High Deficits were the Objective of Right Economics

[lcromy]

ALL HAIL OBAMA!!!

[crawfordviolin]

I like his tax policy

[mikeoli]

Th Us has been in the grips of a small click of people who from the 1870's have owned the gov.t and came out of the closrt in the 1890'sand never went back in. There are no Republicans or Democrats there is only one party in control and it is a Communistic Socialistic movement which hides behind the different parties and moves it agenda a few clicks with each new person in power whether it F.D.R. or Reagen or Obama and fighting among yourselves is a waste of time and works against you

[Licmycat]

Demagogues are working on destroying this nation.

[SharkTheArdvark]

This is what happens when businesses run the government. We see this in developing nations and we are seeing the long term effects of this. We also see uprising on an unprecedented scale.

[4Greyhounds]

This "conversation" is a very good illustration of why we are so thoroughly screwed.. We have two basic factions pitted against one another, neither of which understands the problems, nor has a solution for it.

It is a shame that the web has such great potential to improve and disseminate knowledge, yet has become, so far, nothing but a wasteland of empty posturing and ignorance.

[niriop]

This is some good serious shit; well done TRN!

[QuatFax]

Okay, again, Bush DID NOT deregulate the economy! Regulation GREW under Bush!

[QuatFax]

I consider myself a Mutualist or free-market anti-capitalist. If government were to simply stay out of the economy, workers would be able to take control of the means of production on their own. Government intervention creates capitalism and hierarchy; a real free market would be defined by small businesses, cooperatives, and individual proprietorships.

[QuatFax]

Okay, Reagan did NOT deregulate. The cost of regulation on business went UP during Reagan. He also did not cut taxes (at least, not substantially). These are HUGE fallacies, and they're repeated fucking everywhere! Reaganomics DID NOT create free market conditions! He moved us FURTHER AWAY from the free market. Reaganomic America is to the free market what Stalinist Russia was to a workers' paradise.

[Renegen1]

@QuatFax How about you quit shouting here, no one is listening to you. You may believe whatever you want to believe about how trickle down economics didn't deregulate, didn't reduce taxes on the rich, didn't freeze inflation-adjusted wages for 30 years, that's your problem. Take it on Fox where someone will listen to you. Oh and keep hoping for that magical candidate that will fullfil your ignorant and deluded ideologies.

[QuatFax]

@Renegen1 Clearly you have no idea what my positions are. I am not a whining conservative or vulgar libertarian. I do not affiliate with Faux News or any other such right-wing shit pit. Nor do I hope for any "magical candidate;" I don't believe real change can be accomplished through the political system. I am a Mutualist, or free-market anti-capitalist. I am radically pro-union, I hate corporations and big business, and I want the workers to take control of production!

[QuatFax]

@Renegen1 How is that "my problem?" It's a fact; regulation INCREASED under Reagan.

And I never said he didn't cut taxes on the rich; I said he didn't cut taxes overall. The tax base was certainly made more regressive during the Reagan years, but the overall amount of taxes collected was about the same.

[Renegen1]

@QuatFax Reagan pretty clearly said that the problem was government, and wanted to deregulate business to be more competitive. I don't know what increased regulations you're referring to, under him both Wall Street and the S&Ls were deregulated, he appointed Greenspan who ideologically didn't believe in regulation even though the Fed and his job was responsible for a lot of the financial sector regulation.

And as the video shows, high deficits achieved their political goals, it was intentional.

[QuatFax]

@Renegen1 Reagan SAID that he opposed government intervention, but he expanded the power of government. Some regulations were loosened (such as those on banks and ocean shipping), but other regulations were strengthened (such as on car safety and fuel economy). Taxes were not significantly lowered, and spending increased. The Fed DID regulate finance heavily (it jacked up interest rates at the beginning of Reagan's presidency, causing a recession, which reduced inflation), (contd.)

[QuatFax]

@Renegen1 (contd.) Finally, Reagan engaged in massive protectionism; he placed more tariffs and quotas on foreign trade than any president since Herbert Hoover. On the whole, the Reagan administration MASSIVELY increased government intervention in the economy, regardless of the free-market rhetoric.

[QuatFax]

@Renegen1 I do agree generally with the video's points about high deficits. My point, however, is that those deficits were the results of spending, not tax cuts. It is disingenuous to refer to Reaganomics as "laissez-faire;" Reagan was the farthest thing from a defender of the market.

[cjlovick]

@QuatFax: Those deficits were the result of both tax cuts, and the failure to cut spending. If you cut the revenue, you have to cut spending to match. But people will not go for cutting social programs in a decent economy, so in order to give the cuts you want, and grow the defense, you run a deficit. It helps the republican agenda in two ways: It puts more money in the pockets of people, slanted toward the rich, and it runs a deficit that will cause us to decrease spending later.

[QuatFax]

@cjlovick See, but Reagan DIDN'T cut taxes (at least, not significantly). Taxes in 1989 were more or less the same as in 1981 (i.e.- about 25% of GNP). I agree that high deficits served Reagan's agenda, but those deficits were created by an increase in spending, not by a decrease in tax revenues.

[cjlovick]

@QuatFax: Yes, defense spending. But deficit spending was his plan. So the overall explanation is correct... Massive spending, with tax cuts caused it. And I believe it was all part of the plan. Figured this out in college.

[QuatFax]

@cjlovick Once again, there were no tax cuts under Reagan! Massive spending caused it; tax cuts did not happen.

[cjlovick]

@QuatFax: Look up Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 (Pub.L. 97-34). He did cut taxes bro.

[QuatFax]

@cjlovick Look up the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982, the Social Security tax increases of 1983, and the concept of "bracket creep." Reagan did not cut taxes on balance.

[cjlovick]

@QuatFax: Dude, everyone knows that he both cut taxes (mostly for the rich), and increased spending. The military grew tremendously under Reagan. I served in the Air Force under him. He did both. You cats keep trying to come up with theories that try to explain away this fact. It is what it is. He practically invented massive deficit spending.

[cjlovick]

@QuatFax: You cannot re-write history. It is what it is....

[cjlovick]

@QuatFax: Looked at it, and the others. Looks like he tried to make slight adjustments, so he wouldn't have an extremely ridiculous deficit, but none the less, his tax cuts still resulted in massive deficits, despite those adjustments.

Bottom line again: He both cut taxes and increased spending, just like the clip says.....

[cjlovick]

@QuatFax: Yes, you can call it a tax cut if the top 1% got the biggest cut, and the rest did not. What about that is hard to understand? Tax receipts increased by 49%? What math are you using? Based on FYs, tax receipts increased by about 35% during his two terms (mostly on the middle class) and spending increased by 65%. Result: Deficit. It is what it is.  It is simple math. Spending was almost double that of receipts collected. Taxes were cut--mostly for the rich!

[QuatFax]

@cjlovick Okay, so you admit that tax revenues overall increased? That's all I've been arguing this entire time: that taxes overall increased! I'm not questioning that taxes were cut for the rich (they absolutely were), I'm saying they weren't cut OVERALL! What part of this is so hard for you to understand?

[cjlovick]

@QuatFax, here is the summary of his tax cuts that benefitted the rich:

* top rate dropped from 70% to 50% (THE BIG ONE)

* phased-in increase in estate tax exemption from $175,625 to $600,000 in 1987

* reduced windfall profit taxes

* replaced $200 interest exclusion with 15% net interest exclusion ($900 cap) (1985)

[cjlovick]

@QuatFax: Also, go the the office of management and budget, and look at the raw numbers. You will see that revenue decreased and spending increased. The result of both tax cuts, and spending increases, and a combination of those cause the deficits, the largest we had seen at the time......

[QuatFax]

@cjlovick Alright, I went to the OMB website. According to their spreadsheet, federal tax revenues were $599 billion in 1981 and $991 billion in 1989. So according to your own source, between the year Reagan entered office and the year he left, federal tax revenue increased by 67%.

Next time you cite a source, you might want to actually read it first.

[cjlovick]

@QuatFax: OK, next time I think you need to use your head. Look at 1982. FY 1981 was already in full swing when that act was passed. So obviously it would not have been affected too much. Looking at the chart, it appears that taxes went up slightly (on the backs of the middle class mind you), and spending dramatically increased, beginning the trend of massive deficit spending. And every republican President followed suit. As a matter of fact, Reagan nearly doubled the spending.

[QuatFax]

@cjlovick I think you need to read the fucking chart. Tax revenues went up almost every year Reagan was in office. Overall, tax revenues increased by 67% as a result of Reagan's presidency. There's no question that Reagan raised taxes.

Yes, Reagan engaged in massive deficit spending, but that's a result of Reagan's massive spending, NOT of cutting taxes. Read the fucking chart!

[cjlovick]

@QuatFax: The main issue with Republicans is that they ran massive deficits when they did not have to. At least this president has a valid reason, i.e. trying to prevent a depression and a collapse of our economic/financial system. It is clear, that the reason they did so was to put pressure later on to make cuts in the size of government, and they always look to cut social programs. I figured this out back in college. Glad someone posted it.

[QuatFax]

@cjlovick No, the Republicans ran massive deficits because they wanted to spend money on their cronies. They didn't have any desire to cut the size of government; if they did, they would have eventually started to do so. They just wanted to rob as much from taxpayers as possible before the system collapsed.

[cjlovick]

@QuatFax: Why do you think that called them tax cuts for the rich? The rich benefitted the most, because their taxes went down the most. So the slight increase in revenue came mostly from the middle class.....

[QuatFax]

@cjlovick First, it wasn't a "slight" increase in revenues; it was 67%. Read the fucking charts, you idiot!

I don't disagree with you that Reagan was working to benefit the rich. He lowered taxes FOR THE RICH (but more than made up for it with taxes on the lower classes), and he shifted spending to things that benefit the rich. I don't disagree with you there. But he did not cut taxes overall; you need to get that through your thick head.

[QuatFax]

@cjlovick Fine, then we'll start at 1982. That's still a 60% increase by 1989 (i.e.- from 617 billion to 991).

Yes, I fucking understand that taxes were dramatically cut for the rich, but taxes overall increased! When are you going to get this through your thick head?!

[DirtbagEconomics]

@Iamfatbrain Does America even prosecute the white collar fraudsters behind this mess?!

[dffykvn]

@DirtbagEconomics No we don't because of libertarian free mareteer assholes like iamfatbrain

Their ayn rand utopia is more pie in the sky than a leninist utopia

[DirtbagEconomics]

@dffykvn EXACTLY. I have a staunchly libertarian buddy and he is constantly referencing golden ideals that have never and will never exist. I mentioned this too him a while back and he hasn;t spoken on politics or economics with me since. lol. Which is sad. He drove me crazy with his constant whining about libertaria and made me research facts to back up and solidify my positions on both politics and religion. Best thing libertarianism ever did in my life. lol

[dffykvn]

@DirtbagEconomics I have free marketeer friends...I have republican friends...

They know damned well that there's an armistice when we hang out

It's one of those "do you really want to ruin a 14 year friendship to win a political argument?" situations XD

[DirtbagEconomics]

This is the stuff the libertarians and Tea Partiers just don't get. WAKE UP! THIS ISN'T A FOOTBALL GAME. QUIT CHEERIN FOR YOUR TEAM.

[navtel]

the last 4 presidents have been disasters, but mostly the last 2.. the next one will really have his or her work cut out for them. nothing will save the economy but the rich will be happy with their tax cuts and the off shore accounts.

[yourtreat2]

In a nutshell, the "Objective of Right Economics" from the time of Reagan onward has been to disposes the Middle and Lower classes of their wages for the purpose of funneling that money into the hands of a group of new powerful nulti-billionaires.that run the country and politicians. BTW. .Prof. Crotty DOES FORGET to mention the name "Obama", as he has also been a part of this by continuing 2 wars & not regulating banks, industry & insurance, & not forcing jobs to be brought back to the US.

[yourtreat2]

Pardon me... I jumped the gun... Prof. Crotty DOES discuss the 2 wars, and Clinton's radical globalization policies that furthered the destruction of the Middle Class and threw away hundreds of trillions of dollars.

My apologies and gratitude to Prof. Crotty. for having not forgotten these very important issues causing to huge overspending and vast unemployment.

[yourtreat2]

Prof. Crotty also omits any mention of the approval of 4 million new H-B1 Visa for Highly Qualified Workers specifically for the IT industry that was approved NOT JUST by the Right-Wing, but by TED KENNEDY, too! (this was off course subsequent to massive workforce reductions of US Citizens that were IT workers). Estimates at the time, given the supersaturated IT job market have proved to be true, i.e. that AT LEAST a decade would be required to absorb the unemployed IT workers. Nail in coffin.

[workwillfreeyou]

Thanks, I don’t care what G.D.P. bullshit numbers the liars in the government come up with. The manufacturing base has been destroyed. The U.S. can’t avoid total bankruptcy on class warfare and government spending. The U.S. government business model is to enslave every worker in the planet, rape the environment and then funnel all wealth to the top ½ of 1% of the world’s population.

[yourtreat2]

One other VERY MAJOR factor that Prof. Crott omits is the spending by Reagan, GWB, and Obama, on the military industrial complex in the US. i.e. bombs, weapons, planes, boats, Starwars, AND the prosecution of 2 wars that have gone on for ten years, not to mention the Gulf 1 war. And the military expenditures of our other colonial ventures around the world, as well as, keeping bases and troops in the EU. These are NOT TRIVIAL expenditures that caused deficits. These are PRIMARY HISTORICAL FACTS.

[yourtreat2]

Prof. Crotty is saying EVERYTHING I have been posting and telling people, EXCEPT, he omitted a VERY major player that led to the current economic burn out in the US and destruction of the lower and Middle classes. Namely, Clinton ramped up globalization to the Nth degree (like Reagan). NAFTA destroyed a large segment of the Lower class & our infrastructure, while Clinton's pushing globalization of high paying jobs to cheap labor destroyed the Middle class. Clinton pushed Globalization too far.

[freddietz96]

The greatest psy-op of the Federal Reserve backers was convincing the average lower-middle class sort of Reagan voter he has anything to gain, whatsoever, by increased deregulation, thereby conflating “Christianity” w/ “capitalism”. Listen to these small-business libertarians who are liable to go on welfare if someone steals their better toolbox talk up Austrian economics--they are giving the same arguments as Richard M. Scaife while living amongst subsidized apartments.

[geir44]

I agree with this guy.

[3LARI]

@geir44 he speaks the truth. He really hit the nail on the head. I mean the stats speak volumes. The rich get richer while the poor can fuck off... Disgraceful.

[kmarinas86]

@3LARI

"he speaks the truth. He really hit the nail on the head. I mean the stats speak volumes. The rich get richer while the poor can fuck off... Disgraceful."

This is true also for sectors. Even if people behaved like angels, simply having different rates of growth in different sectors which are persistent overtime (e.g. banking vs. retail) causes persistent divergence overtime. Divergence of income away from small business-level incomes (now 6 or 7 figures) reduces job-making potential.

[dffykvn]

When it comes to income inequality we're between uganda and the ivory coast

Americas number one...when it comes to the gap between the rich and poor

[tubetib]

Soon enough they are going to pass a law to make poor people officially illegal.

[BabylonsKing]

Simpson can SUCK MY DICK ....and if I ever see him on the Street I will Do him the favor of his life time....Wanna see the Devil Soon Simpsuck...

[Iamfatbrain]

@TRNN, please invite someone who takes the free market stance and let them describe the state of todays economy and why we got here how to solve the problem. Enough of this PERI nonsense.

[dffykvn]

@Iamfatbrain I'll make it short

Rising ceo pay and lower worker wages is just a natural market force, lifts all boats, blahblahblah, don't look at the man behind the curtain, and the free market certainly is not naked, it's wearing an amazing costume that only intelligent people can see, the free market never does anything wrong and there's ever any fraud...no...no...NO DON'T LOOK AT WALL STREET AND BANKSTERS NOOOOOOO!!! MEEEELLLLLLTTTINNNNNGG!!!

[Iamfatbrain]

@dffykvn What does rising CEO pay and lower wages have to do with free markets? Fraud is an argument against free markets? By that logic you can use it as an argument against crony capitalism too. Wall street is far from a free market. Government guarantees and cheap money (government/fed) is not free markets. It takes two to "Fraud", one could argue that without government guarantees people will be more careful, which would make them less prone to be defrauded.

[dffykvn]

@Iamfatbrain Wall street corruption is due to deregulation

The more regulations deregulationists removed the worse the financial scandals and frauds were committed

Ray gun began the deregulation and had the first major bank crime since the depression, the more regulations the deregulationists took away te more bankster profit soared and the more scams they committed

They were regulated less and less by fewer regulators until they were implicitly told by the right they were above the law

[Iamfatbrain]

@dffykvn what a bunch of nonsense. With that logic we'd have nothing but fraud and mayhem in times before government regulation. The ONLY PROBLEM with deregulation is if it leaves other crappy government "guarantees" exposed to be exploited. Like Glass-Steagall, when removed allowed banks to speculate/gamble with peoples money EVEN THO their deposits was guaranteed by the GOVERNMENT. I.E. Government shifting the risk to the tax-payers away from the bankers!

[dffykvn]

@Iamfatbrain -_- don't be an idiot

Glass steagal was removed for the sole purpose of letting banks commit fraud

They wanted to turn banks into casinos where only the board of execs won

Glass steagal was a barrier to that kind of insane greed

Glass steagal was put in place to protect people, it did a job until deregulationists poked holes in the protection of the people from fraud and when it was gone they acted surprised when the customers were hosed

The blame goes to the banks

[Iamfatbrain]

@dffykvn there are laws against fraud. So if the regulation was removed so that bankers could defraud people... Why aren't they in jail? Another success story of the state and its judicial branch. I was the one that brought up glass steagall and I even said why it was bad to remove it. But seems you missed that part.

[dffykvn]

@Iamfatbrain I would've agreed with you until you started bitching about the FDIC, I guess you didn't remember that part or didn't read about why I said it was necessary

And if you read anything that I wrote then you'd know that I'm talking about PREVENTING AND DETECTING fraud

When regulations are removed and regulation agencies budgets are lowered that makes prevention and detection harder. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure...literally

[Iamfatbrain]

@dffykvn the legislators have a hard time (and it's almost impossible) to write legislation that doesn't have unintended consequences and to reduce those unintended consequences they add more regulations... as an end game, regulatory mayhem. It's impossible to reduce risk with regulations. With deposit insurance banks don't care as much about the deposits because the tax-payers will bail them out if/when needed. Government shouldn't shield people from the obvious fact: The world is a scary place

[dffykvn]

@i They shield the first 100-150k last I checked

That was to keep banks from stealing peoples life savings

Your entire dogma ends up fucking the customers, there is never any call from you people to kneecap banks that commit fraud or calls from you idiots to try to detect the fraud before the world economy explodes, the only thing we hear are calls for less consumer protection laws to "make the market freeee!" who cares who gets hurt by the removal of those laws, the market needs freedom!

[Iamfatbrain]

@dffykvn (cont.) People (most of them) can take care of themselves. Of course it sounds nice with all this "I don't have to take care of myself" but when the shit hits the fan... Who to blame? The politicians who screwed ("helped") you over has since long left office and the current ones had "nothing" to do with it, and couldn't have seen it coming. Because no one could! See, that old chestnut, -"No one could have seen this in advance". Housing market, books were written years before... no avail

[dffykvn]

@Iam Yea, who could possibly blame the businessmen who fuck people over

I mean the businessmen robbing us blind are the real victims of government interference

The world is a scary place and if the government didn't protect people the banksters would have the freedom to make it scarier and REALLY fuck people up! Thats libertarian freedom baby!

Here's an oldie but a goodie from the car industry "We can't afford to put airbags in every car!" Gotta love the profit before people mentality

[dffykvn]

@Iamfatbrain Who needs airbags, we don't need no government telling us to put airbags in! We won't put airbags in our cars even if it saves peoples lives! Fend for yourself you parasitic lazy scum!

Who cares if people die! I can't afford to put those safety features in to keep customers alive! Fend for yourself you lazy government loving dog! You can't expect the government to protect you! Who was ever saved by an airbag mirite?

Now do you see why I hate you people?

[Iamfatbrain]

@dffykvn there's both a seller and a buyer in all transactions. You talk about the seller as if he dictates what the buyer must accept. You also make it sounds like the politicians care more about my life and safety than myself. Third party issues is a completely different story. Airbag-wise, I can make that decision myself. Maybe an airbag isn't that expensive, but if it was, I could have good reason not to have it installed at the passenger side, or no seat belts in the back of the car.

[dffykvn]

@Iamfatbrain Wow

They wouldn't do certain things if they weren't forced to

And yes the government telling them to do it saves people

I know people who whine and whinge about government regulations who got into car accidents but never seem to bitch about the airbag regulations

I guess it's just big government being evil when your ass isn't the one being saved

I call you an asshole because you don't care whether or not the people affected by your policies die from them

[Iamfatbrain]

@dffykvn more nonsense. Are there no shades of gray in your world? At what point does it become bad for government to dictate what safety features companies must install to minimize loss of life? How much is a human life worth? How much extra would you have to pay in order to get a car that minimized the death toll by 50%? It's the consumer that will have to pay for the extra protection added to the car. I'd pay for certain safety features, not because of regulations, but because I <3 life.

[Iamfatbrain]

@dffykvn (cont.) throughout this rant you've shown to have this false dichotomy that opposing policy/regulation equals not caring whether people live or die. Which isn't the case at all. I think there's better ways to help each other than using the force of the state to dictate what's good / bad.

[dffykvn]

@Iamfatbrain "Are there no shades of grey?"

Of course there are and I said as much when I told you how I didn't like pro corporate anti competition regulation

You're the one who doesn't see grey, if they weren't forced to put airbags in all of the cars people would've bought the misinformation that they were unneccessary, then the people saved by them would have died because the majority would think they didn't need it. I know a lot of people that didn't care until they got into accidents

[dffykvn]

@Iamfatbrai The people that didn't care didn't care because they thought they'd never need it, if the big mean and nasty federal government didn't use its horrible oppressive overpoweringly evil force to force airbags into cars against the poor oppressed car companies will then 3 maybe 4 of my friends would have died

They would have died and their passengers would have died. That big mean federal government oppressing those poor costcutters and saving peoples lives, damn big brother to hell!

[TheHerpaderpderp]

@Iamfatbrain Stupid fucking faggot. That is all there is to say to troll dumbfucks like you.

[Ex0dus111]

@Iamfatbrain There is no other way. Its THAT simple. Democractic control is the peoples ONLY tool.

The market wont help the people, thats been proven a million times, VOTING is the only form of power voters have, not consumption.

[BOZ11]

@Ex0dus111 Voting on the issues themselves will solve everything, not voting on political candidates

[Ex0dus111]

@BOZ11 u think the corporatists cant run circles around regular folks with ads when it comes to understanding the minutea and intricasies of legislative jargon?

"Voting FOR a reduction in capitol gains to any limited liability company that profits within the limits of innercity zoning, with the excpetion of areas specifically mandated for port business, is a GOOD THING!!"

Nobody gets that, thats why we vote in elected representatives, u dont like what they are doing, run for office.

[BOZ11]

@Ex0dus111 I'd argue that the tax code is more complicated than it needs to be and the cost associated is two fold: the additional administrative/logistical cost of maintaining and sometimes growing this monstrosity, and the increased potential for loop holes (which comes from over-complication) that will (when found) reduce tax revenues. In a direct democracy the public wouldn't sanction such wasteful methods in the first place.

[Ex0dus111]

@BOZ11 That is certainly not an invalid argument. But u cannot dumb down all political proccess, and even if u do the talking heads on television can spin anything in any political direction they are told to.

Thats the IDEA behind electoral representation, we elect ppl who should know better, and so far direct democracy wouldnt work any better.

[BOZ11]

@Ex0dus111 "But u cannot dumb down all political proccess" - I call for succinctness, not a dumbing down. Not the same thing. "even if u do the talking heads on television can spin anything" aka, can't win don't try? I don't subscribe. "we elect ppl who should know better" - They don't. "direct democracy wouldnt work any better." - This is unfounded, and especially dubious given the abysmal record of representative "democracy"

[Iamfatbrain]

@Ex0dus111 stop trolling.

[Ex0dus111]

@Iamfatbrain lol

[dffykvn]

@Iamfatbrain Part 2:

You can't talk about how horrible customer protection regulations are then act surprised when customers get fucked over the second the protections get removed

Well golly gee willikers, I didn't know the middle class would be scammed by wall street if all the laws protecting them were either stripped, made toothless or weren't enforced, who could've seen THAT coming? (Hint, Starts wth an F, ends with an R and has a D in between)

[dffykvn]

@Iamfatbrain Part 3: Don't bitch about the FDIC, the fdic was created to keep families from losing their life savings to unscrupulous banks

Just because you weren't alive to see it happen doesn't mean it never happened

One regulation some people hate are the blue sky laws, believe it or not there were people scamming investors in blue sky deals, those laws exist to protect people from the predators

[dffykvn]

@Iamfatbrain Part 4: Banks were heavily regulated to keep them from being predators that'd fuck over "the little guy"

The banks knew they could make a fortune by scamming people, so they got lobbiests to convince gullible retards like you that removing laws that protected you from predatory lending, financial scams, bad bookkeeping etc was in your best interest

Then they tell you it's governments fault that you were preyed upon and the bankers that fucked you over were victims too

[dffykvn]

Part 5: so they trick you idiots into saying the government screwed you over and the only way to fix it is to remove ALL consumer protections to usher in some ridiculous ayn rand utopia (ie HellonEarth)

Lo and behold the only regulations that get removed are roadblocks that keep them from looting everyone into bankruptcy Then to speed the process up they get you idiots to march against the speed bumps that slow down the looting

Then they tell you the people who want protection are commies

[Iamfatbrain]

@dffykvn ... end-of-conversation! Instead of talking about specific points (preferably points brought up in previous replies) you continue with ranting-assumption bender, at least you manage to toss in some name calling. You are pro!

[dffykvn]

@Iamfatbrain Thank you, I knew you were an idiot that needed things spelled out in detail

Libertarian: I am shocked that banks committed fraud when financial regulatory agencies had budgets slashed and regulations removed! I am shocked at the food poisonings when inspectors were defunded and told not to check the places that would later send out the tainted food

You could only top it by pretending to be surprised that people got eaten when starving sharks were thrown into a public pool

[maxtubatube]

Thanks Jay. Keep up the good work. :)

[RedGaribaldi]

Thanks again TRNN.

[4fear4hunger4pride]

americas is run by people who are either

1. conspiring to rob poor people. or

2. stupid.

you be the judge :)

[lordblazer]

@4fear4hunger4pride

i do not see the point in robbing poor ppl so I will o with they are stupid

[dffykvn]

@lordblazer Simple, you rob the poor, make them more miserable until they're willing to work as wage slaves for the rest of their lives

20 cents an hour, 18 hrs of work a day and 6 hours of sleep on the factory floor? Yes I can do that mastah!

[NoCommentChick]

god I love Paul Jay...

[bitphr3ak]

@Kooshkoff - Unless you are into psychedelics!

[NoCommentChick]

@bitphr3ak PROTIP:Psychedlic means mind expanding, i.e. this show. Take the hippie punching somewhere else i.e South Park.

[bitphr3ak]

@NoCommentChick - LOL, seriously?!?! PROTIP FAIL

I was referring to the comment about dude's crazy shirt; my comment had nothing to do with the quality of this 'show' (which I happen to like), or hippie punching! Your comment is way out of context here.

**Please insert another coin to continue**

[underoathuea]

I wish this channel wasn't quite so biased, other than that its really good.

[lisento]

@underoathuea I've seen a couple of their news pieces swing the other direction. Regardless of what's reported on I don't believe either side of the government, be it liberal, democrat - or the third, corporate - is working in the best interests of the general population.

[3LARI]

@underoathuea What is biased about the truth? It's evident to anyone with a functioning mind that right wing policies have led to vast inequality and insecurity. What he says at the end of the video is very poignant as that is exactly the result: Sick people dying, children starving and old people getting cold in the winter. To ignore this downright callousness is criminal.

When sick people are dying in a rich country for lack of a shiny piece of paper; that, my friend, is a sick society.

[2leet2cheet]

@3LARI

The US got rich from people working hard, saving money, and being inventive. The US DID NOT get rich from people living off the savings of others.

A sick society is one where people do not understand the value of hard work and savings. A sick society is one were you rob the savings of savers to redistribute to whom ever gov. deems "needy"

Keep in mind life isnt a fucking fairy tale. Save money and work hard...Help your family and your friends, dont count on the gov. to baby sit.

[BroAdsoTube]

@2leet2cheet The United States got rich by being the only major nation left standing after a half century of war crushed the rest of the world, and by using that power to extract wealth from the rest of the world, period.

American people got rich because their society provided them productive avenues in which work could benefit them and not degrade social relations, or even build opportunities for the next generation.

Neither of those two things is true anymore. So we may not stay so rich,

[2leet2cheet]

@BroAdsoTube Cynical spin on the US providing production for the rest of the world...

[frepi]

@2leet2cheet

Did you copied that from "Mein Kampf" ? Just replacing US by Reichland would make your comment perfect for Hitler's book.

[2leet2cheet]

@frepi LOOOOOL....your straight retarded..Hitler made promises that he would look after everyone..Something I just said we shouldn't expect.

[frepi]

@2leet2cheet

Everyone except Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, people with mental or physical disabilities, communists and about anyone who didn't agree with him.

[2leet2cheet]

@frepi Obviously BEFORE he was in control.....Afterward things went down hill...We can say the same thing about Obama.

[frepi]

@2leet2cheet

Wow....I am speechless....I suggest you read a few history books on the Third Reich and search the web on the causes for the economic breakdown...

PS: Glenn Beck is not a reliable source of information.

[2leet2cheet]

@frepi .....Hitler didnt come out and say he was going to fucking kill millions of people in his campaign speeches(obviously you think he did)...I would argue that the anti-Jew sentiment started largely during the early 20's(hyper inflation). Allowing Hitler to gain popularity but hey Im sure you think the Gov. did a stand up job of saving all the sick and old people in Germany during the government created hyper inflation.

[frepi]

@2leet2cheet

In Mein Kampf, Hitler had written:

"If at the beginning of, or during, the war 12,000 or 15,000 of these Jewish corrupters of the people had been plunged into an asphyxiating gas...the sacrifice of millions of soldiers would not have been in vain."

[frepi]

Already in 1924/25 Hitler wrote "if there is no more power to fight for the own health, the right to live comes to an end." (Hitler, Adolf. Mein Kampf, p.282) The benefit of eliminating approximately 70,000 handicapped persons was mentioned by Hitler on the NSDAP party conference in 1929.

I guess I am not the retarded one...

[2leet2cheet]

@frepi I have no idea the context that quote was taken from...No doubt he needed a common enemy to blame and rally the people around. Ive already mentioned the anti-jewish sentiment due the the government hyper inflation. Hilter couldnt really come out and say it was the Governments fault, so he blamed the Jews/shop owners and people receiving help from the government. Its the same way the US gov. refuses to take any blame for the housing bust and blames the greedy bankers.

[frepi]

@2leet2cheet

So by your explaination of the source of wealth in the US, then the US has been working really hard until Reagan took power and the social safety network started to shrink.It is with Reagan that the deficit started to grow and the US wealth started to shrink. So the thru 50s, 60s and 70s, the years during which the social net was the strongest, the US was the wealthiest and the society was working thew hardest.

[2leet2cheet]

@frepi My explanation of wealth includes SAVING MONEY....Reagan ended bretton woods, KILLING the saving of the american people. The deficit increased due to LARGER gov spending, its pretty simple. Regardless of whether the Social Safety Net was larger or smaller doesnt matter. Keep in mind when I said "needy" who said that could not include the military?

FYI...Your post pretty jumbled up and cant really tell what argument your even trying to make at this point..LOOOL

[atosafi1]

@2leet2cheet

The US become rich for a number of reasons

1. Slavery, which pretty much ment free labour and no costs

2. After WW2 there was no competition so America became the nr 1 in the market and exported to everyone

3. Sucking other countries dry of their resources practically for free through support of dictatorships, banana republics etc.

[dffykvn]

@2leet2chee The USA got rich from the hard work of others

It raped countries of their natural resources with dictators we installed, bananna republics formed at our corporate overlords behest and civil wars our cia incited

We've used slaves, murder and cut the competitions throats to get to the top

Hard work for the muck on the bottom? Yes, but it's easy for the elites who can get all of the cheap input materials they want by paying the govt to murder people in other counries to get em

[3LARI]

@2leet2cheet This "work hard and don't scrounge on the savings of others" tripe is constantly parroted by the Republicans and their slack-jawed followers, but it's a facile argument. The policies of Reagan et al did remove the roof and allowed people to achieve a lot and that is a good thing, but they also removed the floor. People who fall on hard times through no fault of their own are being literally throw out onto the streets with no help. This generates fear of losing your job...

[3LARI]

@2leet2cheet ... and suffering the same fate. This means people are less willing to take risks and start new enterprises. This has been proven. In countries with a strong social welfare sector such as Sweden, people can take chances on businesses without a gun being put to their head and the heads of their families. If the worst happens, they can be sure that there is a safety net so that their families won't starve or die of curable health issues...

[3LARI]

@2leet2cheet ... It's not about "scrounging", it's about creating a nurturing environment in which people can feel secure and prosper, which should be any government's goal.

Ironically, this is just the attitude taken by big corporations such as Google. As everyone knows, their employees get almost half their time to just do what they want, without the fear of failure and this enriches Google through Google Maps etc.

Why not take the same attitude with a country? Nurture and reap the rewards.

[underoathuea]

@3LARI I agree with you, but a News network can't just spout socialist propaganda (i.e chomsky). I'm not saying this isn't true (however if protectionist policies, or a model of neo-Mercantilism offer a one size fits all macro economic paradigm, there wouldn't be this pendulum effect, and there are instance where de-regulation has produced benefits) but you have to inform people of the other side of the argument. The RNN will hold no credibillity unless this happens. Again, I AGREE WITH YOU.

[dffykvn]

@underoathuea Benefits from deregulation only happen when the regulation is an anti competative regulation put in place by entrenched business interests

Consumer protection and environmental protection regs put in place to keep the financial and environmental equivalent of murder labelled as murder are necessary regulations that do produce benefits when removed, temporary benefits that mostly benefit the top, sometimes the middle, but usher in new eras of fraud and corruption

[3LARI]

@underoathuea Jeez CAPS LOCK!? I didn't come across as a crazy socialist did I? :)

No I see your point, I do hate it too when people go too far the other way and sound just as bad as a Socialist Tea Party themselves. Just because de-reg is encouraged by the Republicans doesn't mean it's all bad, just the extent to which it's been implemented. I mean a little sugar is good, but eat a bag a day and you'll soon be in trouble!

Also, personally, I don't think it's fair to say RNN is biased...

[LouieArrighi]

bring back protectionist policies which we've had since the inception of this country up until NAFTA and free trade/ free market.

[LouieArrighi]

bring back protectionist policies which we've had since the inception of this country up until the 1990's.

[3LARI]

Great work guys, really love the channel, but could I suggest that you perhaps name your videos systematically with the same name and different parts as sometimes it's hard to find the next video in the same discussion.

Otherwise keep up the great work guys! We need people like you, perhaps now more than ever.