when voting one must choose between huge spending, tax the hell out of you, give tons of money to people who want to work democrats and rich snobs who only want to give money to the rich, tax cuts to buisnesses, export jobs to china and invade other countrys and spend trillions republicans. aint life grand?
So let me get this right. Take money from the those who can afford to hire people. in others words. Take the money from the employer that is needed to hire people willing to work, and give it to the government so it can give it to those that don't want to work? You say that's how jobs are created. This talk show can't be serious. I mean really. Are you that stupid?
I agree with Pelosi and Reid!! Americans need to be taxed more, heck we are only giving %26... I think an across the board %60 tax should be imposed on all tax payers. That way more and more of the lazy bums can have what the working folks have. A very good idea, and one that is sustainable, until the next Revolution.
If one person who makes a billion dollars a year were to give 1/1,000th. of their income to say 20 families, those twenty families would have $50,000 to live on. That could relieve a lot of suffering in just one year.
Your certifiable facts are phoney. You see, the rich are going to have their taxes protected always--cause they can hire the attorneys to figure out how to hide them. They will just put their money in hidden assets. Let everyone have a tax break so that those who have money stop hiding it but do their "entreprenuerial thing" and hire more people. Geitner is a crook--if we we failed to pay all our taxes like he did we would be in jail--he, instead, was given a seat at the head table.
@jed3dpro Correct but only half way. The IRS only requires people to report personal income up to $250,000. This regulation hasn't changed since it was imposed. So if you make say $300K a year you wouldn't necessarily need to report 50K of it. This was put in place back when computers weren't able to process the large numbers that they do today do to memory constraints. I would say it would be a nice time to update the computer's and protocols at the IRS. Force reporting on income over $250K.
Who gives a fuck what these spic niggers got to say. Why is this shit a featured video. This wetback needs to stop pretending he is on tv so I can get my porch repaired ASAP NIGGAH
@roxorian He isn't Mexican retard. He is Turkish. Damn retarded rednecks. Can't tell a Mexican from a shit sandwich. How many turds do you eat? How full of shit are you?
@roxorian It is my right as an American Patriot to call you out on your stupidity. If you are going to be a racist at least know what racist term to use. For Cenk you could call him a sad Fallajel eater or Camel Jockey. Of course you don't get racist slang cause you are probably the dumbest redneck racist in the south. It is okay to be semi-racist it is unforgivable to be willfully retarded. Dumb fuck.
@NoogLeader Actually dumb fucks tend to assume everyone online comes from america.
....You know you also have the right to shut the fuck up at any time you please, you should try exercising that one occasionally. (patriot LOL, what a typical american faggot)
@NoogLeader makes no sense but ok. It's good to see that american patriotism still means babbling douchebag shit like anyone cares lol, what a retarded culture
@roxorian I am just saying you are a stupid racist. You can't even get your racist slurs right. You called Cenk A WETBACK. Wetback refers to mexicans. Cenk is Turkish. He is more like a Camel Jockey then a Wetback you retard. Stupid Asses like you don't get a damn thing.
@NoogLeader I'm no racist, just seize every opportunity to act like one. BTW Your poor attempt at feigning some kind of pseudo-intelligent humour like you know something I don't just makes you look like a twat. Just sayin', don't take it as gospel
i always thought its the rich people who create jobs. if they don't then who does? bums? you think the middle and lower class are the ones who hire the people to work.
You're trying to rationalize taking more of what people have earned through providing goods and services to others (the economy) by threat of force in order for a failed corrupt violent organization (federal government), that has already used the labor of future generations as collateral to foreign nations, to spread more war and gain more power over commerce and individuals... I don't think you can possibly rationalize that.
I'd hate to play devils advocate, but taxpayer money to rich people who earned their money compared to taxpayer money to corrupt people who didn't earn their money...well, correct me if I'm wrong here.
@Mortello Or the taxpayer money could go to the rich people who earned their money through lucky investments, reckless gambling, dealing with Nazis, etc. etc. It's not like every rich person earned every penny by slaving away in a field. It's luck, investments, and inheritance. Now who deserves that money? Those lucky rich or the starving crime addled poor?.....
Obviously letting people keep their own money caused the economic collapse. The government knows best what to do with my money, like giving away billions to Goldman Sachs and hiring four different census workers to come to my house and ask me the same questions multiple times. I'd probably just waste my money on buying junk that I don't need or going out to dinner or something.
It's not your money idiot. The money you get is what other people allow you to keep. Plus the fact that you were not born with a disability or became disabled through no fault of your own. But in fact besides this if you don't make more than a quarter million dollars a year nobody is going to take more taxes from you. Do you love rich people so much that you don't want to make them pay the same rate they paid before the stupid, unpaid for tax cut they got?
@waltermh111 That is NOT a reason, that is what normal people call a correlation!
Correlation has nothing to do with causation! It's the same as to say: during the BEST economics time in USA most women did NOT have a job! Which is TRUE!
Is THAT a reason for the economy being on top of its game in US? No sane person would agree, yet it is a TRUE FACT.
So obviously by that logic all women must be fired immediately for the economy to improve. Great stuff.
@romanmir01 your right in that correlation doesnt always imply causation, but it doesnt mean that it never implies causation, and it does prove that more taxes does not hurt the economy which goes counter to conservative claims.
As for the idea that most women didnt have jobs, your going off mark because that does not counter any made arguments.
But then I already explained above why my point was relevent.
By your ending remarks you do fail at debate either way, calm down and be more rational
@romanmir01 You're absolutely wrong. Correlation always IMPLIES causation. It doesn't necessarily INDICATE causation and it never PROVES causation, but causation is always implied. Your attendance in logic class is suspect, but you definitely missed vocabulary class.
@romanmir01 Firstly, no one was using the word "implies" as a 'conditional connective'. Of course the word 'conditional' means that the connective is not self-evident. Correlation does not mean that if A is true, then B is true. Implication means that a possible relationship exists. This is why real scientists do correlative studies. If correlation didn't imply causation, no one would look further into the matter. But it does imply causation. And yes, we're all using English here.
@jumpoutatree I, ME, I said: correlation does not imply causation.
That's what it means in logic, you cannot state that because A and B happened simultaneously, A caused B. It's not logical in any sense, it is what normal people refer to as a coincidence.
Implication does not mean that a POSSIBLE relationship exists :)
You are again, CRACKING ME UP :) HA HA HA HA HA HA HA :)
Implication is a conditional connective, which is either true or not.
"Real Scientists" look at a phenomena hopefully without pre-judging it, by being impartial they are minimizing risk of mis-interpreting or in fact planting information.
Of-course in science any outcome is verifiable by other participant scientists, otherwise it's not science.
Correlation does not imply causation in any sense of the word.
Correlation may warrant additional study, but it does not imply anything.
As to the me going 'off mark' on the 'women argument',
I didn't have an argument on WOMEN, I had an argument that logically many unrelated things happen at the same time, and by looking at these things some fools can say: Unrelated thing A caused unrelated thing B, and they do so especially if it fits their narrative, they like the argument and so it must be true.
I am the most rational person when it comes to economics and logic.
@waltermh111 You are 100% WRONG. Investing and PRODUCING is what made America, the time when things were truly made in USA and exported and trade balance was positive and unemployment was low, not because people 'worked' for the government, but because people worked and produced things that were exported.
Value is in export, value to other countries who are trade partners is in export, dollar is just a piece of useless paper, which it is becoming more and more.
@romanmir01 All systems produce, but it takes people buying the stuff to make an economy grow, as producing but not selling causes problems, not solutions.
Also, whos talking about working for the gov?
You keep making irrlevent points.
We are talking about any jobs that give people money, private sector also.
I dont get what your talking about with value though.
@waltermh111 "people buying stuff to make economy grow" - no, that's a fallacy. Economy grows by producing.
Very good example is FOOD.
When everybody had to make their own food, grow their own food, hunt it, economy was concentrated around food, more than 90% of all people were making food.
Eventually it became possible for less than 5% of people to make ALL food! So your logic says: consumption improved economy.
The correct logic: by producing more food with fewer resources, economy grew.
@waltermh111 So when fewer than 5% of all people are involved in making all the food in the world, it allows 95% of people to concentrate on other things in life, which grew economy.
In fact it is Industrialization and Capitalism (hoarding, as you say, of resources and applying the hoarded resources to work force to solve a problem) allowed the food to be created by fewer than 5% of all people, which improved the quality of life of everybody more than any government regulation ever in history.
@romanmir01 You're committing a common fallacy by linking industrialization and technological advancement with capitalism. I understand that rationally you could argue a relationship, but if you look at the history of technology, you will see that it is unrelated to capitalism specifically, or any mode of economy in general.
@waltermh111 Working for gov't is absolutely relevant, because that is what Income Taxes are about: public sector jobs.
Government doesn't CREATE anything, it sucks value out of economy by taxing it and giving that money to the unproductive gov't workers.
So my argument is pertinent because it talks about what income taxes are used for. If your argument that reduction in income taxes causes economy to shrink/slow down, than you HAVE TO talk about government jobs.
@romanmir01 Government workers provide a service. It is irrelevant to point out that they don't "create anything". Some workers are better than others, but in the main they are about as productive as any private sector service employee, who by the way don't "create anything" either.
@jumpoutatree If you have a country that "doesn't create anything" but it still wants to get things created from other countries, then what are you going to give them in exchange?
That's the gist of the economic disaster. The US Dollar is not an item that can be eaten or even burned as fuel, it's useless if you only provide US Dollars, because dollars can be printed elsewhere and can be called yuan or euros or whatever.
Gov't workers are not a productive force that can give anything back.
@jumpoutatree as a 'service', the government is only marginally useful to the residents, to the people outside of US, the most of the 'government workers' they see is US military, and it's not a pretty image.
So make sure you understand, to get the capital (goods/credit) into the country you need to export THINGS that are USEFUL to other people, and government is not a force that can provide it.
The fact that so little of it is created in US privately only shows why the economy is dying.
@waltermh111 With all the income tax cuts, the only problem would have been loss of government jobs, but that DIDN'T happen even in 2008, which is because gov't prints/borrows money, so nobody felt any effect of reduction of taxes!
So Cenk saying: economy is going down even partially due to reduction in taxes is idiotic at best, and probably is just his propaganda bullshit.
Value is WORK, it's PRODUCTION, USA is NOT exporting work anymore! It's only exporting cash, which has no actual value.
@waltermh111 Value is what is created when people work and produce things that are NEEDED by other people.
So if one country produces all of the value by creating things people want, and another country does not produce anything of value that is exported, then what is the reason for the working country to give anything to to the non-working country? Paper?
That's ridiculous, that's the subsidy, that's why credit is going to disappear.
The more I am talking to you, the more I think you are 9.
@waltermh111 as to rich 'hoarding money' HA HA, you honestly believe value and economy is about pieces of paper?
Money means nothing. Economics is NOT about cash. It is about production. If economics was about cash, US government actually would be avoid any problem simply by printing a bazillion dollars!
It IS printing a gazillion damnzillion dollars. Good luck doing anything positive by printing cash. Cash in itself is only representative of wealth, wealth IS SAVING and INVESTING and CREATING
@romanmir01 why do you keep going on about paper?
Conservatives and libertarians always complain about too much credit being created out of nothing in our corrupt federal reserve system, but even with that, credit is limited. If so much is tied up in a few people, yes,it does limit what goes to the rest
As for production, again, you need people to buy production, which means people need money
You give money they buy something, you produce but dont give people money, you have worthless product
@waltermh111 I "keep going on about paper" because of a stupid argument of 'hoarding paper'. Why is that a mystery? People Invest what they do not spend.
Do you understand that what is not spent is invested? If you don't give yourself a huge salary, but instead leave money in a company you can then use that to produce more. This is called investing.
Howard Dean is a moron for saying "oh, rich save and invest, who needs that?! We need people to spend more!"
They have to produce something. They "buy something" with paper, that in itself is a useless transaction.
Economy is about people exchanging WORK not half of the people producing stuff and half of the people getting paper from some government and producing nothing while taking STUFF from people who produced it.
Economy is dying because USA wants to be that person, who takes paper from government and exchanges it for STUFF others make at work.
@waltermh111 As if working is a blessing as long as some American prints paper and gives it to the worker.
Eventually the workers who produce stuff will stop exchanging the stuff they produced for that silly paper and will start exchanging stuff among each other, and that will be the end to US credit, nobody needs US Dollar to exchange goods outside of US. The reserve currency status can only get you so far, but at some point people will not want that currency, USA is running out of credit
@waltermh111 In fact what I provided as an example is so perfect in having exactly the same weight as Cenk's idea of cause of this problem, it is also true for the same reason.
During the best economic times in the USA, the stuff was produced in the USA and the rich had no choice but to pay taxes in the USA because that is where ALL the production was, they couldn't export production.
(little true fact is that of-course no sane person was paying 90% tax, that's what dividends are for!)
@waltermh111 But rich had higher personal income tax percentage for the same reason much fewer women were working.
Because USA was producing so much and selling to other countries so well, it was possible to tax people higher and it was possible for women to stay home and one man could provide for the family.
If given a choice not to work and enjoy life, I suspect much more people would, what's the fun in working, very few jobs provide moral satisfaction and fewer yet pay decently nowadays.
@romanmir01 i dont even get what this part of your rant is about, your point was?
Yes, we produced alot of product, and way back then the divide between the rich and the poor was much much lower on average, workers expected and generally kept their job for life as long as it was done right, and it seemed people mattered.
But then company rights started getting preference over worker rights and we all became screwed.
Also, are you agreeing that regulation tp keep business in US is best?
@waltermh111 My 'rant' is about Cenk giving out economic opinions as if they are a fact.
Fact: economy is about production, not consumption. Simple example: iPhones, iPods, iPads were produced first and then they became a hot consumption item.
You don't need consumption to come first, you need to produce for economy to work.
I don't agree with gov't 'regulating' economy at all. In fact gov't regulation is what created monopolies that off-shored production once USSR disappeared.
You are also providing another 'argument' for economy failing, companies getting preference over workers :)
But it's partially true, but the actual truth is that government became so entrenched in economy that it became very profitable to corrupt the government to get competitive advantage.
So instead of competition between firms, now government was helping one company to compete against another. That's the actual reason for 'too big to succeed' to appear and to screw up.
@waltermh111 In fact Europe is INVESTING MORE, at least Germany is, and they DO save more, and they are in good shape compared to most European countries, but also compared to the US. Of-course Asia beats them, and in Asia people spend less than in Germany still and invest more.
The entire economy is about production, any idiot can consume (proof by example is the USA today)
You have to produce to be able to consume without being subsidized and nobody is subsidized forever.
Guess what. I'd rather give tax cuts to the rich than to suffer from tax INCREASES by Obama for people like me, who busts thier ass everyday, trying to make a buck to stay above water.
@romanmir01 The reason for economic collapse is massive loss of production. A "consumption" economy idea pushed by the government for the past 40 years is STUPID, there is no such thing as consumption based economy. There is only production and CREDIT economy, so US lived on credit for a while, but eventually credit must be paid for, and we are NOT talking about greenbacks here.
Credit must be paid with value, which is in production and positive trade balance - exporting goods people need.
@romanmir01 Correction: He did not say that BECAUSE and ONLY BECAUSE of tax cuts did we have an economic collapse. He said that that was ONE of the reasons why.
When one says something, he has to be able to support that argument, in this case it is a complete fabrication. Again, no government spending was cut, that's one.
Secondly, government spending does not make economy. Even if ALL gov't spending is cut an economy will not collapse if there is an economy.
@romanmir01 He didn't say it here, but he's said it in other videos. He provides legitimate and sufficient reasoning whenever he puts forward an argument. This, however, was not an "argument", it was his opinion.. which he's also provided reasoning for before many times.
I'm not defending him, but I guess he didn't think people would bash him over something as meager as this. Hence, he's not a liar or an idiot as you proclaimed.
Bullshit. Boehner said this when asked what the Republicans would do if they won a majority after the election. In fact they either have no plan or they won't say what it is. In fact we just saw during Bush's term what their plan is. They are just sorry that the election prevented them from totally wrecking the economy.
@defyingcredentials Yes, he is EITHER an ignoramus about economics, or he is a LIAR, because he states so often that he follows logic.
You can't say: I follow logic and then give strong 'opinion' that is based on nothing, no logic at all, that is actually counter-logical.
So is he an ignoramus or is he a liar? Actually I believe in economics he is more of an ignoramus, but because he didn't provide any logical arguments (correlation is not a logical argument for causation) so he's a liar too
@defyingcredentials He has no reasoning but saying: Thing A happened and thing B happened at the same time, so thing B must cause thing A because I say so.
That has nothing to do with either logic or fact.
As I said here already, you can use this 'logic' to give most idiotic statements, like: during the best years of US economy, most women were unemployed, thus women working caused economy to collapse. So fire all women and economy will improve.
@defyingcredentials So it's not legitimate or sufficient, thus I am correct, he is an ignoramus or a liar, I think in this case it's both. Ignoramus, because he doesn't even understand how stupid he sounds giving stupid reasons like that, liar, because he said a billion times he follows logic. Well this is absolutely illogical.
@romanmir01 Dude, just 'cause someone doesn't have the same opinion as you doesn't mean they're ignoramus or don't follow logic. What's logical to you and what's logical to them may be wholly different things. Man, you just love controversy all the while HATE being even a slight bit disproved, just like a kid lol. Calm down, no need to write an essay and whine over a man who didn't elaborate on a talking point enough for you.
@defyingcredentials Opinion is fine, when you position yourself as a logical person you better be able to back your opinions up with at least something, and here all I see is 'rich are getting richer, poor are getting poorer'. OK, I can understand your ideology, you hate that rich are not getting poorer, fine. But don't take that ideology and use it to provide an argument that is completely illogical.
There is no such thing as something logical to one person but not logical to another. Either it is logical or not, period.
Talking points is a whole other thing from logic, it's a soundbite, something that does not prove anything but is repeated over and over with no backing. I can understand talking point, but again, if you pride yourself on being logical while only using soundbites, then you are a hypocrite.
Also, please, I beg you, disprove my argument, I'd love that.
@romanmir01 Lmao, you're hilarious. Calm down. Just 'cause someone didn't elaborate enough for you or isn't 'perfect' by your standards, doesn't mean you should write an essay to someone who thinks he is on their part. Believe me, I would disprove you, but you pick on the SMALLEST and most insignificant details. It's like explaining to a child why the sky is blue, water is see-though, etc. Again, I didn't say I agreed with Cenk, but what you over-exaggerate on small talking points and I..
@defyingcredentials I can write whatever I want, or are you paying to Google more than I am for the privilege to post on youtube? Google, you know, a big terrible corporation that needs government to be useful in the marketplace.
You don't have to join a discussion, but if you decide to do so, go ahead, 'disprove me', don't threaten to do something, do it.
Also it is a very relevant idea, because it exposes the bankrupt ideology that economics depends on gov't spending and income taxes.
@romanmir01 simply corrected you. Don't get all heart-broken over that sweetheart. Trust me, it'll be alright lol. Don't stress over it, bud. Goodnight.
@defyingcredentials Honey, it's morning time where I am. Also until you come good on your claim to 'disprove' my argument, I won't trust you, I just don't have a reason.
at 1:32 Cenk again does his sound bite, talking point, saying tax cuts are to blame (even if partially) for the economic collapse.
Shows what he "knows" about economics.
In a working economy, you should be able to cut income taxes imposed by gov't used to pay for various GOV'T spending to nothing, to 0%, and an economy that works will CONTINUE working.
However this didn't even happen here, no matter how much was cut, the gov't printed/borrowed more, nobody lost their job due to tax cuts.
@romanmir01 The gov't kept paying for all of their expenses through even 2008, in fact the spending went UP, that's what TARP and bailouts and wars lead to - more spending than ever.
Now why would ANYBODY in their right mind want to give government ANY of their money so that it could be spent on WARS and BAILOUTS and TARP etc?
That's just stupid. However accept the truth: in the US nobody felt the results of any income tax cuts YET. The DEBT, that's growing.
And the truth is, hardcore rednecks know that the rich republicans are controlling theme but they don't care because they THINK they might get rich some day like them. HAH! ... Jokes on them. 95% of us have to live and work in the real world while those fuckers just sit on top of a fucking mountain of money gaining free paper in a sky scraper. And they don't want competition.
Obama can keep Geithner and get rid of Larry Summers. Can't stand Summers, he's a sexist pig! He can also stand to lose that war mongering bitch, Clinton and Robert Gates.
What makes you think that Clinton is any more of a war-monger than Obama? Obama seems to be following the same strategy that he outlined during his campaign, which was an even more aggressive strategy than McCain's.
@bonfirejovi You know I voted for Obama and I was one of th BIGGEST supporters of Obama, but when you start realizing its all about the bloodline, Obama Bush Chaney Celine Dion Madonna Count Dracula and I could go on & on r 1 big happy bloodline. Then difference is Obama has a lil negro in him let me say this I'm black. When I say COUNT DRACULA I'm talking about the REAL COUNT DRACULA!~ They try to make it seem like a joke that shit is real! I know I sound crazy but thats ok. Truth always does.
@jumpoutatree Ask your cock eating mom I'm sure she knows. I bet you probably apart of that shit. You like to make ppl look crazy because they know about the blood drinking you rediculous nasty sons of bitches drink. You fucking psychopath! The fuck outta my face!
It's like the dems want to give power back to the republicans because the left's base isn't a bunch of moronic lap dogs and the dems were counting n us being that way because they don't want to do what WE want because they have rich friends also.....
It's like the dems say to the repubs "Listen take the power back so we can pretend we agree with our base. For YOUR base 2 b satisfied since they will agree with anything you say, and the country will be at ease and we will continue to rob from it"
Only a DUMBASS wouldnt' understand and KNOW that 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB, AND OBAMA KNOWS IT! IF IT WASN'T WHY DID OBAMA STAND UP THE FIRST PLACE? WHEN HE STOOD UP ABOUT IT, ALL ATTENTION WAS ON HIM. When the elite seen that, they knew it was time to induct him into presidency to finish their jobs. WOW ppl are so sucked into the hype!LOL
The thing is this, I do a lot of researching on my own, so I can do what Cenk do on a daily, and come to this video and agree and also to disagree. Thats because I am able to think for myself and I don't agree with everything Cenk says because I'm no ones follower. When some have valuable information thats a total different thing. I don't believe everything I hear, but when I see it, thats different. Alex is a SEESAYER, & Cenk is a HEARSAYER.
It depresses me when I see comments to videos that Cenk TOTALLY blows or was on the wrong side in that say, like, "WOW that person debating Cenk is DUMB"
It's like COME ON I thought TYT audience were more receptive, and intuitive than this
(The specific video that is actually in my mind while I type this is the interview in which he debated that lady about the military shootings and political correctness. It was so obvious that Cenk had a presumed what her argument was and was wrong)
I swear the reasons the GOP have for their arguments makes me wonder how old they really are deep inside...are they 16 or 5 years old trapped in old bodies?
Will the left ever stop pushin this Marxist class warfare narative and actually propose ideas to help America? The fact is tax cuts for small buisnesses will not cause any damage to the deficit, they are existing tax policies, what Obama and the radical left want is dramatic tax increases on every American, which any economist will tell you will strangle the economy in the middle of a recession. Tax cuts create jobs, shrink government, and lower the deficit, just look at Reganomics.
Obama wants to take the top bracket from 35% back to 39.6%, where it was under Clinton and during a time of unrivaled prosperity. Obama does not want to 'raise taxes dramatically for every American"... that is a lie. Furthermore there is no compelling evidence that Reagan's tax cuts created jobs, and given that the size of govt increased during Reagan, no evidence that tax cuts 'shrink govt'. The govt deficit also tripled during Reagan's terms. You are completely full of shit.
@jumpoutatree Yes because a 4% tax hike for the richest will bring overwhelming prosperity. The boom under clinton was a phony greenspan boom and would have ended in a big recession for the Tech bubble if greenspan hadn't stepped in. Greenspan is to blame for everything with his easy credit and low interest rates. If Clinton was president for the last 8 years the results would have been the same. The Fed should be the focus of this discussion.
I never said that a tax increase would bring prosperity, I only make the argument that such a correlation exists in order to point out the logical fallacy inherent in supply side theology (Reagan cut taxes, the economy grew after, so therefore it was Reagan's tax cuts that did it). A 4 point tax increase (on the top bracket only) will get us on the path toward significant deficit reduction, assuming that Obama takes a hard line on spending, which he may or may not, but that's another issue.
It's interesting that you bring up Greenspan. During the 90s, Greenspan was constantly pissing off Republicans by being too much of an 'inflation hawk'. Greenspan's tight money policies during Clinton were the subject of scorn by GOP pols (who probably wanted higher inflation because it would harm Clinton). As soon as the economy started to slide under a Republican president, they clamored for Greenspan to ease up, and he did. Now revionist conservatives blame him for 'easy money' policies.
That's the problem he is NOT full of sit he is FULL OF MISINFORMATION!!!
I know this type of person... it's a fat guy who was ALWAYS stupid but now that he has experience thinks he is NOT stupid anymore because he is starting to get mini revelations about life that normal people get at age 10 and he thinks this is what he's been missing and now he tries to be smart not realizing how dumb he really is...
See dumb people do NOT know that NOT paying attention to the opposing arguments is DUMB!!!!
WHAT??? ax cuts for SMALL businesses??? What are you talking about??? The tax cuts aren't for small businesses!!! Are you you being serious or are you doing satire?
Where in the world did you get that small business owners make over 250,000 a year? Most small businesses do NOT makes over 250,000 a year and there for do NOT and will CONTINUE to NOT benefit from the bush tax cuts...
The Bush administrations set the expiration date where it is SPECIFICALLY to AVOID LONG TERM ECONOMIC PROBLEMS!!!
@upplsuckimcool16 One day you liberals are going to tax the hardest working Americans so much they'll simply leave and then who will you blame for everything? The problem with leftist class warfare is you just keep punishing the people who succeed in order to support the lazy who refuse to work. It is a fundamentally unsound system and when you look at the Carter and Obama recessions, its pretty strong evidence that it will never work, so how about you act like a real American?
OH GOD you are the MODEL of someone who is SOOO grossly misinformed!
Obama has ALREADY CUT TAXES for the middle and lower middle class, and it's not a tax increase it's putting the taxes BACK to where they WERE and it's NOT EVEN Obama who wants to do it it's BUSH! BUSH SET THIS EXPIRATION DATE! or did you even know there WAS an expiration date... proly not. he set this date because the tremendous tax cuts he gave to the incredibly wealthy will eventually be bad for the economy, AS IT HAS!
@upplsuckimcool16 Bush was forced to set an expiration date because he was told that Congress would never pass his tax cuts in 2001 back when the Senate was 50/50. He consistently lobbied Congress to make his tax cuts permanent, which the Republicans never had the votes to do even when they were the majority, and the Democrats refused as a matter of principle. The effects of tax cuts are not well understood, but Bush's tax cuts and massive spending were likely the cause of the dollar falling.
Listen, ANOTHER THING is that UNDER REAGAN the tax rats were ABOVE 80% they are NOW down to 35% and the expiration of the Bush tax cuts will make it 39%
I now numbers must be hard for your brain to comprehend especially when coupled with WORDS but i want you to try for a second and think, but for the love of YOUR god don't hurt yourself!
@upplsuckimcool16 Taxes were not 80% under Reagan. In 1980 the rate paid by the top bracket was 70%. Reagan's first tax cut (Kemp-Roth) brought the top rate down to 50%, but also cut the rates for people in the lower brackets as well, which is probably what generated the economic growth during the 1980s. Reagan's next tax cut, sponsored by two Democrats, brought the top rate down further, to 28%. The only clear effect of these big tax cuts was the explosion of the national debt.
Cenk is a certified idiot, his far-left shithole views are wrong. His solution to the economic mess is to tax the rich, out of spite no other possible reason. His is a classic example of "cutting off ones nose to spite the face"
tax cuts are a highly effective tool used by good governments to stimulate economies and put people to work
poor people do not employ others, it's the rich that do that and they make ALL the investment decisions
Liberals do not want to tax the rich "for spite", although I know that Rush Limbaugh has been telling that fairy tale for 20 years now. Tax cuts may or may not spur econ growth, but one thing is glaringly obvious: tax cuts lead to budget deficits, which increase the natl debt. So-called "liberals" would love it if the govt learned to live within its means, but we are not prepared to stand by and watch supply-siders capsize the economy by indulging in their windmill-chasing.
@genie0390 Tax cuts to the rich did not help when Reagan was in power and it didn't help when Bush did it? If it helped the country people would not be against it.
well it's a matter of record that they did help create about 15 million jobs and put the economy into high gear.
only problem was that Reagan, by compromise agreement withe the Dems, did not implement the cuts until 3 yrs after his taking office. The Dems did not want to go into a midterm election having their supporters know they agreed to tax cuts
how would a senile old guy like you, living in the frozen waste land, know all that??
@genie0390 You're flat wrong. Federal revenue always increases, largely because the economy always grows despite tax rates, because of inflation and a rising labor population. If what you are saying was even remotely true, Reagan's massive tax cuts would have led to giant budget surpluses, and Clinton's tax increase would have led to record deficits. Unfortunately for 'faith-based' supply-siders, the inverse is true: Reagan cut taxes, tripled the debt. Clinton raised taxes, lowered the debt
tax policy has always been part of monetary tools of any government in the free world. We can't play with interest rates because they're already at the bottom, money supply is already at all time highs so tax cuts are the only remaining monetary tools
Obowma thinks he can stimulate business by government regulations, big deficits ,uncertainty and income redistribution. None of this shit works ever!
if such far-left shit did work, communism & socialism would be booming
It is the supply-sider who is blinded by ideology. Most progressives are the true fiscal conservatives. Supply-siders believe that tax cuts are magical. Against reason and evidence, they persist in the blind belief that tax cuts yield economic growth (they are unwilling to consider a host of other factors), and that tax cuts do not yield deficits, a fact which has been demonstrated conclusively. Supply-side 'economics' is a religion, and it will sink our country in the long run.
Ireland did tax cuts few yrs back and economy boomed! Reagan did that and caused a long period of growth and many jobs created. Clinton did some increases because the dot com boom was raging and he didn't need stimulus to growth. Actually he needed to cool down the economy!!
a very low tax rate created and sustained the tremendous power house economy of Hong Kong. Show me where high taxes created a similar dynamic economy
@genie0390 You're missing my point. I can't "show" you where high taxes created a great economy. My point is that you can't look at Hong Kong and tell me that a very low tax rate is entirely or even partly responsible for Hong Kong being a great place for rich people to shop and go on vacation. My point is that the movement of tax rates is, at least in our country, entirely unrelated to economic growth and contraction. At least, no causal relationship exists that you could prove.
only reason why our western democracies have progressive tax rates is simply because there are far more poor and middle income people than rich and politicians pander to that in the hope of buying votes
a small flat tax rate would boom our economy
I don't have to prove anything because I sat through enough graduate economics classes to know that tax rates are a very useful part of monetary tools Governments use to stimulate or contract economies, along with interest rates, $ su
@genie0390 If you actually had sat through "graduate economics classes" (lol), you would know what every mainstream economist says about tax policy, which is quite simply, "The effects are arguable." Most economists attribute growth and contraction to the business cycle, not tax rates.
if business cycles cause growth and contraction why then do all u progressives give credit to Clinton for the 90s boom and blame Bush for current meltdown?
if taxes don't affect economy then just what would happen if Obowma increased taxes by say 20%??
seeing as how tax cuts don't work in ur view, Obowma has no monetary tools to use, therefore outline what U would do to get us going up to speed, freakin genius
boy you are stupid... and you know what it's NOT that you are stupid it's that you don't know how to listen... you said Cenk wants to tax the rich out of spite??? No he wants to tax the rich because the tax cuts that are in place were known to have long term consequences which were forseen by the BUSH administration which is WHY the BUSH administration set the expiration date for this year... He wants to raise taxes on the rich because they pay LESS TAXES THAN MIDDLE CLASS!
when voting one must choose between huge spending, tax the hell out of you, give tons of money to people who want to work democrats and rich snobs who only want to give money to the rich, tax cuts to buisnesses, export jobs to china and invade other countrys and spend trillions republicans. aint life grand?
KingOCleveland 1 month ago
So let me get this right. Take money from the those who can afford to hire people. in others words. Take the money from the employer that is needed to hire people willing to work, and give it to the government so it can give it to those that don't want to work? You say that's how jobs are created. This talk show can't be serious. I mean really. Are you that stupid?
clbou812 7 months ago
"President" Obama has an economic team?
And, Cenk.
You can now refer to John Boehner, as
Speaker Boehner.
bobbytiger 1 year ago
I may be "rich", but maybe I work a lot harder than you do. How do you reconcile that?
dexterwood 1 year ago 2
I agree with Pelosi and Reid!! Americans need to be taxed more, heck we are only giving %26... I think an across the board %60 tax should be imposed on all tax payers. That way more and more of the lazy bums can have what the working folks have. A very good idea, and one that is sustainable, until the next Revolution.
1ringknocker 1 year ago
if i was american, id vote ANYTHING but either of those parties, communist, socialist green, ANY third party/independent
shruberz 1 year ago
Cenk: GIME ME YOUR FACE!!
ZoneofZay 1 year ago
"I'd rip their face off."
JustExperience 1 year ago
If one person who makes a billion dollars a year were to give 1/1,000th. of their income to say 20 families, those twenty families would have $50,000 to live on. That could relieve a lot of suffering in just one year.
Joxman2k 1 year ago
Rich greedy people, have out-welcomed there stay and there stupid spending. PERIOD!!
lapiz4azulli 1 year ago 3
Your certifiable facts are phoney. You see, the rich are going to have their taxes protected always--cause they can hire the attorneys to figure out how to hide them. They will just put their money in hidden assets. Let everyone have a tax break so that those who have money stop hiding it but do their "entreprenuerial thing" and hire more people. Geitner is a crook--if we we failed to pay all our taxes like he did we would be in jail--he, instead, was given a seat at the head table.
jed3dpro 1 year ago
@jed3dpro Correct but only half way. The IRS only requires people to report personal income up to $250,000. This regulation hasn't changed since it was imposed. So if you make say $300K a year you wouldn't necessarily need to report 50K of it. This was put in place back when computers weren't able to process the large numbers that they do today do to memory constraints. I would say it would be a nice time to update the computer's and protocols at the IRS. Force reporting on income over $250K.
NoogLeader 1 year ago
Who gives a fuck what these spic niggers got to say. Why is this shit a featured video. This wetback needs to stop pretending he is on tv so I can get my porch repaired ASAP NIGGAH
roxorian 1 year ago
@roxorian He isn't Mexican retard. He is Turkish. Damn retarded rednecks. Can't tell a Mexican from a shit sandwich. How many turds do you eat? How full of shit are you?
NoogLeader 1 year ago
@NoogLeader Stop acting like there is a difference
roxorian 1 year ago
@roxorian There is. A big Regional difference dumb fuck. You just proved how stupid you are.
NoogLeader 1 year ago
@NoogLeader actually you just proved how stupid you are by caring... silly fuck
roxorian 1 year ago
@roxorian It is my right as an American Patriot to call you out on your stupidity. If you are going to be a racist at least know what racist term to use. For Cenk you could call him a sad Fallajel eater or Camel Jockey. Of course you don't get racist slang cause you are probably the dumbest redneck racist in the south. It is okay to be semi-racist it is unforgivable to be willfully retarded. Dumb fuck.
NoogLeader 1 year ago
@NoogLeader Actually dumb fucks tend to assume everyone online comes from america.
....You know you also have the right to shut the fuck up at any time you please, you should try exercising that one occasionally. (patriot LOL, what a typical american faggot)
roxorian 1 year ago
@roxorian Sorry if your pussy hurts but you have to fucking learn your shit before you spew it out. ]
NoogLeader 1 year ago
@NoogLeader makes no sense but ok. It's good to see that american patriotism still means babbling douchebag shit like anyone cares lol, what a retarded culture
roxorian 1 year ago
@roxorian I am just saying you are a stupid racist. You can't even get your racist slurs right. You called Cenk A WETBACK. Wetback refers to mexicans. Cenk is Turkish. He is more like a Camel Jockey then a Wetback you retard. Stupid Asses like you don't get a damn thing.
NoogLeader 1 year ago
@NoogLeader I'm no racist, just seize every opportunity to act like one. BTW Your poor attempt at feigning some kind of pseudo-intelligent humour like you know something I don't just makes you look like a twat. Just sayin', don't take it as gospel
roxorian 1 year ago
@roxorian This coming from a garden variety troll by self description doesn't sound too compelling.
NoogLeader 1 year ago
Democrats are cowards, just like Obama.....
DutchPow3r 1 year ago
Meanwhile...
watch?v=hv05TyRcISg
watch?v=fGoXfVungYA
gigerone 1 year ago
"ANYBODY HOME?!"
sweYoda2 1 year ago
Fire anyone who threatens to raise the age or lower the benefits from Social Security or messes with it at all.
Fire anyone who wants to give millionaires an 800 billion dollar tax cut paid for by the middle class.
Fire anyone who wants the Bush economic policies of failure to continue.
Fire anyone who calls unemployed people, lazy bums.
Fire anyone who votes against teachers and fireman and wants to send them to the unemployment line.
Fire all Republicans. It's the party of SATAN.
1911arthur 1 year ago
@1911arthur so whos been in the white house for the past 2 years, u dumb cunt
bengalbengalbengal 1 year ago
@bengalbengalbengal You must be in the Party of Satan, aka, The Republican Party. So whose the REAL CUNT?
Goodbye, SATANITE!!!
1911arthur 1 year ago
I wonder what would happen to the percentage of rich if everyone that made them disappeared? Would they still be able to thrive?
yuukisama2001 1 year ago
i always thought its the rich people who create jobs. if they don't then who does? bums? you think the middle and lower class are the ones who hire the people to work.
zonedigit 1 year ago
Comment removed
smoketnt 1 year ago
You're trying to rationalize taking more of what people have earned through providing goods and services to others (the economy) by threat of force in order for a failed corrupt violent organization (federal government), that has already used the labor of future generations as collateral to foreign nations, to spread more war and gain more power over commerce and individuals... I don't think you can possibly rationalize that.
smoketnt 1 year ago
Define Un-American lol
RaynMan718 1 year ago
Cenk for DNC Chairman
FDASARO 1 year ago 24
@FDASARO Are you serious?
gigerone 1 year ago
Cenk for president.
JIYkp 1 year ago
I'd hate to play devils advocate, but taxpayer money to rich people who earned their money compared to taxpayer money to corrupt people who didn't earn their money...well, correct me if I'm wrong here.
Mortello 1 year ago
@Mortello Or the taxpayer money could go to the rich people who earned their money through lucky investments, reckless gambling, dealing with Nazis, etc. etc. It's not like every rich person earned every penny by slaving away in a field. It's luck, investments, and inheritance. Now who deserves that money? Those lucky rich or the starving crime addled poor?.....
Fudgey123873434 1 year ago
IT'S MY MONEY, AND I NEED IT NOW!
VirusofLife182 1 year ago 11
Obviously letting people keep their own money caused the economic collapse. The government knows best what to do with my money, like giving away billions to Goldman Sachs and hiring four different census workers to come to my house and ask me the same questions multiple times. I'd probably just waste my money on buying junk that I don't need or going out to dinner or something.
LibertyRadical 1 year ago
It's not your money idiot. The money you get is what other people allow you to keep. Plus the fact that you were not born with a disability or became disabled through no fault of your own. But in fact besides this if you don't make more than a quarter million dollars a year nobody is going to take more taxes from you. Do you love rich people so much that you don't want to make them pay the same rate they paid before the stupid, unpaid for tax cut they got?
jwberrie 1 year ago
"I'd rip their face's off"
RPGchannel 1 year ago
I watched Howard Dean saying: we must give tax cuts to the middle class but not give tax cuts to the rich.
OK, based on ideology I hope? I CAN understand an argument based on ideology that you hate people who make more money than you, OK
But NO, he had to give a 'genius economic' reason.
His reason? Middle class will spend it but rich will invest it!
Holly crap! Because that's what is needed, more spending and less investing! R-word.
Everybody must get their taxes back and all must invest.
romanmir01 1 year ago
Comment removed
romanmir01 1 year ago
Comment removed
romanmir01 1 year ago
Comment removed
romanmir01 1 year ago
Comment removed
romanmir01 1 year ago
Comment removed
romanmir01 1 year ago
he should be fired and so should Ben bernake
trexx32 1 year ago
Comment removed
romanmir01 1 year ago
Comment removed
romanmir01 1 year ago
Comment removed
romanmir01 1 year ago
Comment removed
romanmir01 1 year ago
@romanmir01 Good economic reason is that our economy has been greatest when rich were taxed highly
Spending, not investing, is what got our country to where it is today
Yes, I think we spend too much, but you want to be more like europe, spend less, oh, and invest less if necessary
But honestly, problem isnt rich invest more when they have more money, its that they horde more when they have more.
waltermh111 1 year ago
@waltermh111 That is NOT a reason, that is what normal people call a correlation!
Correlation has nothing to do with causation! It's the same as to say: during the BEST economics time in USA most women did NOT have a job! Which is TRUE!
Is THAT a reason for the economy being on top of its game in US? No sane person would agree, yet it is a TRUE FACT.
So obviously by that logic all women must be fired immediately for the economy to improve. Great stuff.
This can not be used to prove shit.
romanmir01 1 year ago
@romanmir01 your right in that correlation doesnt always imply causation, but it doesnt mean that it never implies causation, and it does prove that more taxes does not hurt the economy which goes counter to conservative claims.
As for the idea that most women didnt have jobs, your going off mark because that does not counter any made arguments.
But then I already explained above why my point was relevent.
By your ending remarks you do fail at debate either way, calm down and be more rational
waltermh111 1 year ago
@waltermh111 Dude, as a computer scientist I had to take enough logic and math to categorically state that correlation NEVER IMPLIES causation.
You have to show causation.
In fact even your other statement is silly, you cannot derive your 'fact' that more taxes doesn't hurt economy.
It is actually quite reasonable to say the exact opposite if you look at the facts:
1. Economy was doing well.
2. People were taxed a lot.
3. Economy became worse.
4. People now are taxed less.
romanmir01 1 year ago
@romanmir01 You're absolutely wrong. Correlation always IMPLIES causation. It doesn't necessarily INDICATE causation and it never PROVES causation, but causation is always implied. Your attendance in logic class is suspect, but you definitely missed vocabulary class.
jumpoutatree 1 year ago
@jumpoutatree what are you, on crack?
do you know what the word 'implies' means in logic? :)
ha ha ha ha ha :)
you just cracked me up, dude. duuuude. You are too funny :)
"Implies" is a CONDITIONAL CONNECTIVE, it's not simply an English word in its normal sense.
It actually presents a FORMULA that states: If A is true then B is true.
So NO, you funny person, correlation NEVER IMPLIES causation
Otherwise any correlation would immediately be the proof of truth of B if A was said to be true
romanmir01 1 year ago
@romanmir01 Firstly, no one was using the word "implies" as a 'conditional connective'. Of course the word 'conditional' means that the connective is not self-evident. Correlation does not mean that if A is true, then B is true. Implication means that a possible relationship exists. This is why real scientists do correlative studies. If correlation didn't imply causation, no one would look further into the matter. But it does imply causation. And yes, we're all using English here.
jumpoutatree 1 year ago
@jumpoutatree I, ME, I said: correlation does not imply causation.
That's what it means in logic, you cannot state that because A and B happened simultaneously, A caused B. It's not logical in any sense, it is what normal people refer to as a coincidence.
Implication does not mean that a POSSIBLE relationship exists :)
You are again, CRACKING ME UP :) HA HA HA HA HA HA HA :)
Implication is a conditional connective, which is either true or not.
Funny stuff, dude.
romanmir01 1 year ago
@jumpoutatree
"Real Scientists" look at a phenomena hopefully without pre-judging it, by being impartial they are minimizing risk of mis-interpreting or in fact planting information.
Of-course in science any outcome is verifiable by other participant scientists, otherwise it's not science.
Correlation does not imply causation in any sense of the word.
Correlation may warrant additional study, but it does not imply anything.
romanmir01 1 year ago
@waltermh111
As to the me going 'off mark' on the 'women argument',
I didn't have an argument on WOMEN, I had an argument that logically many unrelated things happen at the same time, and by looking at these things some fools can say: Unrelated thing A caused unrelated thing B, and they do so especially if it fits their narrative, they like the argument and so it must be true.
I am the most rational person when it comes to economics and logic.
romanmir01 1 year ago
@waltermh111 You are 100% WRONG. Investing and PRODUCING is what made America, the time when things were truly made in USA and exported and trade balance was positive and unemployment was low, not because people 'worked' for the government, but because people worked and produced things that were exported.
Value is in export, value to other countries who are trade partners is in export, dollar is just a piece of useless paper, which it is becoming more and more.
romanmir01 1 year ago
@romanmir01 All systems produce, but it takes people buying the stuff to make an economy grow, as producing but not selling causes problems, not solutions.
Also, whos talking about working for the gov?
You keep making irrlevent points.
We are talking about any jobs that give people money, private sector also.
I dont get what your talking about with value though.
What value is being exported?
waltermh111 1 year ago
@waltermh111 "people buying stuff to make economy grow" - no, that's a fallacy. Economy grows by producing.
Very good example is FOOD.
When everybody had to make their own food, grow their own food, hunt it, economy was concentrated around food, more than 90% of all people were making food.
Eventually it became possible for less than 5% of people to make ALL food! So your logic says: consumption improved economy.
The correct logic: by producing more food with fewer resources, economy grew.
romanmir01 1 year ago
@waltermh111 So when fewer than 5% of all people are involved in making all the food in the world, it allows 95% of people to concentrate on other things in life, which grew economy.
In fact it is Industrialization and Capitalism (hoarding, as you say, of resources and applying the hoarded resources to work force to solve a problem) allowed the food to be created by fewer than 5% of all people, which improved the quality of life of everybody more than any government regulation ever in history.
romanmir01 1 year ago
@romanmir01 You're committing a common fallacy by linking industrialization and technological advancement with capitalism. I understand that rationally you could argue a relationship, but if you look at the history of technology, you will see that it is unrelated to capitalism specifically, or any mode of economy in general.
jumpoutatree 1 year ago
@waltermh111 Working for gov't is absolutely relevant, because that is what Income Taxes are about: public sector jobs.
Government doesn't CREATE anything, it sucks value out of economy by taxing it and giving that money to the unproductive gov't workers.
So my argument is pertinent because it talks about what income taxes are used for. If your argument that reduction in income taxes causes economy to shrink/slow down, than you HAVE TO talk about government jobs.
No gov't jobs were lost!
romanmir01 1 year ago
@romanmir01 Government workers provide a service. It is irrelevant to point out that they don't "create anything". Some workers are better than others, but in the main they are about as productive as any private sector service employee, who by the way don't "create anything" either.
jumpoutatree 1 year ago
@jumpoutatree If you have a country that "doesn't create anything" but it still wants to get things created from other countries, then what are you going to give them in exchange?
That's the gist of the economic disaster. The US Dollar is not an item that can be eaten or even burned as fuel, it's useless if you only provide US Dollars, because dollars can be printed elsewhere and can be called yuan or euros or whatever.
Gov't workers are not a productive force that can give anything back.
romanmir01 1 year ago
@jumpoutatree as a 'service', the government is only marginally useful to the residents, to the people outside of US, the most of the 'government workers' they see is US military, and it's not a pretty image.
So make sure you understand, to get the capital (goods/credit) into the country you need to export THINGS that are USEFUL to other people, and government is not a force that can provide it.
The fact that so little of it is created in US privately only shows why the economy is dying.
romanmir01 1 year ago
@waltermh111 With all the income tax cuts, the only problem would have been loss of government jobs, but that DIDN'T happen even in 2008, which is because gov't prints/borrows money, so nobody felt any effect of reduction of taxes!
So Cenk saying: economy is going down even partially due to reduction in taxes is idiotic at best, and probably is just his propaganda bullshit.
Value is WORK, it's PRODUCTION, USA is NOT exporting work anymore! It's only exporting cash, which has no actual value.
romanmir01 1 year ago
@waltermh111 Value is what is created when people work and produce things that are NEEDED by other people.
So if one country produces all of the value by creating things people want, and another country does not produce anything of value that is exported, then what is the reason for the working country to give anything to to the non-working country? Paper?
That's ridiculous, that's the subsidy, that's why credit is going to disappear.
The more I am talking to you, the more I think you are 9.
romanmir01 1 year ago
@waltermh111 as to rich 'hoarding money' HA HA, you honestly believe value and economy is about pieces of paper?
Money means nothing. Economics is NOT about cash. It is about production. If economics was about cash, US government actually would be avoid any problem simply by printing a bazillion dollars!
It IS printing a gazillion damnzillion dollars. Good luck doing anything positive by printing cash. Cash in itself is only representative of wealth, wealth IS SAVING and INVESTING and CREATING
romanmir01 1 year ago
@romanmir01 why do you keep going on about paper?
Conservatives and libertarians always complain about too much credit being created out of nothing in our corrupt federal reserve system, but even with that, credit is limited. If so much is tied up in a few people, yes,it does limit what goes to the rest
As for production, again, you need people to buy production, which means people need money
You give money they buy something, you produce but dont give people money, you have worthless product
waltermh111 1 year ago
@waltermh111 I "keep going on about paper" because of a stupid argument of 'hoarding paper'. Why is that a mystery? People Invest what they do not spend.
Do you understand that what is not spent is invested? If you don't give yourself a huge salary, but instead leave money in a company you can then use that to produce more. This is called investing.
Howard Dean is a moron for saying "oh, rich save and invest, who needs that?! We need people to spend more!"
romanmir01 1 year ago
@waltermh111 "you give money they buy something"
They have to produce something. They "buy something" with paper, that in itself is a useless transaction.
Economy is about people exchanging WORK not half of the people producing stuff and half of the people getting paper from some government and producing nothing while taking STUFF from people who produced it.
Economy is dying because USA wants to be that person, who takes paper from government and exchanges it for STUFF others make at work.
romanmir01 1 year ago
@waltermh111 As if working is a blessing as long as some American prints paper and gives it to the worker.
Eventually the workers who produce stuff will stop exchanging the stuff they produced for that silly paper and will start exchanging stuff among each other, and that will be the end to US credit, nobody needs US Dollar to exchange goods outside of US. The reserve currency status can only get you so far, but at some point people will not want that currency, USA is running out of credit
romanmir01 1 year ago
@waltermh111 In fact what I provided as an example is so perfect in having exactly the same weight as Cenk's idea of cause of this problem, it is also true for the same reason.
During the best economic times in the USA, the stuff was produced in the USA and the rich had no choice but to pay taxes in the USA because that is where ALL the production was, they couldn't export production.
(little true fact is that of-course no sane person was paying 90% tax, that's what dividends are for!)
cont'd
romanmir01 1 year ago
@waltermh111 But rich had higher personal income tax percentage for the same reason much fewer women were working.
Because USA was producing so much and selling to other countries so well, it was possible to tax people higher and it was possible for women to stay home and one man could provide for the family.
If given a choice not to work and enjoy life, I suspect much more people would, what's the fun in working, very few jobs provide moral satisfaction and fewer yet pay decently nowadays.
romanmir01 1 year ago
@romanmir01 i dont even get what this part of your rant is about, your point was?
Yes, we produced alot of product, and way back then the divide between the rich and the poor was much much lower on average, workers expected and generally kept their job for life as long as it was done right, and it seemed people mattered.
But then company rights started getting preference over worker rights and we all became screwed.
Also, are you agreeing that regulation tp keep business in US is best?
waltermh111 1 year ago
@waltermh111 My 'rant' is about Cenk giving out economic opinions as if they are a fact.
Fact: economy is about production, not consumption. Simple example: iPhones, iPods, iPads were produced first and then they became a hot consumption item.
You don't need consumption to come first, you need to produce for economy to work.
I don't agree with gov't 'regulating' economy at all. In fact gov't regulation is what created monopolies that off-shored production once USSR disappeared.
romanmir01 1 year ago
@waltermh111
You are also providing another 'argument' for economy failing, companies getting preference over workers :)
But it's partially true, but the actual truth is that government became so entrenched in economy that it became very profitable to corrupt the government to get competitive advantage.
So instead of competition between firms, now government was helping one company to compete against another. That's the actual reason for 'too big to succeed' to appear and to screw up.
romanmir01 1 year ago
@waltermh111 In fact Europe is INVESTING MORE, at least Germany is, and they DO save more, and they are in good shape compared to most European countries, but also compared to the US. Of-course Asia beats them, and in Asia people spend less than in Germany still and invest more.
The entire economy is about production, any idiot can consume (proof by example is the USA today)
You have to produce to be able to consume without being subsidized and nobody is subsidized forever.
romanmir01 1 year ago
Guess what. I'd rather give tax cuts to the rich than to suffer from tax INCREASES by Obama for people like me, who busts thier ass everyday, trying to make a buck to stay above water.
JimboVids 1 year ago
@JimboVids Jimbo the dumbo
sKepptiksowat 1 year ago
Cenk's talking points are like Alan Grayson's talking points, based around being popular with the poor.
OK, fine, but if you base your economic decisions on wrong premises, you will never reach the correct conclusion and will never fix the problem.
Saying that income tax cuts are a reason for an economic collapse is plain idiotic.
romanmir01 1 year ago
@romanmir01 The reason for economic collapse is massive loss of production. A "consumption" economy idea pushed by the government for the past 40 years is STUPID, there is no such thing as consumption based economy. There is only production and CREDIT economy, so US lived on credit for a while, but eventually credit must be paid for, and we are NOT talking about greenbacks here.
Credit must be paid with value, which is in production and positive trade balance - exporting goods people need.
romanmir01 1 year ago
@romanmir01 Correction: He did not say that BECAUSE and ONLY BECAUSE of tax cuts did we have an economic collapse. He said that that was ONE of the reasons why.
defyingcredentials 1 year ago
@defyingcredentials Thus he is a liar.
When one says something, he has to be able to support that argument, in this case it is a complete fabrication. Again, no government spending was cut, that's one.
Secondly, government spending does not make economy. Even if ALL gov't spending is cut an economy will not collapse if there is an economy.
romanmir01 1 year ago
@romanmir01 He didn't say it here, but he's said it in other videos. He provides legitimate and sufficient reasoning whenever he puts forward an argument. This, however, was not an "argument", it was his opinion.. which he's also provided reasoning for before many times.
I'm not defending him, but I guess he didn't think people would bash him over something as meager as this. Hence, he's not a liar or an idiot as you proclaimed.
defyingcredentials 1 year ago
Bullshit. Boehner said this when asked what the Republicans would do if they won a majority after the election. In fact they either have no plan or they won't say what it is. In fact we just saw during Bush's term what their plan is. They are just sorry that the election prevented them from totally wrecking the economy.
jwberrie 1 year ago
@jwberrie lol I was talking about Cenk not Boehner. I hate Boehner and a great majority of Repubtards as much as any other left-winger might.
defyingcredentials 1 year ago
@defyingcredentials Yes, he is EITHER an ignoramus about economics, or he is a LIAR, because he states so often that he follows logic.
You can't say: I follow logic and then give strong 'opinion' that is based on nothing, no logic at all, that is actually counter-logical.
So is he an ignoramus or is he a liar? Actually I believe in economics he is more of an ignoramus, but because he didn't provide any logical arguments (correlation is not a logical argument for causation) so he's a liar too
romanmir01 1 year ago
@defyingcredentials He has no reasoning but saying: Thing A happened and thing B happened at the same time, so thing B must cause thing A because I say so.
That has nothing to do with either logic or fact.
As I said here already, you can use this 'logic' to give most idiotic statements, like: during the best years of US economy, most women were unemployed, thus women working caused economy to collapse. So fire all women and economy will improve.
This 'logic' is exactly, perfectly like his.
romanmir01 1 year ago
@defyingcredentials So it's not legitimate or sufficient, thus I am correct, he is an ignoramus or a liar, I think in this case it's both. Ignoramus, because he doesn't even understand how stupid he sounds giving stupid reasons like that, liar, because he said a billion times he follows logic. Well this is absolutely illogical.
So which is it?
romanmir01 1 year ago
@romanmir01 Dude, just 'cause someone doesn't have the same opinion as you doesn't mean they're ignoramus or don't follow logic. What's logical to you and what's logical to them may be wholly different things. Man, you just love controversy all the while HATE being even a slight bit disproved, just like a kid lol. Calm down, no need to write an essay and whine over a man who didn't elaborate on a talking point enough for you.
defyingcredentials 1 year ago
@defyingcredentials Opinion is fine, when you position yourself as a logical person you better be able to back your opinions up with at least something, and here all I see is 'rich are getting richer, poor are getting poorer'. OK, I can understand your ideology, you hate that rich are not getting poorer, fine. But don't take that ideology and use it to provide an argument that is completely illogical.
romanmir01 1 year ago
@defyingcredentials
There is no such thing as something logical to one person but not logical to another. Either it is logical or not, period.
Talking points is a whole other thing from logic, it's a soundbite, something that does not prove anything but is repeated over and over with no backing. I can understand talking point, but again, if you pride yourself on being logical while only using soundbites, then you are a hypocrite.
Also, please, I beg you, disprove my argument, I'd love that.
romanmir01 1 year ago
@defyingcredentials Also saying: "I'll rip their faces off" does not show any logic or insight at all whatsoever.
romanmir01 1 year ago
@romanmir01 Lmao, you're hilarious. Calm down. Just 'cause someone didn't elaborate enough for you or isn't 'perfect' by your standards, doesn't mean you should write an essay to someone who thinks he is on their part. Believe me, I would disprove you, but you pick on the SMALLEST and most insignificant details. It's like explaining to a child why the sky is blue, water is see-though, etc. Again, I didn't say I agreed with Cenk, but what you over-exaggerate on small talking points and I..
defyingcredentials 1 year ago
@defyingcredentials I can write whatever I want, or are you paying to Google more than I am for the privilege to post on youtube? Google, you know, a big terrible corporation that needs government to be useful in the marketplace.
You don't have to join a discussion, but if you decide to do so, go ahead, 'disprove me', don't threaten to do something, do it.
Also it is a very relevant idea, because it exposes the bankrupt ideology that economics depends on gov't spending and income taxes.
romanmir01 1 year ago
@romanmir01 simply corrected you. Don't get all heart-broken over that sweetheart. Trust me, it'll be alright lol. Don't stress over it, bud. Goodnight.
defyingcredentials 1 year ago
@defyingcredentials Honey, it's morning time where I am. Also until you come good on your claim to 'disprove' my argument, I won't trust you, I just don't have a reason.
romanmir01 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
at 1:32 Cenk again does his sound bite, talking point, saying tax cuts are to blame (even if partially) for the economic collapse.
Shows what he "knows" about economics.
In a working economy, you should be able to cut income taxes imposed by gov't used to pay for various GOV'T spending to nothing, to 0%, and an economy that works will CONTINUE working.
However this didn't even happen here, no matter how much was cut, the gov't printed/borrowed more, nobody lost their job due to tax cuts.
romanmir01 1 year ago
@romanmir01 The gov't kept paying for all of their expenses through even 2008, in fact the spending went UP, that's what TARP and bailouts and wars lead to - more spending than ever.
Now why would ANYBODY in their right mind want to give government ANY of their money so that it could be spent on WARS and BAILOUTS and TARP etc?
That's just stupid. However accept the truth: in the US nobody felt the results of any income tax cuts YET. The DEBT, that's growing.
romanmir01 1 year ago
And the truth is, hardcore rednecks know that the rich republicans are controlling theme but they don't care because they THINK they might get rich some day like them. HAH! ... Jokes on them. 95% of us have to live and work in the real world while those fuckers just sit on top of a fucking mountain of money gaining free paper in a sky scraper. And they don't want competition.
LXQUICKJUSTICE 1 year ago 2
Bainer? Dunno how to spell it but yeah, you can tell by looking at the asshole that he doesn't care about anyone except himself and his rich homies
LXQUICKJUSTICE 1 year ago
LMFAO it's actually spelled boehner
(it's close to that at least the e and the o might be backward but YES at first glance and when first read it seems to read as "Boner" LOL
upplsuckimcool16 1 year ago
vote for repubs and go to WAR.. vote for dems smoke weed and eat all ur food U vote its ur life
beezy2510 1 year ago
Obama can keep Geithner and get rid of Larry Summers. Can't stand Summers, he's a sexist pig! He can also stand to lose that war mongering bitch, Clinton and Robert Gates.
TresJolie7 1 year ago
What makes you think that Clinton is any more of a war-monger than Obama? Obama seems to be following the same strategy that he outlined during his campaign, which was an even more aggressive strategy than McCain's.
jumpoutatree 1 year ago
@jumpoutatree Because Clinton and Gates wanted more troops sent to Afghanistan WITHOUT a timetable for withdrawal.
TresJolie7 1 year ago
Democrats get paid to be incompetent.
jotunobsidianeyes 1 year ago
If the democrats were facing a decent party in November they would be crushed. Also Barack Obama reminds me of Jimmy Carter.
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
@bonfirejovi You know I voted for Obama and I was one of th BIGGEST supporters of Obama, but when you start realizing its all about the bloodline, Obama Bush Chaney Celine Dion Madonna Count Dracula and I could go on & on r 1 big happy bloodline. Then difference is Obama has a lil negro in him let me say this I'm black. When I say COUNT DRACULA I'm talking about the REAL COUNT DRACULA!~ They try to make it seem like a joke that shit is real! I know I sound crazy but thats ok. Truth always does.
dadreamzworld 1 year ago
@dadreamzworld What about Count Chocula? THE REAL COUNT CHOCULA??
jumpoutatree 1 year ago
@jumpoutatree Ask your cock eating mom I'm sure she knows. I bet you probably apart of that shit. You like to make ppl look crazy because they know about the blood drinking you rediculous nasty sons of bitches drink. You fucking psychopath! The fuck outta my face!
dadreamzworld 1 year ago
why didnt cenk become a politician instead of a jornalist?
romes98ify 1 year ago
It's like the dems want to give power back to the republicans because the left's base isn't a bunch of moronic lap dogs and the dems were counting n us being that way because they don't want to do what WE want because they have rich friends also.....
It's like the dems say to the repubs "Listen take the power back so we can pretend we agree with our base. For YOUR base 2 b satisfied since they will agree with anything you say, and the country will be at ease and we will continue to rob from it"
upplsuckimcool16 1 year ago
Oh, wow. So by that GOP idiot's logic, even though they are the opposing party, they must act like republicans anyways or lose their job.
1RadicalOne 1 year ago
Only a DUMBASS wouldnt' understand and KNOW that 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB, AND OBAMA KNOWS IT! IF IT WASN'T WHY DID OBAMA STAND UP THE FIRST PLACE? WHEN HE STOOD UP ABOUT IT, ALL ATTENTION WAS ON HIM. When the elite seen that, they knew it was time to induct him into presidency to finish their jobs. WOW ppl are so sucked into the hype!LOL
dadreamzworld 1 year ago
The thing is this, I do a lot of researching on my own, so I can do what Cenk do on a daily, and come to this video and agree and also to disagree. Thats because I am able to think for myself and I don't agree with everything Cenk says because I'm no ones follower. When some have valuable information thats a total different thing. I don't believe everything I hear, but when I see it, thats different. Alex is a SEESAYER, & Cenk is a HEARSAYER.
dadreamzworld 1 year ago
It depresses me when I see comments to videos that Cenk TOTALLY blows or was on the wrong side in that say, like, "WOW that person debating Cenk is DUMB"
It's like COME ON I thought TYT audience were more receptive, and intuitive than this
(The specific video that is actually in my mind while I type this is the interview in which he debated that lady about the military shootings and political correctness. It was so obvious that Cenk had a presumed what her argument was and was wrong)
upplsuckimcool16 1 year ago
@upplsuckimcool16 This bullshit is all a show! The USA is totally a satanic country and I'm right in the middle of it. I can't stand it!
dadreamzworld 1 year ago
cenk u should run for senate or at least congress.
Cap1108 1 year ago
I hope Obama fires Geitner and Summers and hires Cenk and Ratigan.
DrQuijano 1 year ago
Cenk pwns
rogertheedodger 1 year ago
I swear the reasons the GOP have for their arguments makes me wonder how old they really are deep inside...are they 16 or 5 years old trapped in old bodies?
Mika20 1 year ago
cenk for president^^
RGKChannel 1 year ago
HAHAHA I'd rip their face off.
theelement 1 year ago
I love being rich and Republican.
HomleandSecurity 1 year ago
Will the left ever stop pushin this Marxist class warfare narative and actually propose ideas to help America? The fact is tax cuts for small buisnesses will not cause any damage to the deficit, they are existing tax policies, what Obama and the radical left want is dramatic tax increases on every American, which any economist will tell you will strangle the economy in the middle of a recession. Tax cuts create jobs, shrink government, and lower the deficit, just look at Reganomics.
tehant1liberal 1 year ago
Obama wants to take the top bracket from 35% back to 39.6%, where it was under Clinton and during a time of unrivaled prosperity. Obama does not want to 'raise taxes dramatically for every American"... that is a lie. Furthermore there is no compelling evidence that Reagan's tax cuts created jobs, and given that the size of govt increased during Reagan, no evidence that tax cuts 'shrink govt'. The govt deficit also tripled during Reagan's terms. You are completely full of shit.
jumpoutatree 1 year ago
@jumpoutatree Yes because a 4% tax hike for the richest will bring overwhelming prosperity. The boom under clinton was a phony greenspan boom and would have ended in a big recession for the Tech bubble if greenspan hadn't stepped in. Greenspan is to blame for everything with his easy credit and low interest rates. If Clinton was president for the last 8 years the results would have been the same. The Fed should be the focus of this discussion.
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
I never said that a tax increase would bring prosperity, I only make the argument that such a correlation exists in order to point out the logical fallacy inherent in supply side theology (Reagan cut taxes, the economy grew after, so therefore it was Reagan's tax cuts that did it). A 4 point tax increase (on the top bracket only) will get us on the path toward significant deficit reduction, assuming that Obama takes a hard line on spending, which he may or may not, but that's another issue.
jumpoutatree 1 year ago
It's interesting that you bring up Greenspan. During the 90s, Greenspan was constantly pissing off Republicans by being too much of an 'inflation hawk'. Greenspan's tight money policies during Clinton were the subject of scorn by GOP pols (who probably wanted higher inflation because it would harm Clinton). As soon as the economy started to slide under a Republican president, they clamored for Greenspan to ease up, and he did. Now revionist conservatives blame him for 'easy money' policies.
jumpoutatree 1 year ago
That's the problem he is NOT full of sit he is FULL OF MISINFORMATION!!!
I know this type of person... it's a fat guy who was ALWAYS stupid but now that he has experience thinks he is NOT stupid anymore because he is starting to get mini revelations about life that normal people get at age 10 and he thinks this is what he's been missing and now he tries to be smart not realizing how dumb he really is...
See dumb people do NOT know that NOT paying attention to the opposing arguments is DUMB!!!!
upplsuckimcool16 1 year ago
WHAT??? ax cuts for SMALL businesses??? What are you talking about??? The tax cuts aren't for small businesses!!! Are you you being serious or are you doing satire?
Where in the world did you get that small business owners make over 250,000 a year? Most small businesses do NOT makes over 250,000 a year and there for do NOT and will CONTINUE to NOT benefit from the bush tax cuts...
The Bush administrations set the expiration date where it is SPECIFICALLY to AVOID LONG TERM ECONOMIC PROBLEMS!!!
upplsuckimcool16 1 year ago
@upplsuckimcool16 One day you liberals are going to tax the hardest working Americans so much they'll simply leave and then who will you blame for everything? The problem with leftist class warfare is you just keep punishing the people who succeed in order to support the lazy who refuse to work. It is a fundamentally unsound system and when you look at the Carter and Obama recessions, its pretty strong evidence that it will never work, so how about you act like a real American?
tehant1liberal 1 year ago
OH GOD you are the MODEL of someone who is SOOO grossly misinformed!
Obama has ALREADY CUT TAXES for the middle and lower middle class, and it's not a tax increase it's putting the taxes BACK to where they WERE and it's NOT EVEN Obama who wants to do it it's BUSH! BUSH SET THIS EXPIRATION DATE! or did you even know there WAS an expiration date... proly not. he set this date because the tremendous tax cuts he gave to the incredibly wealthy will eventually be bad for the economy, AS IT HAS!
upplsuckimcool16 1 year ago
@upplsuckimcool16 Bush was forced to set an expiration date because he was told that Congress would never pass his tax cuts in 2001 back when the Senate was 50/50. He consistently lobbied Congress to make his tax cuts permanent, which the Republicans never had the votes to do even when they were the majority, and the Democrats refused as a matter of principle. The effects of tax cuts are not well understood, but Bush's tax cuts and massive spending were likely the cause of the dollar falling.
jumpoutatree 1 year ago
Listen, ANOTHER THING is that UNDER REAGAN the tax rats were ABOVE 80% they are NOW down to 35% and the expiration of the Bush tax cuts will make it 39%
I now numbers must be hard for your brain to comprehend especially when coupled with WORDS but i want you to try for a second and think, but for the love of YOUR god don't hurt yourself!
upplsuckimcool16 1 year ago
@upplsuckimcool16 Taxes were not 80% under Reagan. In 1980 the rate paid by the top bracket was 70%. Reagan's first tax cut (Kemp-Roth) brought the top rate down to 50%, but also cut the rates for people in the lower brackets as well, which is probably what generated the economic growth during the 1980s. Reagan's next tax cut, sponsored by two Democrats, brought the top rate down further, to 28%. The only clear effect of these big tax cuts was the explosion of the national debt.
jumpoutatree 1 year ago
" I'd Rip Their Face Off "
Takua38000 1 year ago
Cenk is a certified idiot, his far-left shithole views are wrong. His solution to the economic mess is to tax the rich, out of spite no other possible reason. His is a classic example of "cutting off ones nose to spite the face"
tax cuts are a highly effective tool used by good governments to stimulate economies and put people to work
poor people do not employ others, it's the rich that do that and they make ALL the investment decisions
unions and high wages cause outsourcing labor
genie0390 1 year ago
Liberals do not want to tax the rich "for spite", although I know that Rush Limbaugh has been telling that fairy tale for 20 years now. Tax cuts may or may not spur econ growth, but one thing is glaringly obvious: tax cuts lead to budget deficits, which increase the natl debt. So-called "liberals" would love it if the govt learned to live within its means, but we are not prepared to stand by and watch supply-siders capsize the economy by indulging in their windmill-chasing.
jumpoutatree 1 year ago
@jumpoutatree
tax cuts do not lead to deficits, more economic activity driven by cuts actually yields more revenue to the Government
progressives can never understand that because they are blinded by ideology, their focus is always on wealth redistribution, not wealth creation
who cares if you are not willing to stand by, progressives don't make up the majority in America, they are a small faction of the Democratic Party
genie0390 1 year ago
@genie0390 Tax cuts to the rich did not help when Reagan was in power and it didn't help when Bush did it? If it helped the country people would not be against it.
IrishHermes 1 year ago
@IrishHermes
well it's a matter of record that they did help create about 15 million jobs and put the economy into high gear.
only problem was that Reagan, by compromise agreement withe the Dems, did not implement the cuts until 3 yrs after his taking office. The Dems did not want to go into a midterm election having their supporters know they agreed to tax cuts
how would a senile old guy like you, living in the frozen waste land, know all that??
genie0390 1 year ago
@genie0390 You're flat wrong. Federal revenue always increases, largely because the economy always grows despite tax rates, because of inflation and a rising labor population. If what you are saying was even remotely true, Reagan's massive tax cuts would have led to giant budget surpluses, and Clinton's tax increase would have led to record deficits. Unfortunately for 'faith-based' supply-siders, the inverse is true: Reagan cut taxes, tripled the debt. Clinton raised taxes, lowered the debt
jumpoutatree 1 year ago
@jumpoutatree
tax policy has always been part of monetary tools of any government in the free world. We can't play with interest rates because they're already at the bottom, money supply is already at all time highs so tax cuts are the only remaining monetary tools
Obowma thinks he can stimulate business by government regulations, big deficits ,uncertainty and income redistribution. None of this shit works ever!
if such far-left shit did work, communism & socialism would be booming
genie0390 1 year ago
It is the supply-sider who is blinded by ideology. Most progressives are the true fiscal conservatives. Supply-siders believe that tax cuts are magical. Against reason and evidence, they persist in the blind belief that tax cuts yield economic growth (they are unwilling to consider a host of other factors), and that tax cuts do not yield deficits, a fact which has been demonstrated conclusively. Supply-side 'economics' is a religion, and it will sink our country in the long run.
jumpoutatree 1 year ago
@jumpoutatree
tax cuts do work
Ireland did tax cuts few yrs back and economy boomed! Reagan did that and caused a long period of growth and many jobs created. Clinton did some increases because the dot com boom was raging and he didn't need stimulus to growth. Actually he needed to cool down the economy!!
a very low tax rate created and sustained the tremendous power house economy of Hong Kong. Show me where high taxes created a similar dynamic economy
genie0390 1 year ago
@genie0390 You're missing my point. I can't "show" you where high taxes created a great economy. My point is that you can't look at Hong Kong and tell me that a very low tax rate is entirely or even partly responsible for Hong Kong being a great place for rich people to shop and go on vacation. My point is that the movement of tax rates is, at least in our country, entirely unrelated to economic growth and contraction. At least, no causal relationship exists that you could prove.
jumpoutatree 1 year ago
@jumpoutatree
only reason why our western democracies have progressive tax rates is simply because there are far more poor and middle income people than rich and politicians pander to that in the hope of buying votes
a small flat tax rate would boom our economy
I don't have to prove anything because I sat through enough graduate economics classes to know that tax rates are a very useful part of monetary tools Governments use to stimulate or contract economies, along with interest rates, $ su
genie0390 1 year ago
@genie0390 If you actually had sat through "graduate economics classes" (lol), you would know what every mainstream economist says about tax policy, which is quite simply, "The effects are arguable." Most economists attribute growth and contraction to the business cycle, not tax rates.
jumpoutatree 1 year ago
@jumpoutatree
you should consider jumping BACK into the tree!
if business cycles cause growth and contraction why then do all u progressives give credit to Clinton for the 90s boom and blame Bush for current meltdown?
if taxes don't affect economy then just what would happen if Obowma increased taxes by say 20%??
seeing as how tax cuts don't work in ur view, Obowma has no monetary tools to use, therefore outline what U would do to get us going up to speed, freakin genius
genie0390 1 year ago
boy you are stupid... and you know what it's NOT that you are stupid it's that you don't know how to listen... you said Cenk wants to tax the rich out of spite??? No he wants to tax the rich because the tax cuts that are in place were known to have long term consequences which were forseen by the BUSH administration which is WHY the BUSH administration set the expiration date for this year... He wants to raise taxes on the rich because they pay LESS TAXES THAN MIDDLE CLASS!
upplsuckimcool16 1 year ago