Yet he is willing to let millions of american children go without essential healthcare. Yeah, he is such a caring man who thinks about everyone, except people who can't afford essential healthcare
"Even the idea of social responsibility in this country is scoffed at and called liberal Marxist idealism", who ever does this scoffing has an incomplete understanding of both social responsibility and Marxist idealism.
The Chinese cultures trait of social responsibility does not come from excessive government legislating personal behavior, it comes from an absence of government, thus being forced to rely on the common man for support and aid, thus fostering "social responsibility"
Like I said though the idea of social responsibility is largely absent from our culture. Many people don't feel a sense of responsibility to their family, much less the people in their community. Community service is a punishment leveled by courts on criminals who break minor laws. The culture is self-centered individualism that values self-advancement no matter the cost to others. If people had this sense of social responsibility already there would be no reason to set up safety nets.
Your right in that the system as it is is inherently unfair , and it manages somehow to be unfair to the entire spectrum. But I still see this as a product of to much government interference, there is many a tale of private philanthropic schools in Harlem being forced into receiving government funding and results subsequently plummeting, I suggest a youtube search of Milton Friedman and one of his videos on public education.
In relation to social responsibility it really comes down to which came first out of the chicken and the egg, is there no sense of civic responsibility because people feel that it is now the Governments role to provide everything?
Self advancement benefits everyone in a society, the entrepreneur providing jobs in your town, the burger flipper who buys shoes at the place you work..so on so on. And this isn't culture but human nature, which was the great failing of Marxism
A sense of responsibility to our kin is human nature. The evolutionary psychologists call this kin selection. The sense of civic responsibility is not. That is picked up, or not, during socialization which is dependent on culture. It may seem human nature to a person that grew up in a society that values civic responsibility to the extent that the eastern cultures do, but the same isn't true in the west, especially the US. Individualism breeds people who are apathetic the the plights of others.
France in particular (Im not relying on Sicko here, I'm actually an economist) their health spending has reached 9% of GDP with the program expected to add 66 Billion Euros a year to Frances public budget deficit,
Frances High Council for the Future of Health Insurance added "the system badly regulated and badly governed" with French doctors proscribing yearly 3x as many drugs as their British and German counterparts.
This recent report stated the largest problem was a behavioral one.
The Sicko comment was in jest, but they are rated as the best health care system in the world. If the doctors there are using drugs as a crutch then that is a problem, but not as big of a problem as it is in the US. It seems like a doctor's visit is just an interview to decide which of the latest ridiculously expensive drugs they will put you on. Last time we went to the pharm. mom had 2 prescriptions and paid $65 dollars and she has insurance. We really are a nation on drugs legal and illegal.
Well just one more, you quote France? That economic tiger of a country France? Sigh, yes lets base out system on France , Country #87 on the Economic Freedom index, yes that is the way to go.
I was born in Hong Kong, #1 Freest economy in the world, no social net, but they don't need one, the poor work, the handicapped are provided for by the family, (social responsibility is huge within Chinese culture, as there is no government to do it for them) the people become self sufficient and free.
Hong Kong is a different animal and you know it. First, it is a relatively small country and relatively homogeneous in race, culture, and class distinctions than the US (the last being the most important). Not to mention it is one of the big recipients of of outsourced manufacturing jobs from US corporations. Their work force flourishes while our workforce suffers layoffs in the manufacturing sector.
Hong Kong is not homogeneous in class distinctions, we hardly have a minimum wage law while at the other end of the scale we have the highest property prices in the world.
It is also not a recipient of manufacturing jobs with HK's manufacturing , surpise surprise , being outsourced to China the percentage of the economy in manufacturing is a pittance.
As for social responsibility, I like the Chinese Culture for that reason. Even the idea of social responsibility in this country is scoffed at and called liberal Marxist idealism. The problem here is that too many people are unable to support themselves much less a handicapped kid, mainly do to the cost of treatment.
The common problem with your statements is a lack of any actual empirical knowledge; "None that I know of its really rare," and this even misses the real point that if one or some can do it, the argument for systemic flaws takes a massive hit and you have to resort to calling productive members "lucky" which is really quite insulting to insinuate he didn't deserve it .
"resort to calling productive memresort to calling productive members "lucky""
Those that get out are lucky the individual has to have incredible personal conviction due to the social and systematic pressure against success, but the opportunity has to present itself and it doesn't very often.
You completely ignored by comment about the best schools in the country taking 70% legacy admissions and the inner city schools getting ridiculously low funding because it is based on local tax revenue.
Of course success requires personal conviction, shouldn't it be difficult? This is how our system or any that rewards progression works, while it may be a harsh and cruel system the fact is it is only chosen because of the moral implications of any alternative.
No a system that rewards skill and aptitude will never be equal , but it is more fair.
On education realize I'm not defending the current system as its nothing like I would have
Well you asked for an example of structural inequality and the education system being the strongest tool of self advancement is the #1 example. Poor areas get old books, ratty buildings, old technology, and teachers who are either bottom of the barrel or head in the cloud idealists that generally don't stick around too long (with some exceptions, usually the people who came out of the same environment). Environment can stifle potential even in the best most resilient of people.
By the way, France has the health care system figured out. Have you seen Sicko? You can get a doctor in your bedroom at home in less than an hour. That is crazy bad ass.
I know that taxes pay for it and they sacrifice a small percentage of economic growth as a part of their system, but I would defiantly give up 40-45% taxes to have the benefit that they have. 5 wks vacation, unlimited sick days, , 1 year maternity and paternity leave etc, all with 100% pay and health care.
What Hong Kong does have is a flat tax rate, (you know with a progressive tax rate being the hallmark of Marxism,) subsequently we have had one of the most successful and fastest growing economies in the world highly centered on trade.
Where as socialist France is stagnant and facing not only massive shortfalls in funds for health care but massive reductions in services and availability.
Socialized health care, I can't believe your actually going there.... do you have any training in economics , or actually keep a breast of research findings?
One of the simpler criticisms; putting health care on the budget subjects it to budgeting, which means rationing, which means in the real world people being told to go without,
However I feel you really a more of a Marxist when it comes to this sort of thing and this ain't enough space to go through history for you.
"putting health care on the budget subjects it to budgeting, which means rationing"
All you have to do is start out with a sizable investment fund and a general guess about the overall cost of the program then you can institute taxes to pay for the programs. After the first year, you can adjust the tax rate relative to the overall cost of care during the previous year. Then the discussion is solely on what the government won't provide, like private rooms and cosmetic surgery.
Okay again, I would like an answer to 'have their been any CEO's from a ghetto?," the answer really blasts a huge hole in the unequal opportunity rhetoric, if one man can make it from the most appalling inhumane conditions, why not all? The system worked for him didn't it?
My dad's father was a taxi driver, (lower class,) he got a job when he was 15 making below minimum (but enough for private flying lessons) and is now upper management.
The point being who helped him but himself? He was at the time a victim of this delusional "class warfare" yet through hard work and perseverance lifted himself to new heights,
Its also interesting to note that it would be harder to do what he did now with the minimum wage law, the most inhumane law ever passed.
I don't know. None that I know of, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. It is really rare. The vast majority have to at least come from a middle class family.
"why not all? The system worked for him didn't it?"
No the system did not work for him he succeeded despite the system, this is a quality psychologists like to call high resilience, some individuals can succeed no matter how the circumstances work against them.
"My dad's father was a taxi driver...and is now upper management."
Good for him. He worked his ass off and it paid off. He is one of the lucky few.
That wouldn't happen in this country though. He wouldn't be able to get past middle management without a business management degree of some sort, especially not in corporate business and a kids from the ghetto don't have the means to go to college if they can even get in. It shows up which high school you went to colleges discriminate that way.
Have you ever heard of a legacy admission? That is where a college admits a student because their parents when there. In the Ivy League, around 70% of admission are legacy admissions leaving only 30% to people who aren't kids of Alumni. Do really think that a kid from the ghetto has the same opportunity as someone from an upper class family to be admitted. Not to mention the practice of recruiting from prep-schools, school that the average American can not afford to send their kids to.
u guys were having an awesome, no-name-calling, fact-filled, historical rumble. it was killer. what happened? i mean, i was like totally picking up a ton about the 30's & 40's - don't stop yo.
i mean seriously, how often do u get two informed, respectful, diametrically opposed combatants on youtube?
@jasonsadventure, Well thanks for the complement I guess. I was more than willing to continue the conversation, but it seems my opponent is more willing to beat up on weaklings that don't know how to defend themselves against criticism, LOL. But seriously, I think he started to take the conversation personally and you can't have a constructive conversation once that happens.
Government, socialized, health care and education does no one any good, I suggest you look into Milton Friedman for one of the most cogent viewpoints.
The public sector quite frankly performs pathetically compared to the private sector by any measure of delivery and efficiency. It wasn't long ago that private charter hospitals cared for the minute percentage who truly are deprived for free, but then the politicians don't make any bucks off that arrangement do they
The best health care systems in the world are socialized, France being #1. According to the World Health Organization your own Australian System is better than ours here in the US, by 5 ranks. Universal health care works and it is the only way to provide the care that people need for everyone despite their circumstances.
National heath care is actually more efficient and provides the same care for less not the other way around. The European systems spend less per person and have better results
My point is this, the republicans are helping all, theirs is a philosophy of self help, they and the Dems share the intention of a better America FOR ALL. Just one party believes the best way to do that is to allow people to help themselves (teach a man to fish not give him a fish.)
While the other believes that only the Government could possibly help and provide services from cradle to grave, inadvertently destroying whats left of Americas civil society.
Again teaching a man to fish doesn't help him if he lives in a desert. If he is not afforded the opportunities to succeed he fails. The Republican model only works for those who have unequal advantage of opportunity. It is like being in a foot race and one man has leg shackles on and then saying that it is his fault when he loses.
Do I think that government should "provide services from cradle to grave"? Certain services yes and chief among them is health care.
And of course empowerment breeds inequality, WHERE NOT ALL EQUAL, some are smarter, stronger , dumber then others. Inequality is not even a bad thing it has no implicit negative bias, there was inequality between homo sapiens and neanderthals, Einsteins intellect represented inequality, need i go on?
To argue that we should all be held equal, regardless of ability is a purely communist argument, and is a non starter in how to advance the human race.
It is okay to have inequality of results as people say, but inequality of opportunity is oppression.
The argument isn't that everyone should be exactly the same the argument is that everyone should be afforded the basic necessities. No one should have to die because they can't pay for the hospital. No one should freeze to death because they had to choose between heat and food. Such things should be basic rights.
We'll have to agree to disagree on everyone should be afforded basic necessities. I'm not an American but I'm sure the constitution mentions nothing of a citizens rights to health care, education, housing, welfare, subsidies.
Tell me if my dad (who was once poor and now isn't without a hand from anyone) pays thousands of his hard earned dollars , hes entitled to the same level of care as the poorest of the poor? Should not his labor and success be rewarded? Can you see the danger here?
No I don't see the danger here. You are judging based on the quality of care that the poor get now. Everyone should be afforded a basic min. in care and if you have the money to go outside that system and want to pay for things like private rooms and cosmetic surgery be my guest, but health care is a right. It is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence as the right to life.
Education is an imperative to advance society an investment in the future.
Okay, its slightly worrying that when I say the government shouldn't provide these services ... you envision a world where they aren't provided by anyone.
This is the ultimate objective of the Democrats; a world where people have to appeal to government, I mean , there's no way we could provide for ourselves is there?
What exactly are these unequal advantages? Are you saying there has never been a CEO from the ghetto? No one from the worst place has ever succeeded?
Your father is rewarded by being able to spend his hard-earned money, an option the poorest of the poor don't have. Plenty of people work hard for a living without putting out their hand yet never get out of poverty. The inability of conservatives to grasp that imbalance is why it'll never be a populist party and can't win without appealing to the worst within us as human beings -- fear.
The massive swing of black American voters to the democratic base (away from the republicans) occurred during Roosevelt's New Deal. And now what percentage vote democrat? It's really quite immoral when you think about it
"It's really quite immoral when you think about it"
So it is immoral that the party that helps someone other the the white upper class might get a solid majority of the vote? It is called addressing the needs of the average American, the Democrats do the Republicans don't. They deserve to lose if they don't change their policies and come back towards the center. If they continue as they have, we will have a one party system because the Republican party will have committed suicide.
What advantages? Well , tell me, if your on the dole, reliant on public health and education or have your industry subsidized, who are you going to vote for?
Democrats have taken American grand strategy (in the foreign policy sense) and turned it onto the domestic scene; extend aid bringing participants into the system, participant becomes dependent, participant has a stake in the system, participant votes Democrat every time.
"participant becomes dependent, participant has a stake in the system, participant votes Democrat every time"
That is a load of bull. In Europe they have far more social programs than we do and they are not a one party system by far. In fact they have several viable parties. Maybe if the Republican party wasn't so far out on the right wing they wouldn't be threatened by the idea of universal health care and an education system that works K through College.
LOL, the GOP irony train never stops! Of course what they really disapprove of is Obama/the Dems spending money on social programs. Repubs dislike social programs until they personally need them. Lots of Repubs on food stamps, medicare, social security and receiving FEMA aid in this country. Try and pry it away from them; suddenly it's their "right". They just don't want OTHERS to have the same. I run across these types constantly. It's always all about them.
True, but not for the reasons you stated. The GOP would prefer that through empowering individuals , we can become individually sufficient.
The question you have to ask yourself (although I know Dems don't) why are Dem's FOR social programs?
Could it be that the more people you have on the rolls of the government, the more people are dependent on the government? And would thus vote for said government?
"Democrats are the only examples of human beings anywhere that do things out of the goodness of their hearts?"
No but overall they are the party that is more socially conscious and believe in investing in the quality of life of American citizens.
The empowerment that many, not all, Republicans believe in breeds inequality. Empowering the middle class to make small businesses is one thing, even thought the middle class is disappearing, but pandering to corporate interests is another thing.
I agree they intend to be more socially conscious and they want to better the quality of life, but the problem is in the words of Friedman "their mushy hearts sometimes extends to mushy heads," people are the answer, government is the problem.
They need to realize that Government programs have done nothing but increase the problems you had and created some nice new ones, this would have been apparent decades ago had they not realized the political advantages to continuing the system.
Explain to me how the right has empowered individuals over the last thirty years, apart from the rich who have only gotten richer? And do you really believe that the 95% of Americans who are making less than $200K/year aren't motivated to become self-sufficient? They're increasingly falling behind no matter HOW hard they work thanks to the free market, deregulation and privatization, which all originated and continue to be supported by the right. It's just unfortunate the Dems have joined them.
Where were you Congressman McCarthy when Bush was sending this country to deficit heaven ? And what happened to "fiscal responsibility" when your party was ruling? What about all those tax cuts Bush gave to the rich - where is all the job expansion ? The bailouts w/bonuses was handed out by Bush. The TEA parties were about guns, spending, abortion, Obama is a Nazi- fascist - socialist . So what message is it that is "loud and clear"?
Republicans are just trying to scare people into compliance with their inhumane tactics of using people for their capitalistic financial benefit. The spending is necessary to inflate the dollar, and this has to happen to start a new cycle. The only people afraid of inflation are the rich people. After inflation the debt won't be so much, and nobody's grandchildren will be paying - this is just a lie!
I agree with what your saying, but I don't know that the republicans could do any better. America is headed for decline. Just listen to Peter Schiff...
America already declined, it will continue to do so for a while, but it will turn around and become a better country. We all need to participate in making it a better country.
This guy is a joke!!! The GOP got us into this mess to begin with and now their advocating Revolution and Secession. The GOP have lost their credibility. They need to shut up for a while and take their lumps like a man. This Tax Protest is their latest act of re-energizing their base which is shrinking. You need to convince the Independents not the base who votes Republican irrespective of the way they run the country: Good or Bad.
That was the most boring speech on such an important subject. But we have these Republicans who come out to fight and present these wimpy pussy speeches.
Who is his speech writer, Michael Steele the deadpan Catholic leader of the RNC.
We have seen what Catholic Republicans are doing to the right. They are giving in and not putting up a fight against the Democrats.
nov 4 the message was heard LOUD AND CLEAR TOO NUMB NUTTS! its getting real sad watching the rep try to slither out of the snake oil distroy are econmy again you had 8 years you horifically failed now give other people a chance atleast obama is trying,bush didnt!
The republicans haven't earned back the right to talk about fiscal responsibility yet. They just look like partisan hacks that just want to obstruct and say no to the Democratic majority. If you want to win back your credibility, take Ron Paul and the Libertarians seriously and stop taking pork. I think that the Republican party is beyond repair anyone who is a true fiscal conservative should seriously check out the Libertarians.
Oh give me a break. The truth is that there is more pork going to "red states" with republican representatives than blue states. The republicans like to spend money also, if it is their projects that they are spending it on. At least the democrats recognize where that money is going to have to come from. As I saw someone say the other day, "I would take the democrat's tax and spend over the republican borrow and spend any day".
Um.....the guy is from California. it's a very blue state and where do you get your facts from. Many red states have refused to take any money at all from the stimulus package because they don't want to be told what to do, once they do. My blue state however took a couple of billion and are now lap dogs for Obama.
nov 4 the message was heard LOUD AND CLEAR TOO NUMB NUTTS! its getting real sad watching the rep try to slither out of the snake oil distroy are econmy again you had 8 years you horifically failed now give other people a chance atleast obama is trying,bush didnt!
As far as I know the Govs that decided they weren't going to take the money caved to pressure from their legislature and constituents: Palin did, Jidal did, and so did the SC Gov.
The study that said that republicans take home more pork that dems was a study of spending bills over the last several years. Republicans took home slightly more pork even though there was a slight democratic majority.
I know he is from Cali, but the point was that areas with Rep. representation took more pork.
The stimulus money isn't pork. It is a targeted spending bill. Pork is pet projects that are put into the omnibus bill and other spending bills to pay off congressmen for their support on other legislation. There isn't any earmarks or pork in the stimulus bill.
Obama may be committing to levels of spending and domestic investment, but that is what you have to do when you're trying to establish a new foundation for future growth and begin to dig out of a hole that we've been digging for decades.
yo rhosey001, no disrespect but r u like really smart or just parroting anti-obama lines bra?
i mean yo, do u want the government to stop spending in the midst of the greatest economic crisis since the depression?
do u know exactly how much "pork" was "committed to" by obama and what it was for?
i mean like yo, it would be cool to dialog w/ any informed, intellectually honest republican & understand what's really going on in their heads. is it just hate, anger & ideology or real concerns?
Yes, I want government to stop spending in the midst of the worst economic crisis since Jimmy Carter We are nowhere near the crisis of the great depression. The stock market never got lower than the Clinton years as a matter of fact.
FDR tried this spending during the depression and 7yrs into it his secretary of the Treasury told him that after all the spending was done it didn't work. WWII got us out of the depression. You want WWIII? After all this spending by both Bush and Obama.
Do you remember what sent us into the Great Depression? President Herbert Hoover thought it would be a smart idea to cut spending in the middle of a recession also. Do you seriously expect a different outcome if we do the same now?
Hoover started the new deal. Get your facts straight. How do you think the Hoover dam was built. "His spending Republican or not" Is what got us into the depression to begin with.
Roosevelt would not even call it the hoover dam because he wanted full credit for the "New Deal". Read your history.
He did start some spending programs at the tail end of his term. He also cut taxes sharply before the recession which forced him to raise them sharply during the recession to make up for the decline in revenue. His stimulus at the end of his term was too little too late.
FDR tried spending and it worked. The economy didn't totally turn around until the massive government spending and subsequent job creation during WWII, but the New Deal and other spending projects slowed down and possibly stalled the decline and we benefit from the highway and rail system to this day.
I am pretty sure that road and rail construction was part of the Public Works Administration Civil Works Administration, and the Civilian Conservation Corp. It may have not been the Interstate highway system, but it was roads.
The specifics are irrelevant. He spent money on improving infrastructure and it created jobs while providing a foundation for growth and prosperity for the future and that is the same thing that Obama is trying do now.
The problem with creating more government jobs, most of which are on the state level, is they never end their employment. The president can then say he created the jobs but now your state has to pay for them until they retire. So the state looks like the bad guy for raising your taxes and Obama walks away looking like some kind of hero.
Clinton did the same thing when for one year he paid for hundreds of thousands of new cops. They are all still working and even the towns had to raise taxes.
That is why there is such a concentration on construction. Construction jobs are by contract. When the contract is done the jobs go away and hopefully the economy will have turned around by then. The state gets much needed infrastructure improvements and the employees have jobs to do until the economy gets back on its feet. The same is true with making government buildings more energy efficient and upgrading the information systems for hospitals.
Yeah! Whho maintains his projects after that? And I do mean projects, in my state most of the two billion dollars that Obamas so called stimulus package is for public housing. Don't you think they have to be staffed, and maintained?
I suppose that is where the increase in tax rate on the highest income bracket to 39%, which takes effect in 2011, will come in to play, along with the inevitable increase in tax revenue when the economy recovers.
Tax increases historically have led to lower revenue every time. This time it will be worse because the highest income brackets can afford to not work at all for the duration of Obama. That means closing their companies and laying everyone off. Doesn't that give you a thrill up your leg like it did the bird brain on msnbc?
Well then maybe they should make it an estate tax. The problem we had with the economy stems from the shrinking of the middle class and the centralization of wealth in the upper class. The wealth of the upper class has been increasing while the middle and lower class has been stagnate or decreasing, but the wealth generation in the upper class has become dependent on consumerism, so they introduced credit to increase people's buying power without actually increasing their wealth/wages.
What we have seen is that model blowing up in everyone's face. You can't sustain a consumer market on the backs of a generation of debtors. Something has to change. The corporate business model has ruined America and created a failed economic model.
Back to the point, either the corporate needs to get over their greedy practices or they need to be taxed, simple as that. If they decide to ruin the economy for their own gain they need to pay to fix it.
The economy failed due to the Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae debacle. That was a democratic scheme from it's inception to force banks to lend money to people that could not afford the payments. It progressively worsened and although the Bush administration tried several times to pass bills to regulate it the democrats knocked it down every time.
Corporations are not the problem, they are the solution. What you are saying is right out of the Communist Manifesto. Now please don't reply anymore.
I'm getting very tired of it. If you don't know it though I have to tell you that you gave this video a big lift by pushing it close to the most talked about.
Fannie and Freddie were only a very small part of this problem. They were just the first signs of what was to come and had a relatively small effect.
"tried several times to pass bills to regulate it the democrats knocked it down every time."
Now you are flinging BS. You sound like every other mindless partisan hack. Repeating the same tired talking points. Blame it on the one thing Dems did wrong (com reinv act) and hope people will forget who was in charge.
"What you are saying is right out of the Communist Manifesto"
Yes, it is called the Conflict Theory. The idea that those in power will make do what they need to to protect their status. It is a basic theory of political science and a good one at that. Marx was single minded and stretched the theory way to far, but its basic principles are solid. No matter what connotation you put on him Marx was a great thinker of his time and is one of the pillars of political theory.
Not a pillar of this society do some more research. He was not pert of the group of philosophers that our forefathers used in forming this nation. Yes they used a lot of them but not Marx. Just read the Constitution. Nothing in it remotely like Marx. I'm going to bed now so don't wast your time replying.
The proletarians are what they are because they have no ambition.
You can't make the poor rich by making the rich poor. When was the last time you worked for a poor man? Don't answer.
I am going to respond, you can read it tomorrow if you want.
The reason that the framers of the Constitution didn't show any sign of Marxist theory might be because Marx wasn't even alive much less a political theorist when the Constitution was written. So you believe that we cannot consider any political theory written after 1776 as valid because the founding fathers didn't know about it? Interesting counter-intellectualism.
"The proletarians are what they are because they have no ambition."
Bull shit. If everyone who had the drive to succeed was actually able to, we would have a top heavy society. The middle class is not disappearing and the rich getting richer because people are loosing their ambition. Structural inequality is everywhere anyone with half a brain can see them, but those in power deny and dismiss its existance because it protects their status.
Structural inequality is everywhere? What a crock, any body with half a brain can make it to any class from any class, and 'structural inequality' prevents all from reaching the same level? Sounds like tall poppy syndrome to me.
Jesus go back to 1919, chill with the comrades and figure out who takes out the garbage in your mystical utopia. If you even grasp that reference.
You go to an inner city school where their books are 50 years old and the building is so ratty it should be condemned and the students are disparaged and told that they can't achieve anything of significance and are pushed out of the education system at the first opportunity because the schools don't have the money to support them, then contrast that by a suburban school with a higher tax base and tell me they get equal opportunity as us. The result of local funding of schools is inequality.
Plus discrimination in employment still exist whether people want to admit it. I do believe that the quota based affirmative action is bullshit though. Still women make a fraction of the income that men do for doing the same job and the lack of opportunity in lower income areas leads to a higher unemployment rate and perpetuates the cycle of poverty. Don't think this is all a black inner city problem either.
I went to school in the Appalachian mountains the highest concentration of poverty outside of the Mississippi river delta. Their situation while different in some ways is the same. The local school system in Boone was k-12 and frankly was sub-par despite the revitalization efforts that have been going into that area.
Contrast that by Blowing Rock which had all the rich residents and vacation houses and the difference is night and day. I worked at the health and hunger coalition and looked them in the eye everyday knowing that I would graduate and leave and they would still be there in that shitty mobile home park.
As for renewable energy, the objective is to create a new industry that after the initial investment will become self-sustainable and hopefully technology to export to other countries.
And I don't think anyone would deny that our education system doesn't need the help. Charlotte is cutting hundreds of teachers next year. They can't sustain them now, but the idea is that when the economy turns around and tax revenue goes back up from people having jobs and buying again they will be able to.
Check the date that Obama said outright that he was going to spread the wealth.
Not that he had to say it but he was obviously going to be president when the markets began to fall.
Not to mention the fact that nothing went wrong until the democrats took over Congress. People don't realize that Congress alone is authorized to spend money. The president can veto but with a 2/3 vote he is overruled.
"Not to mention the fact that nothing went wrong until the democrats took over Congress."
It just do happened that it came to a head at the end of Bush's term. The conditions that led to this crisis has been in the making for decades. Deregulation and the repeal of glass-steagall and the centralization of the market share into few companies companies that are "to big to fail".
By the way, Dems got the majority by one seat in the Senate everyone knows it takes 60 votes to pass anything in the Senate because the Democrats are too chickenshit to force the Republicans' hand on the filibuster, not to mention the filibuster and vetos were used more in those two years than in any time in history by a long shot.
ok bra, those r both arguably facts, but like yo, those facts don't support, justify or even outline the wisdom of either ur "don't spend in the face of a crisis" or "this crisis isn't that bad" assertions.
check-it, irrespective of (a) obama's previous statements or (b) what went wrong when who was where, the crisis exploded, a 50 yr fire raged & water's needed to put it out.
i mean bro, it's myopic lunacy to argue about previous water-use statements when our village is in flames, right?
Yet he is willing to let millions of american children go without essential healthcare. Yeah, he is such a caring man who thinks about everyone, except people who can't afford essential healthcare
123Peat1 1 year ago
TEA FOR EVERYONE!
CITYGIRLBFF 2 years ago
"Even the idea of social responsibility in this country is scoffed at and called liberal Marxist idealism", who ever does this scoffing has an incomplete understanding of both social responsibility and Marxist idealism.
The Chinese cultures trait of social responsibility does not come from excessive government legislating personal behavior, it comes from an absence of government, thus being forced to rely on the common man for support and aid, thus fostering "social responsibility"
mctarmac10 2 years ago
Like I said though the idea of social responsibility is largely absent from our culture. Many people don't feel a sense of responsibility to their family, much less the people in their community. Community service is a punishment leveled by courts on criminals who break minor laws. The culture is self-centered individualism that values self-advancement no matter the cost to others. If people had this sense of social responsibility already there would be no reason to set up safety nets.
cg66079 2 years ago
Your right in that the system as it is is inherently unfair , and it manages somehow to be unfair to the entire spectrum. But I still see this as a product of to much government interference, there is many a tale of private philanthropic schools in Harlem being forced into receiving government funding and results subsequently plummeting, I suggest a youtube search of Milton Friedman and one of his videos on public education.
mctarmac10 2 years ago
In relation to social responsibility it really comes down to which came first out of the chicken and the egg, is there no sense of civic responsibility because people feel that it is now the Governments role to provide everything?
Self advancement benefits everyone in a society, the entrepreneur providing jobs in your town, the burger flipper who buys shoes at the place you work..so on so on. And this isn't culture but human nature, which was the great failing of Marxism
mctarmac10 2 years ago
A sense of responsibility to our kin is human nature. The evolutionary psychologists call this kin selection. The sense of civic responsibility is not. That is picked up, or not, during socialization which is dependent on culture. It may seem human nature to a person that grew up in a society that values civic responsibility to the extent that the eastern cultures do, but the same isn't true in the west, especially the US. Individualism breeds people who are apathetic the the plights of others.
cg66079 2 years ago
France in particular (Im not relying on Sicko here, I'm actually an economist) their health spending has reached 9% of GDP with the program expected to add 66 Billion Euros a year to Frances public budget deficit,
Frances High Council for the Future of Health Insurance added "the system badly regulated and badly governed" with French doctors proscribing yearly 3x as many drugs as their British and German counterparts.
This recent report stated the largest problem was a behavioral one.
mctarmac10 2 years ago
""Everyone - institutions, healthcare professionals and social security contributors - will have to change their behaviour."
Why may you ask? "The High Council believes that general confusion over who is in charge of what partly explains the excesses,"
But of course a free market economist would know this already, when people buy things with someone else s money , they make poor decisions.
mctarmac10 2 years ago
The Sicko comment was in jest, but they are rated as the best health care system in the world. If the doctors there are using drugs as a crutch then that is a problem, but not as big of a problem as it is in the US. It seems like a doctor's visit is just an interview to decide which of the latest ridiculously expensive drugs they will put you on. Last time we went to the pharm. mom had 2 prescriptions and paid $65 dollars and she has insurance. We really are a nation on drugs legal and illegal.
cg66079 2 years ago
Well just one more, you quote France? That economic tiger of a country France? Sigh, yes lets base out system on France , Country #87 on the Economic Freedom index, yes that is the way to go.
I was born in Hong Kong, #1 Freest economy in the world, no social net, but they don't need one, the poor work, the handicapped are provided for by the family, (social responsibility is huge within Chinese culture, as there is no government to do it for them) the people become self sufficient and free.
mctarmac10 2 years ago
Hong Kong is a different animal and you know it. First, it is a relatively small country and relatively homogeneous in race, culture, and class distinctions than the US (the last being the most important). Not to mention it is one of the big recipients of of outsourced manufacturing jobs from US corporations. Their work force flourishes while our workforce suffers layoffs in the manufacturing sector.
cg66079 2 years ago
Hong Kong is not homogeneous in class distinctions, we hardly have a minimum wage law while at the other end of the scale we have the highest property prices in the world.
It is also not a recipient of manufacturing jobs with HK's manufacturing , surpise surprise , being outsourced to China the percentage of the economy in manufacturing is a pittance.
mctarmac10 2 years ago
As for social responsibility, I like the Chinese Culture for that reason. Even the idea of social responsibility in this country is scoffed at and called liberal Marxist idealism. The problem here is that too many people are unable to support themselves much less a handicapped kid, mainly do to the cost of treatment.
cg66079 2 years ago
The common problem with your statements is a lack of any actual empirical knowledge; "None that I know of its really rare," and this even misses the real point that if one or some can do it, the argument for systemic flaws takes a massive hit and you have to resort to calling productive members "lucky" which is really quite insulting to insinuate he didn't deserve it .
mctarmac10 2 years ago
"resort to calling productive memresort to calling productive members "lucky""
Those that get out are lucky the individual has to have incredible personal conviction due to the social and systematic pressure against success, but the opportunity has to present itself and it doesn't very often.
You completely ignored by comment about the best schools in the country taking 70% legacy admissions and the inner city schools getting ridiculously low funding because it is based on local tax revenue.
cg66079 2 years ago
Of course success requires personal conviction, shouldn't it be difficult? This is how our system or any that rewards progression works, while it may be a harsh and cruel system the fact is it is only chosen because of the moral implications of any alternative.
No a system that rewards skill and aptitude will never be equal , but it is more fair.
On education realize I'm not defending the current system as its nothing like I would have
mctarmac10 2 years ago
Well you asked for an example of structural inequality and the education system being the strongest tool of self advancement is the #1 example. Poor areas get old books, ratty buildings, old technology, and teachers who are either bottom of the barrel or head in the cloud idealists that generally don't stick around too long (with some exceptions, usually the people who came out of the same environment). Environment can stifle potential even in the best most resilient of people.
cg66079 2 years ago
By the way, France has the health care system figured out. Have you seen Sicko? You can get a doctor in your bedroom at home in less than an hour. That is crazy bad ass.
I know that taxes pay for it and they sacrifice a small percentage of economic growth as a part of their system, but I would defiantly give up 40-45% taxes to have the benefit that they have. 5 wks vacation, unlimited sick days, , 1 year maternity and paternity leave etc, all with 100% pay and health care.
cg66079 2 years ago
What Hong Kong does have is a flat tax rate, (you know with a progressive tax rate being the hallmark of Marxism,) subsequently we have had one of the most successful and fastest growing economies in the world highly centered on trade.
Where as socialist France is stagnant and facing not only massive shortfalls in funds for health care but massive reductions in services and availability.
mctarmac10 2 years ago
Socialized health care, I can't believe your actually going there.... do you have any training in economics , or actually keep a breast of research findings?
One of the simpler criticisms; putting health care on the budget subjects it to budgeting, which means rationing, which means in the real world people being told to go without,
However I feel you really a more of a Marxist when it comes to this sort of thing and this ain't enough space to go through history for you.
mctarmac10 2 years ago
"putting health care on the budget subjects it to budgeting, which means rationing"
All you have to do is start out with a sizable investment fund and a general guess about the overall cost of the program then you can institute taxes to pay for the programs. After the first year, you can adjust the tax rate relative to the overall cost of care during the previous year. Then the discussion is solely on what the government won't provide, like private rooms and cosmetic surgery.
cg66079 2 years ago
Okay again, I would like an answer to 'have their been any CEO's from a ghetto?," the answer really blasts a huge hole in the unequal opportunity rhetoric, if one man can make it from the most appalling inhumane conditions, why not all? The system worked for him didn't it?
My dad's father was a taxi driver, (lower class,) he got a job when he was 15 making below minimum (but enough for private flying lessons) and is now upper management.
mctarmac10 2 years ago
The point being who helped him but himself? He was at the time a victim of this delusional "class warfare" yet through hard work and perseverance lifted himself to new heights,
Its also interesting to note that it would be harder to do what he did now with the minimum wage law, the most inhumane law ever passed.
mctarmac10 2 years ago
"have their been any CEO's from a ghetto?"
I don't know. None that I know of, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. It is really rare. The vast majority have to at least come from a middle class family.
"why not all? The system worked for him didn't it?"
No the system did not work for him he succeeded despite the system, this is a quality psychologists like to call high resilience, some individuals can succeed no matter how the circumstances work against them.
cg66079 2 years ago
"My dad's father was a taxi driver...and is now upper management."
Good for him. He worked his ass off and it paid off. He is one of the lucky few.
That wouldn't happen in this country though. He wouldn't be able to get past middle management without a business management degree of some sort, especially not in corporate business and a kids from the ghetto don't have the means to go to college if they can even get in. It shows up which high school you went to colleges discriminate that way.
cg66079 2 years ago
Have you ever heard of a legacy admission? That is where a college admits a student because their parents when there. In the Ivy League, around 70% of admission are legacy admissions leaving only 30% to people who aren't kids of Alumni. Do really think that a kid from the ghetto has the same opportunity as someone from an upper class family to be admitted. Not to mention the practice of recruiting from prep-schools, school that the average American can not afford to send their kids to.
cg66079 2 years ago
yo rhosey001 and cg66079.
u guys were having an awesome, no-name-calling, fact-filled, historical rumble. it was killer. what happened? i mean, i was like totally picking up a ton about the 30's & 40's - don't stop yo.
i mean seriously, how often do u get two informed, respectful, diametrically opposed combatants on youtube?
jasonsadventure 2 years ago
@jasonsadventure, Well thanks for the complement I guess. I was more than willing to continue the conversation, but it seems my opponent is more willing to beat up on weaklings that don't know how to defend themselves against criticism, LOL. But seriously, I think he started to take the conversation personally and you can't have a constructive conversation once that happens.
cg66079 2 years ago
Government, socialized, health care and education does no one any good, I suggest you look into Milton Friedman for one of the most cogent viewpoints.
The public sector quite frankly performs pathetically compared to the private sector by any measure of delivery and efficiency. It wasn't long ago that private charter hospitals cared for the minute percentage who truly are deprived for free, but then the politicians don't make any bucks off that arrangement do they
mctarmac10 2 years ago
The best health care systems in the world are socialized, France being #1. According to the World Health Organization your own Australian System is better than ours here in the US, by 5 ranks. Universal health care works and it is the only way to provide the care that people need for everyone despite their circumstances.
National heath care is actually more efficient and provides the same care for less not the other way around. The European systems spend less per person and have better results
cg66079 2 years ago
My point is this, the republicans are helping all, theirs is a philosophy of self help, they and the Dems share the intention of a better America FOR ALL. Just one party believes the best way to do that is to allow people to help themselves (teach a man to fish not give him a fish.)
While the other believes that only the Government could possibly help and provide services from cradle to grave, inadvertently destroying whats left of Americas civil society.
mctarmac10 2 years ago
Again teaching a man to fish doesn't help him if he lives in a desert. If he is not afforded the opportunities to succeed he fails. The Republican model only works for those who have unequal advantage of opportunity. It is like being in a foot race and one man has leg shackles on and then saying that it is his fault when he loses.
Do I think that government should "provide services from cradle to grave"? Certain services yes and chief among them is health care.
cg66079 2 years ago
And of course empowerment breeds inequality, WHERE NOT ALL EQUAL, some are smarter, stronger , dumber then others. Inequality is not even a bad thing it has no implicit negative bias, there was inequality between homo sapiens and neanderthals, Einsteins intellect represented inequality, need i go on?
To argue that we should all be held equal, regardless of ability is a purely communist argument, and is a non starter in how to advance the human race.
mctarmac10 2 years ago
It is okay to have inequality of results as people say, but inequality of opportunity is oppression.
The argument isn't that everyone should be exactly the same the argument is that everyone should be afforded the basic necessities. No one should have to die because they can't pay for the hospital. No one should freeze to death because they had to choose between heat and food. Such things should be basic rights.
cg66079 2 years ago
We'll have to agree to disagree on everyone should be afforded basic necessities. I'm not an American but I'm sure the constitution mentions nothing of a citizens rights to health care, education, housing, welfare, subsidies.
Tell me if my dad (who was once poor and now isn't without a hand from anyone) pays thousands of his hard earned dollars , hes entitled to the same level of care as the poorest of the poor? Should not his labor and success be rewarded? Can you see the danger here?
I
mctarmac10 2 years ago
No I don't see the danger here. You are judging based on the quality of care that the poor get now. Everyone should be afforded a basic min. in care and if you have the money to go outside that system and want to pay for things like private rooms and cosmetic surgery be my guest, but health care is a right. It is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence as the right to life.
Education is an imperative to advance society an investment in the future.
As for the others they are debatable.
cg66079 2 years ago
Okay, its slightly worrying that when I say the government shouldn't provide these services ... you envision a world where they aren't provided by anyone.
This is the ultimate objective of the Democrats; a world where people have to appeal to government, I mean , there's no way we could provide for ourselves is there?
What exactly are these unequal advantages? Are you saying there has never been a CEO from the ghetto? No one from the worst place has ever succeeded?
mctarmac10 2 years ago
Your father is rewarded by being able to spend his hard-earned money, an option the poorest of the poor don't have. Plenty of people work hard for a living without putting out their hand yet never get out of poverty. The inability of conservatives to grasp that imbalance is why it'll never be a populist party and can't win without appealing to the worst within us as human beings -- fear.
ismeme 2 years ago 2
The massive swing of black American voters to the democratic base (away from the republicans) occurred during Roosevelt's New Deal. And now what percentage vote democrat? It's really quite immoral when you think about it
mctarmac10 2 years ago
"It's really quite immoral when you think about it"
So it is immoral that the party that helps someone other the the white upper class might get a solid majority of the vote? It is called addressing the needs of the average American, the Democrats do the Republicans don't. They deserve to lose if they don't change their policies and come back towards the center. If they continue as they have, we will have a one party system because the Republican party will have committed suicide.
cg66079 2 years ago
What advantages? Well , tell me, if your on the dole, reliant on public health and education or have your industry subsidized, who are you going to vote for?
Democrats have taken American grand strategy (in the foreign policy sense) and turned it onto the domestic scene; extend aid bringing participants into the system, participant becomes dependent, participant has a stake in the system, participant votes Democrat every time.
mctarmac10 2 years ago
Comment removed
cg66079 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"participant becomes dependent, participant has a stake in the system, participant votes Democrat every time"
That is a load of bull. In Europe they have far more social programs than we do and they are not a one party system by far. In fact they have several viable parties. Maybe if the Republican party wasn't so far out on the right wing they wouldn't be threatened by the idea of universal health care and an education system that works K through College.
cg66079 2 years ago
LOL, the GOP irony train never stops! Of course what they really disapprove of is Obama/the Dems spending money on social programs. Repubs dislike social programs until they personally need them. Lots of Repubs on food stamps, medicare, social security and receiving FEMA aid in this country. Try and pry it away from them; suddenly it's their "right". They just don't want OTHERS to have the same. I run across these types constantly. It's always all about them.
ismeme 2 years ago
"Repubs dislike social programs"
True, but not for the reasons you stated. The GOP would prefer that through empowering individuals , we can become individually sufficient.
The question you have to ask yourself (although I know Dems don't) why are Dem's FOR social programs?
Could it be that the more people you have on the rolls of the government, the more people are dependent on the government? And would thus vote for said government?
mctarmac10 2 years ago
But lemme guess the Democrats are the only examples of human beings anywhere that do things out of the goodness of their hearts?
Whats sad about you lot is your so in tune to political machinations and leverage from the right, but so blind when you look at the left.
mctarmac10 2 years ago
"Democrats are the only examples of human beings anywhere that do things out of the goodness of their hearts?"
No but overall they are the party that is more socially conscious and believe in investing in the quality of life of American citizens.
The empowerment that many, not all, Republicans believe in breeds inequality. Empowering the middle class to make small businesses is one thing, even thought the middle class is disappearing, but pandering to corporate interests is another thing.
cg66079 2 years ago
I agree they intend to be more socially conscious and they want to better the quality of life, but the problem is in the words of Friedman "their mushy hearts sometimes extends to mushy heads," people are the answer, government is the problem.
They need to realize that Government programs have done nothing but increase the problems you had and created some nice new ones, this would have been apparent decades ago had they not realized the political advantages to continuing the system.
mctarmac10 2 years ago
FYI, I'm an independent. And it's YOUR kind of pigeon-hole, crass thinking that has become so pervasive on the right that I no longer vote that way.
ismeme 2 years ago
Explain to me how the right has empowered individuals over the last thirty years, apart from the rich who have only gotten richer? And do you really believe that the 95% of Americans who are making less than $200K/year aren't motivated to become self-sufficient? They're increasingly falling behind no matter HOW hard they work thanks to the free market, deregulation and privatization, which all originated and continue to be supported by the right. It's just unfortunate the Dems have joined them.
ismeme 2 years ago
geez... can this guy at least TRY to speak from the heart? ...he sounds like a car salesman.
defaultartist 2 years ago
Where were you Congressman McCarthy when Bush was sending this country to deficit heaven ? And what happened to "fiscal responsibility" when your party was ruling? What about all those tax cuts Bush gave to the rich - where is all the job expansion ? The bailouts w/bonuses was handed out by Bush. The TEA parties were about guns, spending, abortion, Obama is a Nazi- fascist - socialist . So what message is it that is "loud and clear"?
azas1949 2 years ago
I knew when I clicked on this thread someone would once again bring up Bush. Guess what? He's not in fucking office anymore. Your retarded.
Stradigos 2 years ago
While he may not be in office anymore, we are the ones who have to live with his fuck ups. The retarded one is you. READ.
azas1949 2 years ago
Obama's Controllers Exposed
Search Youtube: Hal Lindsey - Global Government Rising
4U2TakeBackAmerica 2 years ago
Republicans are just trying to scare people into compliance with their inhumane tactics of using people for their capitalistic financial benefit. The spending is necessary to inflate the dollar, and this has to happen to start a new cycle. The only people afraid of inflation are the rich people. After inflation the debt won't be so much, and nobody's grandchildren will be paying - this is just a lie!
healing00 2 years ago
1. copy and paste
2. send this to 2 other videos.
3. hold your breath for 10 seconds
4. press refresh twice
5. LOOK AT YOUR BACKGROUND
dMoniker 2 years ago
I agree with what your saying, but I don't know that the republicans could do any better. America is headed for decline. Just listen to Peter Schiff...
shataslilrob 2 years ago
America already declined, it will continue to do so for a while, but it will turn around and become a better country. We all need to participate in making it a better country.
healing00 2 years ago
Why do Republican leaders always sound like they're talking to children? Do they think that all of their followers are stupide?
IslandHermit 2 years ago
This guy is a joke!!! The GOP got us into this mess to begin with and now their advocating Revolution and Secession. The GOP have lost their credibility. They need to shut up for a while and take their lumps like a man. This Tax Protest is their latest act of re-energizing their base which is shrinking. You need to convince the Independents not the base who votes Republican irrespective of the way they run the country: Good or Bad.
TheIndependentView 2 years ago
Then why did you vote for the Bush tax cuts Congressman?
imaginepeace63 2 years ago
Clap......Clap .............Clap................Clap.......
That was the most boring speech on such an important subject. But we have these Republicans who come out to fight and present these wimpy pussy speeches.
Who is his speech writer, Michael Steele the deadpan Catholic leader of the RNC.
We have seen what Catholic Republicans are doing to the right. They are giving in and not putting up a fight against the Democrats.
Prime example:
McCain, he gave the election to OBAMA!
4U2TakeBackAmerica 2 years ago
nov 4 the message was heard LOUD AND CLEAR TOO NUMB NUTTS! its getting real sad watching the rep try to slither out of the snake oil distroy are econmy again you had 8 years you horifically failed now give other people a chance atleast obama is trying,bush didnt!
tonmagicwon 2 years ago
The republicans haven't earned back the right to talk about fiscal responsibility yet. They just look like partisan hacks that just want to obstruct and say no to the Democratic majority. If you want to win back your credibility, take Ron Paul and the Libertarians seriously and stop taking pork. I think that the Republican party is beyond repair anyone who is a true fiscal conservative should seriously check out the Libertarians.
cg66079 2 years ago
Oh give me a break. The truth is that there is more pork going to "red states" with republican representatives than blue states. The republicans like to spend money also, if it is their projects that they are spending it on. At least the democrats recognize where that money is going to have to come from. As I saw someone say the other day, "I would take the democrat's tax and spend over the republican borrow and spend any day".
cg66079 2 years ago
Um.....the guy is from California. it's a very blue state and where do you get your facts from. Many red states have refused to take any money at all from the stimulus package because they don't want to be told what to do, once they do. My blue state however took a couple of billion and are now lap dogs for Obama.
rhosey001 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
nov 4 the message was heard LOUD AND CLEAR TOO NUMB NUTTS! its getting real sad watching the rep try to slither out of the snake oil distroy are econmy again you had 8 years you horifically failed now give other people a chance atleast obama is trying,bush didnt!
tonmagicwon 2 years ago
Comment removed
cg66079 2 years ago
As far as I know the Govs that decided they weren't going to take the money caved to pressure from their legislature and constituents: Palin did, Jidal did, and so did the SC Gov.
The study that said that republicans take home more pork that dems was a study of spending bills over the last several years. Republicans took home slightly more pork even though there was a slight democratic majority.
I know he is from Cali, but the point was that areas with Rep. representation took more pork.
cg66079 2 years ago
So, and I'm just guessing now. That excuses Obama for commiting to more spending and pork than all 43 presidents before him combined?
rhosey001 2 years ago
The stimulus money isn't pork. It is a targeted spending bill. Pork is pet projects that are put into the omnibus bill and other spending bills to pay off congressmen for their support on other legislation. There isn't any earmarks or pork in the stimulus bill.
Obama may be committing to levels of spending and domestic investment, but that is what you have to do when you're trying to establish a new foundation for future growth and begin to dig out of a hole that we've been digging for decades.
cg66079 2 years ago
yo rhosey001, no disrespect but r u like really smart or just parroting anti-obama lines bra?
i mean yo, do u want the government to stop spending in the midst of the greatest economic crisis since the depression?
do u know exactly how much "pork" was "committed to" by obama and what it was for?
i mean like yo, it would be cool to dialog w/ any informed, intellectually honest republican & understand what's really going on in their heads. is it just hate, anger & ideology or real concerns?
jasonsadventure 2 years ago
Yes, I want government to stop spending in the midst of the worst economic crisis since Jimmy Carter We are nowhere near the crisis of the great depression. The stock market never got lower than the Clinton years as a matter of fact.
FDR tried this spending during the depression and 7yrs into it his secretary of the Treasury told him that after all the spending was done it didn't work. WWII got us out of the depression. You want WWIII? After all this spending by both Bush and Obama.
rhosey001 2 years ago
We may wind up in WWIII as a last resort.
It is real concerns for those of us that know history repeats itself.
Take care.
rhosey001 2 years ago
Do you remember what sent us into the Great Depression? President Herbert Hoover thought it would be a smart idea to cut spending in the middle of a recession also. Do you seriously expect a different outcome if we do the same now?
cg66079 2 years ago 2
Hoover started the new deal. Get your facts straight. How do you think the Hoover dam was built. "His spending Republican or not" Is what got us into the depression to begin with.
Roosevelt would not even call it the hoover dam because he wanted full credit for the "New Deal". Read your history.
rhosey001 2 years ago
Comment removed
cg66079 2 years ago
He did start some spending programs at the tail end of his term. He also cut taxes sharply before the recession which forced him to raise them sharply during the recession to make up for the decline in revenue. His stimulus at the end of his term was too little too late.
cg66079 2 years ago 2
His biggest mistake was raising tariffs and succumbing to protectionism.
cg66079 2 years ago
FDR tried spending and it worked. The economy didn't totally turn around until the massive government spending and subsequent job creation during WWII, but the New Deal and other spending projects slowed down and possibly stalled the decline and we benefit from the highway and rail system to this day.
cg66079 2 years ago
If you also read your history you will find the truth. Don't expect to get the truth from Wicipedia though. You have to use reliable sources.
rhosey001 2 years ago
By the way the rail system was here long before FDR and the Interstate highway system was the brainchild of Eisenhower.
rhosey001 2 years ago
I am pretty sure that road and rail construction was part of the Public Works Administration Civil Works Administration, and the Civilian Conservation Corp. It may have not been the Interstate highway system, but it was roads.
cg66079 2 years ago
The specifics are irrelevant. He spent money on improving infrastructure and it created jobs while providing a foundation for growth and prosperity for the future and that is the same thing that Obama is trying do now.
cg66079 2 years ago
The problem with creating more government jobs, most of which are on the state level, is they never end their employment. The president can then say he created the jobs but now your state has to pay for them until they retire. So the state looks like the bad guy for raising your taxes and Obama walks away looking like some kind of hero.
Clinton did the same thing when for one year he paid for hundreds of thousands of new cops. They are all still working and even the towns had to raise taxes.
rhosey001 2 years ago
That is why there is such a concentration on construction. Construction jobs are by contract. When the contract is done the jobs go away and hopefully the economy will have turned around by then. The state gets much needed infrastructure improvements and the employees have jobs to do until the economy gets back on its feet. The same is true with making government buildings more energy efficient and upgrading the information systems for hospitals.
cg66079 2 years ago 3
Yeah! Whho maintains his projects after that? And I do mean projects, in my state most of the two billion dollars that Obamas so called stimulus package is for public housing. Don't you think they have to be staffed, and maintained?
rhosey001 2 years ago
I suppose that is where the increase in tax rate on the highest income bracket to 39%, which takes effect in 2011, will come in to play, along with the inevitable increase in tax revenue when the economy recovers.
cg66079 2 years ago
Tax increases historically have led to lower revenue every time. This time it will be worse because the highest income brackets can afford to not work at all for the duration of Obama. That means closing their companies and laying everyone off. Doesn't that give you a thrill up your leg like it did the bird brain on msnbc?
rhosey001 2 years ago
Well then maybe they should make it an estate tax. The problem we had with the economy stems from the shrinking of the middle class and the centralization of wealth in the upper class. The wealth of the upper class has been increasing while the middle and lower class has been stagnate or decreasing, but the wealth generation in the upper class has become dependent on consumerism, so they introduced credit to increase people's buying power without actually increasing their wealth/wages.
cg66079 2 years ago
What we have seen is that model blowing up in everyone's face. You can't sustain a consumer market on the backs of a generation of debtors. Something has to change. The corporate business model has ruined America and created a failed economic model.
Back to the point, either the corporate needs to get over their greedy practices or they need to be taxed, simple as that. If they decide to ruin the economy for their own gain they need to pay to fix it.
cg66079 2 years ago
The economy failed due to the Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae debacle. That was a democratic scheme from it's inception to force banks to lend money to people that could not afford the payments. It progressively worsened and although the Bush administration tried several times to pass bills to regulate it the democrats knocked it down every time.
Corporations are not the problem, they are the solution. What you are saying is right out of the Communist Manifesto. Now please don't reply anymore.
rhosey001 2 years ago
I'm getting very tired of it. If you don't know it though I have to tell you that you gave this video a big lift by pushing it close to the most talked about.
rhosey001 2 years ago
Fannie and Freddie were only a very small part of this problem. They were just the first signs of what was to come and had a relatively small effect.
"tried several times to pass bills to regulate it the democrats knocked it down every time."
Now you are flinging BS. You sound like every other mindless partisan hack. Repeating the same tired talking points. Blame it on the one thing Dems did wrong (com reinv act) and hope people will forget who was in charge.
cg66079 2 years ago
You know I thought I made it clear that I was done for the night. Then i get three messages from you. Are you dense?
rhosey001 2 years ago
Yeah, I have to get up in the morning too. Maybe you can blast me for being a "Marxist" and a "pinko commie bastard" some more tomorrow.
cg66079 2 years ago
"Corporations are not the problem, they are the solution"
Business is not the problem the corporate business model is the problem. They should have never destroyed the Anti-trust regulations.
cg66079 2 years ago
"What you are saying is right out of the Communist Manifesto"
Yes, it is called the Conflict Theory. The idea that those in power will make do what they need to to protect their status. It is a basic theory of political science and a good one at that. Marx was single minded and stretched the theory way to far, but its basic principles are solid. No matter what connotation you put on him Marx was a great thinker of his time and is one of the pillars of political theory.
cg66079 2 years ago
Not a pillar of this society do some more research. He was not pert of the group of philosophers that our forefathers used in forming this nation. Yes they used a lot of them but not Marx. Just read the Constitution. Nothing in it remotely like Marx. I'm going to bed now so don't wast your time replying.
The proletarians are what they are because they have no ambition.
You can't make the poor rich by making the rich poor. When was the last time you worked for a poor man? Don't answer.
rhosey001 2 years ago
I am going to respond, you can read it tomorrow if you want.
The reason that the framers of the Constitution didn't show any sign of Marxist theory might be because Marx wasn't even alive much less a political theorist when the Constitution was written. So you believe that we cannot consider any political theory written after 1776 as valid because the founding fathers didn't know about it? Interesting counter-intellectualism.
cg66079 2 years ago
"The proletarians are what they are because they have no ambition."
Bull shit. If everyone who had the drive to succeed was actually able to, we would have a top heavy society. The middle class is not disappearing and the rich getting richer because people are loosing their ambition. Structural inequality is everywhere anyone with half a brain can see them, but those in power deny and dismiss its existance because it protects their status.
cg66079 2 years ago
Structural inequality is everywhere? What a crock, any body with half a brain can make it to any class from any class, and 'structural inequality' prevents all from reaching the same level? Sounds like tall poppy syndrome to me.
Jesus go back to 1919, chill with the comrades and figure out who takes out the garbage in your mystical utopia. If you even grasp that reference.
mctarmac10 2 years ago
You go to an inner city school where their books are 50 years old and the building is so ratty it should be condemned and the students are disparaged and told that they can't achieve anything of significance and are pushed out of the education system at the first opportunity because the schools don't have the money to support them, then contrast that by a suburban school with a higher tax base and tell me they get equal opportunity as us. The result of local funding of schools is inequality.
cg66079 2 years ago
Plus discrimination in employment still exist whether people want to admit it. I do believe that the quota based affirmative action is bullshit though. Still women make a fraction of the income that men do for doing the same job and the lack of opportunity in lower income areas leads to a higher unemployment rate and perpetuates the cycle of poverty. Don't think this is all a black inner city problem either.
cg66079 2 years ago
I went to school in the Appalachian mountains the highest concentration of poverty outside of the Mississippi river delta. Their situation while different in some ways is the same. The local school system in Boone was k-12 and frankly was sub-par despite the revitalization efforts that have been going into that area.
cg66079 2 years ago
Contrast that by Blowing Rock which had all the rich residents and vacation houses and the difference is night and day. I worked at the health and hunger coalition and looked them in the eye everyday knowing that I would graduate and leave and they would still be there in that shitty mobile home park.
cg66079 2 years ago
As for renewable energy, the objective is to create a new industry that after the initial investment will become self-sustainable and hopefully technology to export to other countries.
And I don't think anyone would deny that our education system doesn't need the help. Charlotte is cutting hundreds of teachers next year. They can't sustain them now, but the idea is that when the economy turns around and tax revenue goes back up from people having jobs and buying again they will be able to.
cg66079 2 years ago
yo bra, i'm down w/ ur historical review & how u argue the facts but check-it, ur analysis is not just wrong, but a catastrophe on blast yo
the crisis we face now is way fiercer than the stagflation of carter. look @ 2 facts:
(1) worse earnings by us corps in history: dropped $645b to $94b (no drop occurred in 70s)
(2) from 9/15/08 to 9/19/08 world markets crashed like no time since 1929
these r economic facts unprecedented yo. spending cuts now is economic idiocy & financial suicide, bra
jasonsadventure 2 years ago
Check the date that Obama said outright that he was going to spread the wealth.
Not that he had to say it but he was obviously going to be president when the markets began to fall.
Not to mention the fact that nothing went wrong until the democrats took over Congress. People don't realize that Congress alone is authorized to spend money. The president can veto but with a 2/3 vote he is overruled.
rhosey001 2 years ago
"Not to mention the fact that nothing went wrong until the democrats took over Congress."
It just do happened that it came to a head at the end of Bush's term. The conditions that led to this crisis has been in the making for decades. Deregulation and the repeal of glass-steagall and the centralization of the market share into few companies companies that are "to big to fail".
cg66079 2 years ago
I thought I made it clear to you that I'm done with you. one more word from you and I will block your sorry ass.
I wasn't talking to you I was talking to jasonsadventure
rhosey001 2 years ago
By the way, Dems got the majority by one seat in the Senate everyone knows it takes 60 votes to pass anything in the Senate because the Democrats are too chickenshit to force the Republicans' hand on the filibuster, not to mention the filibuster and vetos were used more in those two years than in any time in history by a long shot.
cg66079 2 years ago
Comment removed
jasonsadventure 2 years ago
ok bra, those r both arguably facts, but like yo, those facts don't support, justify or even outline the wisdom of either ur "don't spend in the face of a crisis" or "this crisis isn't that bad" assertions.
check-it, irrespective of (a) obama's previous statements or (b) what went wrong when who was where, the crisis exploded, a 50 yr fire raged & water's needed to put it out.
i mean bro, it's myopic lunacy to argue about previous water-use statements when our village is in flames, right?
jasonsadventure 2 years ago
skatepark in RI, well i live in ri, how about an amusement park, or a dog park, a fucking skatepark!?
caraddict520 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Location for all to meet Jeff Fisher and create World Peace by screaming and carrying sign saying Google Al Gore World Peace Forever
plus many others saying Google always including Google Jeff Fisher Legalized Pot Forever
Madison Square Park NYC Everyday High Noon
Footnote:
Tell the cops to stop harassing people who are asleep on the benches.
Tell them they are breaking the law by inventing them up.
Laws must go through legislative procedures and judicial procedures as well.
LoveAmericaStyle 2 years ago