not necessarily that the workers will get more paid. In that case the poor that are left, are left with even less.
@hello12363062 Taxation is government taking money out of your right pocket and putting it in your left. usually the amount that gets taken out of the right is more than is put into the left.
@AroundSun I didn't ask about that, thanks anyways for the information. But about that, it depends how much you have on the right. For many people it get's more in the left then it was in the right ;)
@AroundSun So basically you don't like the idea of welfare or charities since both ways you're giving away money to others(so called "beneficiaries"). Or maybe you just don't like welfare since with charities you don't have to donate at least, leaving it to others. And it's because of people like you that charities doesn't work the way that welfare does. If your gouvernement is so corrupt you should complain about it and if they don't listen you change them so the next group will learn from this
@hello12363062 " So basically you don't like the idea of welfare or charities since both ways you're giving away money to others(so called "beneficiaries")"
No, one you are making voluntary donations, the other, is the state putting a gun to your head for it.
"And it's because of people like you that charities doesn't work the way that welfare does"
Did you not watch this video? Private charities are far more efficient at relieving misery and poverty than any government could be, by design
@AroundSun No, one is some individuals donating ánd other individuals donating to themselves, the other one is the state making the people work as a team helping the poor of the nation, through taxes instead.
Yes I watched this video and we wouldn't be having this conversation if I wouldn't have disagreed with him. And as stated before he's making his base on numbers not on reality, since most people think as an individual, charities won't work. If your state is corrupt: complain etc.
@hello12363062 Numbers are reality my friend. Apparently you didn't watch the video, but over 85% of the money we spent on welfare didn't make it to the recipients. It was lost in the bumbling political bureaucracy that IS big government. Why would the majority of people enact laws that would make the majority pay taxes on more than they contribute? Answer: they wouldn't. Gov't has also caused a disincentive for charitable arrangements to exist, by violating the constitutional role of gov't
@AroundSun That wasn't numbers I meant, I'm sorry for confusing you. Now as I mentioned before, COMPLAIN/PROTEST about it to your gouvernement if they don't listen you don't vote for them and the next won't do the same mistake. Cause I agree 85% is far too much that is lost.
I was talking about the fact that he said "even if one/8.5 people donated that amount they would reach the same goal" but how many would actually donate when they got the money? Probably less then those numbers = realism.
@hello12363062 "COMPLAIN/PROTEST about it to your gouvernement if they don't listen you don't vote for them"
this has been going on for 80 years lol. no matter who gets in office is a puppet owned by the banks in this country. why settle for their inefficiency? it is a failure by DESIGN not because of who is running the show..Regardless, If I see a homeless man on the street, I have no right to hold a gun to your head and steal your money for him. Thats exactly what you are advocating..
@AroundSun "If I see a homeless man on the street, I have no right to hold a gun to your head and steal your money for him. Thats exactly what you are advocating.."
No you're right you can't, that would be a threat. But in order to really help that man and all the others you have to do this togethe How many people passing that man would actually donate even one dollar? But since you're saying that for 80 years it haven't worked,then you're right fuck that shit. At least it works where I'm from:)
@hello12363062 No, you see..Just because something is done, doesn't mean it works. If it worked, you wouldn't have to force people to participate. If something is popular, and works well, people will CHOOSE it. Ever hear of that word? Choice? Plenty of people give money to homeless people. Many are arrested for making up to 500 per day and not being homeless, or disabled. Private charities work better than governments. Besides, the constitution doesn't authorize this at the federal level
@AroundSun As long as the gouvernement ain't corrupted, welfare works better. In my country I've choosed state welfare, I had a choice to vote for the party that seemed most right for me and the ideas that they stood for. Even if you think there are plenty of people donating imagine would they really give even 1000 dollars a year? that's a lot of money for litteraly everyone. When you put those money on a table a lot of people doesn't just choose to give it away, many choose to keep it.
@hello12363062 That's great, but you didn't 'choose' anything. You voted for your own benefit. What about the taxpayer that has to pay for your welfare, I am sure he didn't 'choose' to pay for you. The whole point is to stop the poor from being poor in the first place. Ending the welfare state. My government doesn't have the right to take money from one person and give it to another. Jobs and production are much better than a life of poverty and welfare...I see you choose the latter
@AroundSun A country will always have people without jobs. It's impossible for any nation to say that they don't have any poor. Ofcourse you can have nations with more poverty and those with less. To stop the poor being poor everyone needs to help them, some people can't do that. Even if they would get more money ending that tax cost, ofcourse you think your gouvernement can't take your money and give to someone else, but if the people don't agree to do it no one else will give them
@hello12363062 No, this is dead wrong again. You are implying that the majority of people will vote for laws to help the poor, yet the majority will not donate. Why would you vote for a higher donation that is forced from you than you would otherwise voluntarily give? Stupid thinking....
@AroundSun Because no-one wants to give away that big amount of money to people they don't even know, and knowing that your neighbourgh probably won't doesn't make you think that your money is doing that much of a difference. With the vote together making everyone indirectly "donaters", then you can make a difference since everyone is helping. But everyone needs to be on it, charities ain't going to make a difference.
@hello12363062 Charities are more efficient at relieving misery and poverty than the federal government, or any government could ever be. They have done more here and around the world than government aid. After Katrina, private organizations rebuilt New Orleans while the bumbling bureaucracy in Washington were having pizza.
@hello12363062 The government doesn't have its own money, it only has what it takes from the taxpayers. Nothing is free. Maybe this explains why Europe is bankrupt, and why our unfunded liabilities total 113+ trillion dollars in entitlements. The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of someone elses money. We can't all live and mooch off of 15% of the people. They will turn to welfare, now it is 5% of the people, etc. etc.
@AroundSun Greek got bankrupt. That caused europe's economy in some crisis since some countries are bounded to help them through the union. It's ridicilous basically. But it seems to me that your newspapers doesn't update you very well, europe isn't bankrupt. Funny though that you blame it one socialism. Norway, a very socialist country, their debt? 0 dollars. I haven't heard so far of a capitilist country with no debts, looking at the US national debt it looks kinda bad for capitilism...
@hello12363062 Those countries aren't nearly as socialist as the left likes to believe. They are mainly capitalist countries rated higher on the economic freedom indexes every year than the US. If you are using the US as a free market example, you're dead wrong. Europe is going bankrupt, you know what I mean simpleton...Capitalism doesn't create government debt moron, only socialism can do that...God you are dense
@AroundSun Those countries, scandinavia? In that case you're wrong, americans state sweden as an example of socialism. Me my self I know that sweden have mix of liberalism and socialism. Norway however is a lot more socialists than sweden. The gouvernement have total control of the oil(Statoil) for example, and as many socialist stated country over electricity, police, hospitals/medicare and more. So no they are very socialist, I know this since I'm from scandinavia and educated in our politics.
@AroundSun and anyways, no I don't know what you mean. Europe isn't going bankrupt, crisis are being solved all over the world. The US was on the edge of going bankrupt but they are going towards the right direction now, they're solving the problem. You can't blame a depression on socialism, you know as well as I do that capitalism haven't made the US(for example) help them at all in these times, and for crying out loud if capitalism ain't making debts, why do USA even have such a large debt?
@hello12363062 Wow, you are dumber than dirt. The US is now 'solving that problem'? 'The crisis is being solved all over the world?'. Are you a fucking moron?! The US National Debt is debt that the GOVERNMENT ran up with other nations, not businesses you fucking shithead. Money borrowed and blown on consumption and socialism entitlement/welfare. There is a certain level of stupidity in which I refuse to communicate with, you are below that level. Good day
@AroundSun They are solving it cause if you don't remember, mr. obama was some days from getting bankrupt if he didn't find any solution to their economic crisis. The US national debt is the debt that the (capitalist) US ran up! Money THEY borrowed because their income isn't equal to their expenses for their citizens needs. All they do is lowering taxes and borrowing even more. Bussiness doesn't make gouvernemental debts, and I haven't said the opposite so don't act smart little boy.
@AroundSun Capitalism is an ideology runned by the STATE not by bussiness shithead, didn't know you didn't make it to middle school sorry. The capitalist US tried to cut taxes as much as possible in order for the free market to grow but reduces their tax income for example the building of roads, which is still their responsibility. With no money left to do so they loaned(underlined) and further on they had no money to pay it back so they got debted(underlined), got it little boy?
Heh if it was not for the money the government gave to my family to send my to a private school that I needed to go to (since it was better for me due to the situation I was in), then I would have never been able to go to this great college I am at or even ever get a job.
While I agree that lazy people should not be paid just to be lazy, since that is unfair. I do think some people do need welfare, but only low welfare so they dont just sit there all their life living off other people's money.
Heh, if it was not for the money the government gave to my family to send my to a private school that I needed to go to (since it was better for me due to the situation I was in), then I would have never been able to go to this great college I am at or even ever get a job.
While I agree that lazy people should not be paid just to be lazy, since that is unfair. I do think some people do need welfare, but only low welfare so they dont just sit there all their life living off other people's money.
@NuclearDude101 "Heh, if it was not for the money the government gave to my family to send my to a private school"
>>The government has no money. It only have the money it takes from it's citizens.
"but only low welfare so they dont just sit there all their life living off other people's money."
>This is why it needs to take place at as local level as possible. So there is more interaction with the people. Voluntary charitable arrangements, local government. Not for the federal government.
1. Ok let me rephrase. If it was not for the taxpayers paying £225,000 for me to go to this school for 3 years in total, then I would have no hope of a job. I wish I could repay that money, but I cannot. The least I can do is get a good job and pay my fair share of taxes for the next kid who comes along who has a disability just like I did.
2. I believe so. Charities can be good, but they cannot cater for everyone. But local interaction is best, I agree.
Heh, if it was not for the money the government gave to my family to send my to a private school that I needed to go to (since it was better for me due to the situation I was in), then I would have never been able to go to this great college I am at or even ever get a job.
While I agree that lazy people should not be paid just to be lazy, since that is unfair. I do think some people do need welfare, but only low welfare so they dont just sit there all their life living off other people's money.
Ha! I actually agreed with most of what this guy says but not everything. Yet my comments get deleted anyway. If you can’t take criticism you need to remove yourself. I can now see that you aren’t trying to have an honest debate. Just disable all of your comments on all of your videos. Loser!
@HumanNonPerson So you have an argument to continue forcing state welfare at gunpoint? Even though it is the most wasteful and inefficient and immoral way to do things? I'd love to hear it! Please, tell me why other people owe you money simply for existing!
@AroundSun Holy crap, guy! HOLY FUCKING CRAP!!! I wasn't even arguing about that. My comments got deleted so you can't read them but don't assume that I took a position that I didn't. If you read my other comments you would know that, "I actually agreed with most of what this guy says." My comments were based on minor details not the completely opposite argument. Just stop talking you are making everyone who agrees with this position look bad.
@HumanNonPerson I started off by saying "Why don't you state your criticisms instead". You told me that they got deleted. Instead of actually stating criticisms. Obviously I can read your posts since we are communicating, so lets throw all this crap away and you can actually just state your criticisms. (*maybe I agree with them*)
Charity doesn't have any quality control. That means some people would get less money than other people and there is no checking social security numbers for fraud. A person could run from city to city or state to state collecting their charity whereas another person who couldn't ''game the system'' would only receive a small amount.
@jfsfrnd Isn't social security fraud already a big problem? The charities themselves would have to do a good job of policing themselves or people would quit giving them money.
@HumanNonPerson What do you mean by social security fraud? People stealing social security numbers or the Social Security SSI/SSDI program? Charities don't police themselves because there are no laws that make them do that and they don't have the resources. The welfare office has the ability to look up social security numbers online to see if the person has applied for benefits anywhere else in the country. And they can check a persons name to make sure it matches the number.
@bobmuffins No, it means that government has 90% overhead meaning they are 10% efficient, and charities are 85% efficient meaning they only have 15% overhead.
@bobmuffins Overhead is waste. Efficiency is the opposite. Government has 90% overhead, so 10% went to help people. Charities have 15% overhead, so 85% went to help people. 85% / 10% = 8.5 times more people helped. Get it now?
@bobmuffins No, you'd be helping 9.9 times the amount of people. But that's at the current level of aid provided by the government. Charities could provide a higher quality to maybe only 5 times as many people.
You do realize that the US is more of a republic and not a democracy. While it’s not really a republic either, it is a combination of many different form of government. In a democracy the majority rule and you would get to vote on every law. You could even vote out rights. It is the majority ruling over the minority.
@Svetlozarov Besides being wrong? How about knowing how to maneuver your ideas in the government. Doing this i a republic is different from doing this in a democracy. If you can't get the simple things right, why should someone even continue to listen or even care? Someone taking about changing the system because of this or that but they don't even know what kind of system we have. I happen to agree with him, just trying to make it better. Everyone needs to quit calling the US a democracy.
@HumanNonPerson Government is evil. It's just in different doses. We never had a defficientcy of evil so why do we tollerate it being shuved down our throat?
@bobmuffins WATCH THE VIDEO, IT IS INTENDED TO ANSER THIS QUESTION!
PS. "How will taking the boots away from the people you're telling to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" help them?" I live in Belguim and I still can see you suck at English grammar.
@Svetlozarov Oh boy, harping on about grammar as though that's an argument!
And, no, the video doesn't answer shit other than saying "PEOPLE SHOULD BE CHARITABLE" even though charities tend to have even worse rates of money going to the people who need it than governments, so only the poor people with rich connections could get out of being poor. That's... not a solution at all.
@bobmuffins "so only the poor people with rich connections could get out of being poor." So you complain about charities being sceams, but that's why they don't have a 100%, The state is far worse, and people with connections bennefit even more. "PEOPLE SHOULD BE CHARITABLE" is also used by socialists.
Let's be honest. The rich ONLY give to charity because its tax deductable. With out taxes they would lose their incentive to give to charity in the first place.
Charity to feel good?, hmmmm not so sure the the rich have a conscious, that would probablly the genetics of the caveman who decided to claim stuff as his.
Property? Really, the native americans did wonderfully without such concepts, till fuckheads like you invaded.
You genetic legacy is one of genocide and oppression. Well done
@stewie1974 "not so sure the the rich have a conscious"
What a horrible thing to say, my mothers boss is one of the nicest people I know and he has countless millions and an empire in his business. You are just stereotyping, people like you make the world a worse place to live.
@stewie1974 My moms boss gave her a job that paid $10,000 more a year than she was previously making, you call that evil? Rich people are rich because they work smarter/harder than the rest of us, you just don't want to admit that because you know you will NEVER have the drive to be an entrepreneur, you have nobody else to blame for that but yourself.
@stewie1974 The rich give to charity because you little monsters guilt trip them. Frankly, I see no reason to give money to somebody who hasn't earned it. So because the rich don't give money to every bum and loser on the street, they don't have a conscious? Oh yes, the Native Americans did well- yet it is BECAUSE of property that many of humanity's great inventions came about. If you don't like the miracles of industrialism go live in the woods. Oh, and ever heard of North Korea?
@stewie1974 1/2 Aren't these folks funny? They are a bunch of deluded utopians - completely ignorant of how the word works and also ignorant of history or they engage in revisionist history when historical examples prove them wrong. They live in a world of fantasy & theories that would fail - and have failed in the real world. All of this "the rich work harder" is BS, some do, some don't, many inherited their wealth, others happened to just be in the right place at the right time, etc. 2/2 >>>>>
@stewie1974 2/2 The worshiping of Ayn Rand is nauseating as well. She was the consumate hypocrite. She claimed to champion individual freedom yet had no tolerance for anyone who questioned her & cut them out of her life, compared Medicare to piracy yet applied for both Social Security and Medicare when she was diagnosed with lung cancer unlike Rose Wilder Lane who was vocal in her opposition to social security and stood by her principals and never applied for it. Little wonder Rand died alone.
The solution to inefficient public charities is not to eliminate public charities. That is a non-sequitur. The solution is BETTER public charities! I think that a new department in the White House should be made that is solely dedicated to eliminating unnecessary bureaucracy, red-tape, etc. in every department. It's goal: to make a strong welfare state, but very smooth and lean, without bloated pork barrel spending and useless administration.
In just 10 yrs, 4 million illegals who happen to give birth in the US will be provided automatic citizenship to their kid, skirting immigration laws via an unintended loophole. Majority of those cases, We the taxpayer will be responsibility for feeding, clothing, educating & providing for health care.Not to mention cost of criminal activity, victimization, court costs & prisons costs, We all know a significant % will go that route. Vote for politicians that will STOP this alian invaison.
For anyone watching this wretched video googgle "Reserve army of labour"and read.....you'll then have an understanding of why there are so many unemployed within the market system. Depending on the "charity" of capitalists is beyond a naive thought...it's fucking ridiculous. Just another reason why a state is necessary under the market system. Keep ignoring me by the way- I'm surprised you haven't blocked me yet (for exposing the oxymoron that is "anarcho" capitalism). Fucking fraud.
I know, right? Of course you have to force people to pay taxes. All the wretched "self enlightened" (selifsh) people liek Spinney would exploit as many as they could without repercussion, and give absolutely nothing. Thats obvious. Charity isn't in peoples nature. Why should it be?
And what creates crisis? They'll say the state or the PRIVATIZED bank called the Federal Reserve. No, it couldn't be the market system itself could it be? Why don't we, right now, in the middle of a crisis, cut off all welfare benefits to the unemployed and elderly! SOUNDS GREAT! While we're at it we should just execute all the millions of prisoners in America. I wonder why America has the highest incarceration rate of any nation EVER? It must be the states fault? Blame it on taxes!
@IxenBlaze LOL and guess who forced the market system on the world....the state. Without it capitalism "free" market or not couldn't exist. "Free" market capitalism is simply wishful theory that has no real world applications because capitalism can't exist without the state apparatus. You people simply advocate a privatized state in order to enforce private property. If it wasn't for the capitalist state capitalism would be history by now.
@crud4 Actually that is false on its face. Freedom isnt something that the state forces, nor can force upon the world. The market system evolved from pure barter as people needed a medium to facilitate indirect exchange. Private property is something that is freely obtained through discovery or exchange. If it werent for the market system, we would not be as advanced as we are now. The market system is just how we naturally handle scarce resources as man economizes them.
@crud4 The free marked doesn't exist because politicians get enormous sponsoring to push regulations. If you see a sheep on a plot of grass it would be ignorant to say "Ungrased grass doesn't exist." or "Grass will not exist whitout sheep.". That grass exists despite of the sheep not because of. It's the same with the ruins of the free marked, they exist despite of the the state not because of.
@Svetlozarov The free market doesn't exist because the market system itself was never separate from the modern state. The "free market" doesn't exist because the market system cannot exist without a state. Why cant you fuck ups understand this?
What is structural unemployment and why can't the "market" survive if actual full employment was reached? Do you even know ANYTHING about capitalism? Some one needs to dismantle your video camera.
also, jagoff, non-profits are not exclusively 'charities' so your numbers are bullshit.
ontheotherhandx6 2 days ago
what idiots like this guy and all these 'free-market' voluntaryist cunts fail to realize is that state is the reason why capitalism still even exists. capitalism and 'free-markets' have a natural gravitation towards monopolies and exploitative slave labor. the 'state' and regulations are what have allowed for a more level playing field so the vast wealth disparity and inequality isn't as painfully apparent to most. the 'free-market' has never favored equality, that burden has rested on the state
ontheotherhandx6 2 days ago
I wish that there were other nations that didn't have welfare programs, or periods of our own nation's history where such programs weren't in place, so we could look at those and check out how well not having government-run welfare works out.
DaveSlashDavid 2 days ago
@JacobSpinney
Not all of welfare spending is on cash assistance, parts of it go to work and child care programs, the actual percent spent on administration is 7.4%.
That aside, private charities don't have the resources to replace welfare programs. It's why the poverty rate has never been as high as it was in the 1950s or the 1800s for that matter.
If charities were so successful we wouldn't of had 30-50% of Americans in poverty in the 1800s.
AndroidPolitician 2 weeks ago
/watch?v=dCc_dSgbZq8&feature=autoplay&list=FLolIgWY3MbF6-gP3c05TUow&lf=plcp&playnext=1
juanlmesl 2 weeks ago
@Riellysdad
1. Are you saying education and healthcare have no positive externalities? If you think that, you're unbelievably stupid.
2. What history books? Name a single society where charity adequately tackled the problem of poverty.
3. So what you're essentially saying is the market creates a load of hypothetical jobs that no-one wants and which don't pay and are never offered to anyone? And you call these imaginary vacancies jobs?
Have a good hard think about that one.
TheAlfonz69 1 month ago
where do you work? what skills do you have something tells me you're living off your parents. no offense, but you're going to probably be on welfare in the future.
LouieDaProtectionist 1 month ago
@Riellysdad
Charity has consistently proved itself to be inadequate in genuinely tackling social problems- pick up any economics textbook and its there, it is widely known that markets undersupply goods with high positive externalities without intervention. Welfare is that intervention, without which millions would either starve or steal.
TheAlfonz69 1 month ago
@TheAlfonz69 ...pick up a history book and then come back with your tail between your legs....And don't waste any time on that externalities illiterate bs....Geez.
Riellysdad 1 month ago
@Riellysdad
An awful lot of studies suggest that welfare dependency is a bit of a chimera- most people at the bottom of society move from short term jobs to welfare in and out on a 3-6 month cycle, occasionally topping up benefits with a bit of casual employment because the rates they're paid in both the jobs they can get and the benefits they recieve are so low. It's not addiction or 'sloth', it's just survival. No-one wants to be jobless, it's just that not everyone can actually get a job.
TheAlfonz69 1 month ago
@Riellysdad
Welfare is not the solution to the problem of poverty and unemployment but neither is charity. The fact is that the free market fails to create enough jobs, and without the state, the jobless and disenfranchised would have nowhere to turn but to organised crime. Don't tell me charity would supply enough support, it would not, just look at 19th century England where millions starved or died of disease while a few rich people eased their conscience via empty gestures of charity.
TheAlfonz69 1 month ago
@TheAlfonz69 .. The market creates all the jobs that are required... there are always far more jobs than people to fill them...its just a matter of whether they are worth paying to have done.
Riellysdad 1 month ago
@Riellysdad
you are incorrect, there are not always more jobs than people to fill them
kal9990 1 month ago
@TheAlfonz69 The 19th century england, as you said, had a high poverty rate and the rich nearly didn't donate anything cause they wanted more and more. But today with the welfare system I must say that I see much more improvement! So well anyways my point is that I feel that welfare is far nearer the goal we're trying to reach then charity.
hello12363062 1 month ago
@xexixk Just because a handful of anarchists that fed each others imagination have traumatized you, little boy, grow up and face reality. Government is only here to control. The more control they can grab, the better, for them. On the other hand you are getting upset and I am actually really happy for you, getting on a video that has a meaning and not going to look up zit popping videos. :)
waltermelon12 1 month ago
@waltermelon12 Sorry to disapoint you, I'm not upset. I'm highly entertained by utopian day dreamers such as yourself. You all have something in common with the pre-revolutionary Bolsheviks in that as they could point to no historical real world examples of their ideas, yet were oh so sure they'd work out just as they do on paper, neither can you. You ignore both history & human nature. People naturally form societies and states.
xexixk 1 month ago
@waltermelon12 You and your position is the minority position, you want to live in a stateless society then it's on your to find it or create elsewhere. Ironic you people bitch about "force" & "coercion" (usually translates as "I don't like X, therefore it's wrong) yet would happily force the majority to live in your screwed up "system". Sorry but the rest us don't want to a part of your utopian experiments. Go elsewhere & try it and prove that it won't be Lord of the Flies brought to life.
xexixk 1 month ago
@waltermelon12 The absolute funniest thing about this argument is that you think i am an anarchist. I never said what I was or how I thought, I merely defended the thought of total freedom. Someone has sand in thier vagina.
waltermelon12 1 month ago
Also, surely arbitrarily gutting the welafre state overnight and hoping charity stepped into the breach would just create a massive crime wave, as people at the bottom of society would have literally no other means of survival, at least for a time? And who would everyone else rely on to clean up such a mess? That's right, the 'wasteful', 'inefficient', 'corrupt' and 'over-bureacratic' state.
TheAlfonz69 1 month ago
@TheAlfonz69 ..Welfare is like drug addiction..and people need weaning off of it just the same. The states legitimate role in a civilised society is that of rights protection from force. It holds the monopoly on legalised force ...and when it uses it to create such abominations as the welfare state it violates the very rights it exists to protect. Get it out of the way and you would find it was never necessary to have it involved in welfare at all.
Riellysdad 1 month ago
Surely if charities operated on a scale comparable with state welfare, they would require a bureacracy so large it would generate massive overheads and 'waste' in doing so? It never would, it's a basic law of economics that the market undersupplies goods and services providing positive externalities like education and healthcare. THe only reason charities can be so efficient is because they're generally small-scale operations, not national social security providers.
TheAlfonz69 1 month ago
@TheAlfonz69 ..Charities long preceded the welfare state and were far more efficient and economic in delivering aid to the needy. They operated on a tough love system and expected reciprocal personal responsibility from the people they gave help to to help themselves first....ensuring that the welfare life-styler's that exists to day in massive numbers on the taxpayer did not exist at all. Decentralizing welfare by privatising it would save billions and deliver far better outcomes all round.
Riellysdad 1 month ago
The issue is not about wether or not donating to charity is a better system, it's that less then 10% of the money spent on welfare goes to those in need and instead fuels an excessive bureaucracy. It should be about spending tax money best, so it does not create the poverty/wealth gaps they do.
22Ein 1 month ago
You make some very salient points, but scrapping the whole US Welfare system isn't the only alternative. You ignore, in this video, exactly what charities are and what they do. You can divide to find percentages though, congrats.
fishfingersncustard 1 month ago
Comment removed
fishfingersncustard 1 month ago
BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN
jaybreak 1 month ago
Social Security recipients receive around $7,000 per year.
But it depends on the person and how many years they've been on SSI.
If everybody donated to charity instead, a lot of people would choose charities across seas.
As a lot of people would be giving to World Vision to help places like Africa.
So donating to charity wouldn't benefit our country.
beproudtobebipolar 1 month ago
Thanks for making this video. Vote for Ron Paul and end welfare.
ValisFan3 1 month ago
You intentionally IGNORED the more 'lavish' benefits given to recipients of the Big 3 (Medicare, Medicaid and SS), didn't you? To make it SEEM like every welfare recipient should've received anywhere from 41 to 202 grand. But if you TAKE OUT all the money already spent on the Big 3 from that figure, the amount ACTUALLY spent on the rest of the programs looks kind of tiny by comparison. People who receive Medicare and SS typically get by far the most generous benefits.
whoo689 2 months ago
Or show me low-cost, PRIVATELY-RUN (100%) job-training programs for the poor that exist in EVERY CITY IN AMERICA. Sorry, Charlie. That's not reality. Your libertarian fantasy has never been reality. The welfare state provides assistance that GAPS in private charities can't and have never filled.
whoo689 2 months ago
@whoo689 They (libertarians/anarchists, etc.) live in a fantasy land that is utterly devoid of the realities of the world and ignorant of history.
xexixk 1 month ago
@xexixk You, Sir, are a jackass
waltermelon12 1 month ago
@waltermelon12 Wow, what an insightful statement (in reply to a comment that wasn't even addressed to you). Yet further proof that you people have no real argument to make and are historical know nothings.
xexixk 1 month ago
Your "8.5x" figure ASSUMES that there is as comprehensive and wide array of low-cost, cheap charities that do all the same kinds of functions that the American welfare state does. But, alas, there isn't. The charities' goals and functions are usually more limited. I mean, WHERE can I find a privately-run food stamps program? Oh sure, there's food banks, but what if they RUN OUT? Besides, American private charity cannot and HAS NEVER raised nearly as much as the American welfare state.
whoo689 2 months ago
Show me some real FACTS proving your case that the vast majority of the welfare state is 'wasted' on bureaucracy. Btw, it's not merely 2 million on welfare programs in America. I think you're only looking at SOME programs.
Any idiot can use basic division. Btw, where did you come up with that BOGUS $440 Billion number? Aside from SS, Medicaid and Medicare, the American welfare state spends NOWHERE NEAR THAT AMOUNT!
whoo689 2 months ago
Besides, in MANY states in Europe where the welfare state IS more generous... GUESS WHAT: THEY HAVE FAR LOWER POVERTY RATES! Whoda thunk it. Help people get access to good education, low-cost college, job-training, etc., and they'll make use of it to become more self-sufficient and lift themselves out of poverty.
The libertarian-conservative way is to simply give more handouts to big business in the HOPES that they'll "hire people and give them opportunities" but this is a crap shoot.
whoo689 2 months ago
@whoo689 I'd like to see just how well Europe functions without the American taxpayer subsidized Protection afforded to them by the U.S. Government Army. Think about it, it's pretty easy to spend money on social programs when your not wasting money on protecting your boarders form the next State over. libertarians also would never give any money to big business. Yes, conservatives would, but their a bunch of corporate Marxist. So who cares?
yinzjagoffs 1 month ago
@yinzjagoffs
"but their a bunch of corporate Marxist."
lmfao, not even possible to be both.
mecher3k 1 month ago
@mecher3k ..Yes..those are called "fascists".
Riellysdad 1 month ago
@Riellysdad
So not only are you clueless about Marxism, but also clueless about fascism.
Good job retard.
mecher3k 1 month ago
@mecher3k ...Any difference is cosmetic...both are collectivist fallacy's and lead to tyranny.
Try again douchebag.
Riellysdad 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Riellysdad
"Any difference is cosmetic...both are collectivist fallacy's and lead to tyranny.
Try again douchebag."
Lmfao, just another idiot who has no clue about what the words he learned form Fox News means.
mecher3k 1 month ago
Why do conservatives and libertarians have such a self-centered anti-welfare mentality? A little assistance to help get you back on your feet is REALLY that bad?? These programs were NOT designed to give people a constant living. They're there to help TRANSITION you from poverty to a more self-sufficient, somewhat wealthier state.
whoo689 2 months ago
@whoo689 I think most libertarians would agree that the forced assistance needs to be stopped from the top down. Corporations and the wars fought for them would be stopped way way before poor people stop getting a welfare check.
yinzjagoffs 1 month ago 2
I mean, very few people go on UI simply because they wanna lounge around the house all day DOING NOTHING. They take it SHORTLY AFTER they lose their jobs as a way to tide them over UNTIL they find new jobs.
whoo689 2 months ago
Or, in a more difficult scenario, those folks who DO become 'dependent' on the programs may well have very few opportunities IF they got off the programs tomorrow, so in that regard, we should HELP them transition through things like good job training and employment assistance. Not simply eliminate the welfare state outright and assume they'll all be able to find "good jobs" immediately.
whoo689 2 months ago
No, welfare does NOT make people "dependent." Anyone who becomes 'dependent' does so because THAT'S WHO THEY ARE. They have that kind of personality that would make them stay on the program rather than trying to get a good job and get off the program.
This idea that all or most welfare recipients are lazy bums has never been proven, but it's been repeated by ill-informed douchebags time and again.
whoo689 2 months ago
LOL. This is insanity. Contrary to popular belief, social insurance DOES help a lot of people who would otherwise be even WORSE OFF (sometimes far worse off) without it. No, I'm not for giving "handouts" to people willy-nilly, but that's not how welfare states generally operate. It's a GOP myth! America's welfare state is one of the LEAST-GENEROUS in the world, so to bitch about it like it's giving lavish benefits to just about anyone who applies is MAGNIFICENTLY ABSURD.
whoo689 2 months ago
Now I'm not saying that the government efficiently uses your welfare money people but let's be serious here. Charities do not have the infrastructure to use that money properly at all, so why use it as an example. And that magical "bureaucracy" that you so easily dismiss is actually thousands of jobs.
bmbrynmorgan 2 months ago
The problem is not that the facts are wrong (assuming they are correct, I didn't check it out), but he creates a very narrow frame of reference. He sets up the terms for debate, when the truth requires a fundamental, holistic approach. Ask the basic questions - why is there poverty in this world to begin with?
slmrcs 2 months ago
@slmrcs
There is poverty in this world to begin with is because the market is not free enough. See index of economic freedom.
RealityChecker77 2 months ago
@RealityChecker77 Those who have more money, are going to do whatever they can to manipulate the system to get more money and more power. What else do you expect in a system based upon differential advantage? Please answer this question. What do you expect in a system that instills a certain value set, and rewards the best game players with the means to keep, and grow their differential advantage?
slmrcs 2 months ago
This pimply adolescent whelp misses several hundred important points. People like this want to drag us all back to Dickensian squalor and the sweatshop, for the sake of their own self-aggrandisement.
blackmichael75 2 months ago
@blackmichael75 lol cool story bro
MrGuvnah 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Google Ron Paul.
petereberle 3 months ago
Go get an education boy, you seriously don't know what you're talking about.
hello12363062 3 months ago
@hello12363062
this video is stupid. so you can end welfare by CHARITY??? are you stupid?
Dramactica 3 months ago
@Dramactica Indeed it is! I fully agree with you too!
hello12363062 3 months ago
Why embarrass you when you can embarrass yourself
AroundSun 4 months ago
@AroundSun Only in your country(probably other countries too) the gouvernement doesn't seem to manage state welfare hearing your horrible stories about them. They should try to learn from other countries where it does works. Cause then it's more effective then charities. It's not a failure by design, it's(in your case) a failure by the people running it.
hello12363062 4 months ago
Wouldn't we be helping the poor if we provided for every bodies needs? Oh wait, I understand why that may be a problem for capitalists as people are merely commodities to add to the economy to them.
23lFrench 4 months ago
@23lFrench "helping the poor if we provided for every bodies needs?"
Car's, TV's, food, housing, clothing, entertainment, cash for recreational activities, vacations, healthcare, education, phone, internet. Then everything the government subsidizes increases in cost. Then they just takeover the industries so the service and quality deteriorates. Then they HAVE to control what you eat, where to work, who to work for, what to buy, how to save, where to live, what you learn. Hear of the Soviets?
AroundSun 4 months ago
@JacobSpinney
Problem is wether you get more or less money because of tax cuts or salary raises, is people then going to give more to charity? My country has now spent years cutting taxes, but I haven't heard of a massing donating to charity since then. People want make their life better Don't you see that people just want the money they get to themselves? Some people give to charity, but you need to realise that the amounts are to small to match state welfare, you will leave the poor behind...
hello12363062 4 months ago
and you are seriously thinking that even some americains would donate 1.200 dollar one year of all their savings? I think you and I know that people don't donate more than maybe 50 dollar sometimes. When people get the money in their hand, they try to make their budget fit around it, 1200dollar/year/8.5person? Except for bill gate(who donates most to africa) you have a really optimistic view of people. You need to base your statements on some realism as well, not only numbers...
hello12363062 4 months ago
@hello12363062 So the majority will vote to tax themselves at a much higher rate than they'd otherwise donate? This makes no sense.
JacobSpinney 4 months ago 11
@JacobSpinney
well, your reason on the video doesn't make any sense and I agree with Hello that you are very optimistic and native. You need to meet a poor person and how hard they work to survive in a trouble economy. Charity don't work. I know because I'm poor myself.
Dramactica 3 months ago
@hello12363062 The whole point is that even if everyone donated $120 per year, you would still be helping the same amount of people on welfare. Since around a quarter of recipients abuse the system, you could donate even less. People who pay taxes into this system ALSO donate to charities. A good portion of the money used to fund the welfare state would be better in the hands of producers who could give these people employment and a real life. Get them out of poverty to begin with
AroundSun 4 months ago
@AroundSun I understand your point, charities in your country, seems more effective then state welfare. I won't argue against that since you guys know your country better. But understand my point, the amount of people donating today will probably not change then after this cut of taxes. Why? The donaters will rest as the donaters, the others though, will they give as well after this? Since you can't force them why would they start donating? They're happy to get more money to spend for themselves
hello12363062 4 months ago
@hello12363062 Well you won't have nearly half the amount unemployed or receiving welfare in misery and poverty if companies could use their own capital to produce and create jobs instead of having it taxed away. Broadening the base. We literally have the highest corporate marginal tax rate in the world. Also, the prices of goods and services are high as well when production is taxed. This doesn't help out the middle class or the poor
AroundSun 4 months ago
@AroundSun Then I'm sorry to say that I missunderstood the scenario, I thought it was the peoples salaries who were taxed. Because in that case if they took away that tax, they would have gotten more money in their pocket, but since it's a company tax(if I understood right) the company would get more money. Meaning as you said that they will get to employ more people, although not necessarily that the workers will get more paid. In that case the poor that are left, are left with even less.
hello12363062 4 months ago
@hello12363062 Taxation is government taking money out of your right pocket and putting it in your left. usually the amount that gets taken out of the right is more than is put into the left.
AroundSun 4 months ago
@AroundSun I didn't ask about that, thanks anyways for the information. But about that, it depends how much you have on the right. For many people it get's more in the left then it was in the right ;)
hello12363062 4 months ago
@hello12363062 Yes, that is called welfare. Very good
AroundSun 4 months ago
@AroundSun It is.
hello12363062 4 months ago
@hello12363062 Yes, and it is the problem in this country. Beneficiaries receiving more money than they put into the system
AroundSun 4 months ago
@AroundSun So basically you don't like the idea of welfare or charities since both ways you're giving away money to others(so called "beneficiaries"). Or maybe you just don't like welfare since with charities you don't have to donate at least, leaving it to others. And it's because of people like you that charities doesn't work the way that welfare does. If your gouvernement is so corrupt you should complain about it and if they don't listen you change them so the next group will learn from this
hello12363062 4 months ago
@hello12363062 " So basically you don't like the idea of welfare or charities since both ways you're giving away money to others(so called "beneficiaries")"
No, one you are making voluntary donations, the other, is the state putting a gun to your head for it.
"And it's because of people like you that charities doesn't work the way that welfare does"
Did you not watch this video? Private charities are far more efficient at relieving misery and poverty than any government could be, by design
AroundSun 4 months ago
@AroundSun No, one is some individuals donating ánd other individuals donating to themselves, the other one is the state making the people work as a team helping the poor of the nation, through taxes instead.
Yes I watched this video and we wouldn't be having this conversation if I wouldn't have disagreed with him. And as stated before he's making his base on numbers not on reality, since most people think as an individual, charities won't work. If your state is corrupt: complain etc.
hello12363062 4 months ago
@hello12363062 Numbers are reality my friend. Apparently you didn't watch the video, but over 85% of the money we spent on welfare didn't make it to the recipients. It was lost in the bumbling political bureaucracy that IS big government. Why would the majority of people enact laws that would make the majority pay taxes on more than they contribute? Answer: they wouldn't. Gov't has also caused a disincentive for charitable arrangements to exist, by violating the constitutional role of gov't
AroundSun 4 months ago
@AroundSun That wasn't numbers I meant, I'm sorry for confusing you. Now as I mentioned before, COMPLAIN/PROTEST about it to your gouvernement if they don't listen you don't vote for them and the next won't do the same mistake. Cause I agree 85% is far too much that is lost.
I was talking about the fact that he said "even if one/8.5 people donated that amount they would reach the same goal" but how many would actually donate when they got the money? Probably less then those numbers = realism.
hello12363062 4 months ago
@hello12363062 "COMPLAIN/PROTEST about it to your gouvernement if they don't listen you don't vote for them"
this has been going on for 80 years lol. no matter who gets in office is a puppet owned by the banks in this country. why settle for their inefficiency? it is a failure by DESIGN not because of who is running the show..Regardless, If I see a homeless man on the street, I have no right to hold a gun to your head and steal your money for him. Thats exactly what you are advocating..
AroundSun 4 months ago
@AroundSun "If I see a homeless man on the street, I have no right to hold a gun to your head and steal your money for him. Thats exactly what you are advocating.."
No you're right you can't, that would be a threat. But in order to really help that man and all the others you have to do this togethe How many people passing that man would actually donate even one dollar? But since you're saying that for 80 years it haven't worked,then you're right fuck that shit. At least it works where I'm from:)
hello12363062 4 months ago
@hello12363062 No, you see..Just because something is done, doesn't mean it works. If it worked, you wouldn't have to force people to participate. If something is popular, and works well, people will CHOOSE it. Ever hear of that word? Choice? Plenty of people give money to homeless people. Many are arrested for making up to 500 per day and not being homeless, or disabled. Private charities work better than governments. Besides, the constitution doesn't authorize this at the federal level
AroundSun 4 months ago
@AroundSun As long as the gouvernement ain't corrupted, welfare works better. In my country I've choosed state welfare, I had a choice to vote for the party that seemed most right for me and the ideas that they stood for. Even if you think there are plenty of people donating imagine would they really give even 1000 dollars a year? that's a lot of money for litteraly everyone. When you put those money on a table a lot of people doesn't just choose to give it away, many choose to keep it.
hello12363062 4 months ago
@hello12363062 That's great, but you didn't 'choose' anything. You voted for your own benefit. What about the taxpayer that has to pay for your welfare, I am sure he didn't 'choose' to pay for you. The whole point is to stop the poor from being poor in the first place. Ending the welfare state. My government doesn't have the right to take money from one person and give it to another. Jobs and production are much better than a life of poverty and welfare...I see you choose the latter
AroundSun 4 months ago
@AroundSun A country will always have people without jobs. It's impossible for any nation to say that they don't have any poor. Ofcourse you can have nations with more poverty and those with less. To stop the poor being poor everyone needs to help them, some people can't do that. Even if they would get more money ending that tax cost, ofcourse you think your gouvernement can't take your money and give to someone else, but if the people don't agree to do it no one else will give them
hello12363062 4 months ago
@hello12363062 No, this is dead wrong again. You are implying that the majority of people will vote for laws to help the poor, yet the majority will not donate. Why would you vote for a higher donation that is forced from you than you would otherwise voluntarily give? Stupid thinking....
AroundSun 4 months ago
@AroundSun Because no-one wants to give away that big amount of money to people they don't even know, and knowing that your neighbourgh probably won't doesn't make you think that your money is doing that much of a difference. With the vote together making everyone indirectly "donaters", then you can make a difference since everyone is helping. But everyone needs to be on it, charities ain't going to make a difference.
hello12363062 4 months ago
@hello12363062 Charities are more efficient at relieving misery and poverty than the federal government, or any government could ever be. They have done more here and around the world than government aid. After Katrina, private organizations rebuilt New Orleans while the bumbling bureaucracy in Washington were having pizza.
AroundSun 4 months ago
@hello12363062 The government doesn't have its own money, it only has what it takes from the taxpayers. Nothing is free. Maybe this explains why Europe is bankrupt, and why our unfunded liabilities total 113+ trillion dollars in entitlements. The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of someone elses money. We can't all live and mooch off of 15% of the people. They will turn to welfare, now it is 5% of the people, etc. etc.
AroundSun 4 months ago
@AroundSun Greek got bankrupt. That caused europe's economy in some crisis since some countries are bounded to help them through the union. It's ridicilous basically. But it seems to me that your newspapers doesn't update you very well, europe isn't bankrupt. Funny though that you blame it one socialism. Norway, a very socialist country, their debt? 0 dollars. I haven't heard so far of a capitilist country with no debts, looking at the US national debt it looks kinda bad for capitilism...
hello12363062 4 months ago
@hello12363062 Those countries aren't nearly as socialist as the left likes to believe. They are mainly capitalist countries rated higher on the economic freedom indexes every year than the US. If you are using the US as a free market example, you're dead wrong. Europe is going bankrupt, you know what I mean simpleton...Capitalism doesn't create government debt moron, only socialism can do that...God you are dense
AroundSun 4 months ago
@AroundSun Those countries, scandinavia? In that case you're wrong, americans state sweden as an example of socialism. Me my self I know that sweden have mix of liberalism and socialism. Norway however is a lot more socialists than sweden. The gouvernement have total control of the oil(Statoil) for example, and as many socialist stated country over electricity, police, hospitals/medicare and more. So no they are very socialist, I know this since I'm from scandinavia and educated in our politics.
hello12363062 4 months ago
@AroundSun and anyways, no I don't know what you mean. Europe isn't going bankrupt, crisis are being solved all over the world. The US was on the edge of going bankrupt but they are going towards the right direction now, they're solving the problem. You can't blame a depression on socialism, you know as well as I do that capitalism haven't made the US(for example) help them at all in these times, and for crying out loud if capitalism ain't making debts, why do USA even have such a large debt?
hello12363062 4 months ago
@hello12363062 Wow, you are dumber than dirt. The US is now 'solving that problem'? 'The crisis is being solved all over the world?'. Are you a fucking moron?! The US National Debt is debt that the GOVERNMENT ran up with other nations, not businesses you fucking shithead. Money borrowed and blown on consumption and socialism entitlement/welfare. There is a certain level of stupidity in which I refuse to communicate with, you are below that level. Good day
AroundSun 4 months ago
@AroundSun They are solving it cause if you don't remember, mr. obama was some days from getting bankrupt if he didn't find any solution to their economic crisis. The US national debt is the debt that the (capitalist) US ran up! Money THEY borrowed because their income isn't equal to their expenses for their citizens needs. All they do is lowering taxes and borrowing even more. Bussiness doesn't make gouvernemental debts, and I haven't said the opposite so don't act smart little boy.
hello12363062 4 months ago
@hello12363062 "The US national debt is the debt that the (capitalist) US ran up!"
then
"Bussiness doesn't make gouvernemental debts"
Again, you are dumber than dirt, and instantly lose all credibility. GOODBYE!!!!!
AroundSun 4 months ago
@AroundSun Capitalism is an ideology runned by the STATE not by bussiness shithead, didn't know you didn't make it to middle school sorry. The capitalist US tried to cut taxes as much as possible in order for the free market to grow but reduces their tax income for example the building of roads, which is still their responsibility. With no money left to do so they loaned(underlined) and further on they had no money to pay it back so they got debted(underlined), got it little boy?
hello12363062 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hello12363062 "Capitalism is an ideology runned by the STATE not by bussiness shithead,"
HAHAHAHAA, PLEASE, KEEP GOING!!!
AroundSun 4 months ago
@hello12363062 again, as stated before, the majority wont vote to tax themselves at a higher rate than theyd otherwise donate
AroundSun 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Heh if it was not for the money the government gave to my family to send my to a private school that I needed to go to (since it was better for me due to the situation I was in), then I would have never been able to go to this great college I am at or even ever get a job.
While I agree that lazy people should not be paid just to be lazy, since that is unfair. I do think some people do need welfare, but only low welfare so they dont just sit there all their life living off other people's money.
NuclearDude101 5 months ago
Heh, if it was not for the money the government gave to my family to send my to a private school that I needed to go to (since it was better for me due to the situation I was in), then I would have never been able to go to this great college I am at or even ever get a job.
While I agree that lazy people should not be paid just to be lazy, since that is unfair. I do think some people do need welfare, but only low welfare so they dont just sit there all their life living off other people's money.
NuclearDude101 5 months ago
@NuclearDude101 "Heh, if it was not for the money the government gave to my family to send my to a private school"
>>The government has no money. It only have the money it takes from it's citizens.
"but only low welfare so they dont just sit there all their life living off other people's money."
>This is why it needs to take place at as local level as possible. So there is more interaction with the people. Voluntary charitable arrangements, local government. Not for the federal government.
AroundSun 4 months ago
@AroundSun
1. Ok let me rephrase. If it was not for the taxpayers paying £225,000 for me to go to this school for 3 years in total, then I would have no hope of a job. I wish I could repay that money, but I cannot. The least I can do is get a good job and pay my fair share of taxes for the next kid who comes along who has a disability just like I did.
2. I believe so. Charities can be good, but they cannot cater for everyone. But local interaction is best, I agree.
NuclearDude101 4 months ago
Heh, if it was not for the money the government gave to my family to send my to a private school that I needed to go to (since it was better for me due to the situation I was in), then I would have never been able to go to this great college I am at or even ever get a job.
While I agree that lazy people should not be paid just to be lazy, since that is unfair. I do think some people do need welfare, but only low welfare so they dont just sit there all their life living off other people's money.
NuclearDude101 5 months ago
How are you defining '''welfare''?
jfsfrnd 5 months ago
Damn, but this guy's a genius!
dangard88 5 months ago
whem youve outgrown ur pimple puberty age ul look back embarrased on those videos u made lol
TheMrAmfortas 5 months ago
Ha! I actually agreed with most of what this guy says but not everything. Yet my comments get deleted anyway. If you can’t take criticism you need to remove yourself. I can now see that you aren’t trying to have an honest debate. Just disable all of your comments on all of your videos. Loser!
HumanNonPerson 5 months ago
@HumanNonPerson I have not deleted any of your comments.
JacobSpinney 5 months ago 6
@JacobSpinney Two of my comments state that they have been removed. If you didn't do it I apologize.
HumanNonPerson 5 months ago
@HumanNonPerson Why don't you state your criticisms instead of clammering and hollering? Then they can be dealt with one at a time.
AroundSun 4 months ago
@AroundSun I did and they got deleted. As I scroll threw the rest of the comments I can see that others have been wrongfully flagged as spam.
HumanNonPerson 4 months ago
@HumanNonPerson So you have an argument to continue forcing state welfare at gunpoint? Even though it is the most wasteful and inefficient and immoral way to do things? I'd love to hear it! Please, tell me why other people owe you money simply for existing!
AroundSun 4 months ago
@AroundSun Holy crap, guy! HOLY FUCKING CRAP!!! I wasn't even arguing about that. My comments got deleted so you can't read them but don't assume that I took a position that I didn't. If you read my other comments you would know that, "I actually agreed with most of what this guy says." My comments were based on minor details not the completely opposite argument. Just stop talking you are making everyone who agrees with this position look bad.
HumanNonPerson 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HumanNonPerson I started off by saying "Why don't you state your criticisms instead". You told me that they got deleted. Instead of actually stating criticisms. Obviously I can read your posts since we are communicating, so lets throw all this crap away and you can actually just state your criticisms. (*maybe I agree with them*)
AroundSun 4 months ago
Charity doesn't have any quality control. That means some people would get less money than other people and there is no checking social security numbers for fraud. A person could run from city to city or state to state collecting their charity whereas another person who couldn't ''game the system'' would only receive a small amount.
jfsfrnd 5 months ago
@jfsfrnd Isn't social security fraud already a big problem? The charities themselves would have to do a good job of policing themselves or people would quit giving them money.
HumanNonPerson 5 months ago
@HumanNonPerson What do you mean by social security fraud? People stealing social security numbers or the Social Security SSI/SSDI program? Charities don't police themselves because there are no laws that make them do that and they don't have the resources. The welfare office has the ability to look up social security numbers online to see if the person has applied for benefits anywhere else in the country. And they can check a persons name to make sure it matches the number.
jfsfrnd 5 months ago
Comment removed
HumanNonPerson 5 months ago
Comment removed
HumanNonPerson 5 months ago
Dude, can you do basic math?
"Governments have 90% overhead"
Uh, sure, okay, I guess I can accept this.
"Private charities have 85% overhead. This means a private charity can help 8.5 times more people."
What the fuck?!
bobmuffins 5 months ago
@bobmuffins No, it means that government has 90% overhead meaning they are 10% efficient, and charities are 85% efficient meaning they only have 15% overhead.
jeffsandychelsea 5 months ago
@jeffsandychelsea 5% overhead difference still isn't helping 8.5 times more people.
bobmuffins 5 months ago
@bobmuffins Overhead is waste. Efficiency is the opposite. Government has 90% overhead, so 10% went to help people. Charities have 15% overhead, so 85% went to help people. 85% / 10% = 8.5 times more people helped. Get it now?
jeffsandychelsea 5 months ago
@jeffsandychelsea So if you got rid of 99% of overhead, you'd be helping nearly infinite more people helped? I don't think that's how it works.
bobmuffins 5 months ago
@bobmuffins No, you'd be helping 9.9 times the amount of people. But that's at the current level of aid provided by the government. Charities could provide a higher quality to maybe only 5 times as many people.
jeffsandychelsea 5 months ago
You do realize that the US is more of a republic and not a democracy. While it’s not really a republic either, it is a combination of many different form of government. In a democracy the majority rule and you would get to vote on every law. You could even vote out rights. It is the majority ruling over the minority.
HumanNonPerson 5 months ago
@HumanNonPerson So the fuck what?
Svetlozarov 5 months ago
@Svetlozarov
So when you argue a point based on the assumption that the US is a democracy, the point that you are arguing would be wrong.
HumanNonPerson 5 months ago
@HumanNonPerson So what is wrong then? What difference does it make if the US is a democracy or not?
Svetlozarov 5 months ago
@Svetlozarov Besides being wrong? How about knowing how to maneuver your ideas in the government. Doing this i a republic is different from doing this in a democracy. If you can't get the simple things right, why should someone even continue to listen or even care? Someone taking about changing the system because of this or that but they don't even know what kind of system we have. I happen to agree with him, just trying to make it better. Everyone needs to quit calling the US a democracy.
HumanNonPerson 5 months ago
@HumanNonPerson Government is evil. It's just in different doses. We never had a defficientcy of evil so why do we tollerate it being shuved down our throat?
Svetlozarov 5 months ago
End welfare and child support.
u2hubbard 5 months ago in playlist Help People By Ending Government Intervention
Wow, you're an idiot.
How will taking the boots away from the people you're telling to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" help them?
bobmuffins 5 months ago
@bobmuffins WATCH THE VIDEO, IT IS INTENDED TO ANSER THIS QUESTION!
PS. "How will taking the boots away from the people you're telling to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" help them?" I live in Belguim and I still can see you suck at English grammar.
Svetlozarov 5 months ago
@Svetlozarov Oh boy, harping on about grammar as though that's an argument!
And, no, the video doesn't answer shit other than saying "PEOPLE SHOULD BE CHARITABLE" even though charities tend to have even worse rates of money going to the people who need it than governments, so only the poor people with rich connections could get out of being poor. That's... not a solution at all.
bobmuffins 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bobmuffins "so only the poor people with rich connections could get out of being poor." So you complain about charities being sceams, but that's why they don't have a 100%, The state is far worse, and people with connections bennefit even more. "PEOPLE SHOULD BE CHARITABLE" is also used by socialists.
Svetlozarov 5 months ago
this guy is good at doing videos, but he talks a load of rightist rubbish
socialist123 6 months ago
Let's be honest. The rich ONLY give to charity because its tax deductable. With out taxes they would lose their incentive to give to charity in the first place.
Charity to feel good?, hmmmm not so sure the the rich have a conscious, that would probablly the genetics of the caveman who decided to claim stuff as his.
Property? Really, the native americans did wonderfully without such concepts, till fuckheads like you invaded.
You genetic legacy is one of genocide and oppression. Well done
stewie1974 6 months ago
@stewie1974 "not so sure the the rich have a conscious"
What a horrible thing to say, my mothers boss is one of the nicest people I know and he has countless millions and an empire in his business. You are just stereotyping, people like you make the world a worse place to live.
theBartone9119 6 months ago
@stewie1974 " The rich ONLY give to charity because its tax deductable"
What do the rich have to do with anything? They don't pay for welfare, the tax payers do.
theBartone9119 6 months ago
@stewie1974 My moms boss gave her a job that paid $10,000 more a year than she was previously making, you call that evil? Rich people are rich because they work smarter/harder than the rest of us, you just don't want to admit that because you know you will NEVER have the drive to be an entrepreneur, you have nobody else to blame for that but yourself.
theBartone9119 6 months ago
@theBartone9119 You, my friend, should read Atlas Shrugged. I think you'll like it (not being sarcastic).
Objectivist1994 6 months ago
@stewie1974 The rich give to charity because you little monsters guilt trip them. Frankly, I see no reason to give money to somebody who hasn't earned it. So because the rich don't give money to every bum and loser on the street, they don't have a conscious? Oh yes, the Native Americans did well- yet it is BECAUSE of property that many of humanity's great inventions came about. If you don't like the miracles of industrialism go live in the woods. Oh, and ever heard of North Korea?
Objectivist1994 6 months ago
@stewie1974 1/2 Aren't these folks funny? They are a bunch of deluded utopians - completely ignorant of how the word works and also ignorant of history or they engage in revisionist history when historical examples prove them wrong. They live in a world of fantasy & theories that would fail - and have failed in the real world. All of this "the rich work harder" is BS, some do, some don't, many inherited their wealth, others happened to just be in the right place at the right time, etc. 2/2 >>>>>
xexixk 6 months ago
@stewie1974 2/2 The worshiping of Ayn Rand is nauseating as well. She was the consumate hypocrite. She claimed to champion individual freedom yet had no tolerance for anyone who questioned her & cut them out of her life, compared Medicare to piracy yet applied for both Social Security and Medicare when she was diagnosed with lung cancer unlike Rose Wilder Lane who was vocal in her opposition to social security and stood by her principals and never applied for it. Little wonder Rand died alone.
xexixk 6 months ago
@stewie1974 A fun little video you may enjoy: /watch?v=-1MtJ_jlVG4
xexixk 6 months ago
Most moronic thing Ive ever witnessed.
GnomesAmok 7 months ago
The solution to inefficient public charities is not to eliminate public charities. That is a non-sequitur. The solution is BETTER public charities! I think that a new department in the White House should be made that is solely dedicated to eliminating unnecessary bureaucracy, red-tape, etc. in every department. It's goal: to make a strong welfare state, but very smooth and lean, without bloated pork barrel spending and useless administration.
mojorhythm 7 months ago
@mojorhythm GOOD LUCK WITH THAT! ANOTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCY TASKED WITH IMPROVING EFFICIENCY!?!?! GOOD ONE! SOMEONES NOT PAYING ATTENTION!
adamkajones 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In just 10 yrs, 4 million illegals who happen to give birth in the US will be provided automatic citizenship to their kid, skirting immigration laws via an unintended loophole. Majority of those cases, We the taxpayer will be responsibility for feeding, clothing, educating & providing for health care.Not to mention cost of criminal activity, victimization, court costs & prisons costs, We all know a significant % will go that route. Vote for politicians that will STOP this alian invaison.
onstageagain 7 months ago
For anyone watching this wretched video googgle "Reserve army of labour"and read.....you'll then have an understanding of why there are so many unemployed within the market system. Depending on the "charity" of capitalists is beyond a naive thought...it's fucking ridiculous. Just another reason why a state is necessary under the market system. Keep ignoring me by the way- I'm surprised you haven't blocked me yet (for exposing the oxymoron that is "anarcho" capitalism). Fucking fraud.
crud4 8 months ago
@crud4
I know, right? Of course you have to force people to pay taxes. All the wretched "self enlightened" (selifsh) people liek Spinney would exploit as many as they could without repercussion, and give absolutely nothing. Thats obvious. Charity isn't in peoples nature. Why should it be?
GnomesAmok 7 months ago
And what creates crisis? They'll say the state or the PRIVATIZED bank called the Federal Reserve. No, it couldn't be the market system itself could it be? Why don't we, right now, in the middle of a crisis, cut off all welfare benefits to the unemployed and elderly! SOUNDS GREAT! While we're at it we should just execute all the millions of prisoners in America. I wonder why America has the highest incarceration rate of any nation EVER? It must be the states fault? Blame it on taxes!
crud4 8 months ago
@crud4 Lol guess who cartelized the banking industry and gave the federal reserve its power? The state! Its not a free market entity.
IxenBlaze 7 months ago
@IxenBlaze LOL and guess who forced the market system on the world....the state. Without it capitalism "free" market or not couldn't exist. "Free" market capitalism is simply wishful theory that has no real world applications because capitalism can't exist without the state apparatus. You people simply advocate a privatized state in order to enforce private property. If it wasn't for the capitalist state capitalism would be history by now.
crud4 7 months ago 2
@crud4 Actually that is false on its face. Freedom isnt something that the state forces, nor can force upon the world. The market system evolved from pure barter as people needed a medium to facilitate indirect exchange. Private property is something that is freely obtained through discovery or exchange. If it werent for the market system, we would not be as advanced as we are now. The market system is just how we naturally handle scarce resources as man economizes them.
IxenBlaze 7 months ago
@crud4 The free marked doesn't exist because politicians get enormous sponsoring to push regulations. If you see a sheep on a plot of grass it would be ignorant to say "Ungrased grass doesn't exist." or "Grass will not exist whitout sheep.". That grass exists despite of the sheep not because of. It's the same with the ruins of the free marked, they exist despite of the the state not because of.
Svetlozarov 5 months ago
@Svetlozarov The free market doesn't exist because the market system itself was never separate from the modern state. The "free market" doesn't exist because the market system cannot exist without a state. Why cant you fuck ups understand this?
crud4 5 months ago
What is structural unemployment and why can't the "market" survive if actual full employment was reached? Do you even know ANYTHING about capitalism? Some one needs to dismantle your video camera.
crud4 8 months ago