As much as I hate comparing one country to another ... I do agree we need our budget put under control. It's not just the spending, it's spending too much on things that really should not cost much at all.
I wish that the United States Legislative and Executive Branch watched this channel, then we would have a chance for a restored economy, more liberty, and more social justice; which should be a common goal among all politicians.
One thing this guy forgets to mention is that after WWII the rest of Europe's manufacturing base was DESTROYED. The US was really the only country that could meet much of the worlds industrial needs.
@Hewhosmokeswomen If Europe produced nothing then how did American goods earn a profit? Either Europe was not poor or the goods were in fact purchased through US government loans, etc. The latter can only have happened if the US economy was productive in its private sector since such transfers are a form of welfare/consumption. If you disable your neighbor how can that increase your prosperity when he can no longer produce anything for you to purchase with your productive activity?
What Hewhosmokeswomen is saying that you seem to not understand is that their manufacturing base was destroyed and as it was rebuilding American exports were high, thus a mass influx of money (production and employment) to America. I am not a Keynesian in anyway but you got to admit that Europe's Keynesian policies of raising aggregate demand when they had a destroyed manufacturing base sure did help America.
@ihatemoses Raising aggregate demand? How did they do this exactly? Out of thin air? By printing money? If so why did Americans want that money? To buy nonexistent goods from Europe? The countries that received the least US aid grew the fastest. A mass influx of money does not create prosperity.
Wow, you really don't get it. Money is money. They can print money without causing hyperinflation. We're doing that right now. You don't see anyone saying "no" to the greenback. As Europe rebuilt it's economy it bought a lot of goods from America. I don't know about US aid and I wasn't even talking about US aid anyway. The mass influx of money came from exporting goods, not from a printing press. That's good money.
@ihatemoses You are the one who does not get it. Americans are exporting and getting what? Either European currencies and using them to buy European goods with dollars which came from Europeans who got them by selling stuff to Americans. You are incapable of explaining how Europe created anything to sell by means of "raising aggregate demand" which is a bogus concept to begin with. If americans could not buy any European goods then there is no demand from Europe to buy American goods.
It has everything to do with the topic at hand. Europe had little industry, thus it had almost no capacity to meet demand. The United States was the only country that could fully meet the demand of the world, because it was the only country whose production base wasn't bombed.
It has everything to do with what he's pointing out. He's making references to numbers that are inflated due to factors much bigger than the slashing of government spending
We do not need to cut spending by taking it out of our economy. I'm all for making large spending cuts. Don't cut the small 1% or .1% programs. Look at the Defense budget that's the size of Texas and then decide where to cut.
@TheBlackKnight22 When you cut the spending, you actually put the money back into the economy in a more productive way. The less the government spend the less the tax payer pays.
@nannyberries Well the truth is you could do that by not taxing the middle class and crushing them, and asking the top 2, even the top 1 percent to pay a little more, as the top one percent are not buying everyday consumer goods like the middle class. If the republican methodology was correct in saying that by taxing the rich you are killing "job creators" where are the jobs? The rich have the lowest percent on taxes they have in the last 50 years!
@TheBlackKnight22 As of 2008 the top 1% pay about 14 times more than the bottom 50% do in federal income taxes. That's about three times higher than the ratio during the Clinton years.
@TheBlackKnight22 My numbers come from the Tax Foundation which gets its numbers from the IRS. Go the their website and check the numbers for yourself. The top 1%, incidentally earn 20% of the income but pay 38% of the federal income tax. These numbers only include people with positive adjusted gross income, BTW. No country has income equality, even communist countries, and income equality isn't even desirable. There's no way someone who flips burgers should make as much as an engineer.
@TheBlackKnight22 Do you realize that 42 percent of the people pay no fed income tax? The rich are already paying most of the income tax. And why are there no jobs?
@TheBlackKnight22 They do not buy every day consumer goods? Bath room stuff, food, light bulbs. pen paper. What els am I missing? Taxes are not the only factor in job greeting. Regulations do not help either. What do you think you will achieve by raising their taxes? Cut the dam Spending already.
@nannyberries I didn't mean those things, but they are yes less likely to spend their tax savings then the average consumer. Of course you need to cut spending but you also need more revenue. You can't get it out of the middle class cause that of course would harm the economy. And Nobody seems apposed yet to what I said about taking it out of defense which is one of the largest parts of our damn budget! Asking the top 1% to pay more would give more revenue, which the gov could use for stimulus.
@TheBlackKnight22 Government stimulus doesn't work (Japan has been trying it for 30 years). Well, it lines the pockets of political cronies, so in that sense it works. I agree with you about cutting military spending. We could easily cut that in half and still have the most powerful military in the world. We could then apply the savings to the federal debt.
@PissedFechtmeister Use it to cover the debt. I agree 100%. But the government only sees it as MOORE money to spend on something else and say see it's payed for.
@TheBlackKnight22 Increasing taxes on any one now, only gives the government more to spend. Not pay off the debt as they lead us to believe. You say we need more revenue. For what? So they can waist it like they have been. Can you imagine if they cut the spending in half for at least two years and added no more spending programs. Did you know there is more government jobs then there is in the privet sector. The more money you have the more you spend the more you need.
@nannyberries Revenue for economic stimulus! The economy would have been a lot worse if not for the stimulus that was created, but only recently did we realize that it wasn't even large enough! Don't take money out of spending for the US and take it out of defense as I have been saying! Are you opposed to taking it out of defense are our you not catching that part? of COURSE I agree that there are pleanty of things that we can cut, like subsidies for oil companies, and we can help start a
@TheBlackKnight22 Stimulus? The numbers just do not show any improvement in the economy. The only real permanent jobs created were the 80,000 government jobs. Here is a place to look at what is happening Pro Publica. We are spending money we do not have. With iran and china building their military I would like a strong one ourselves. Military did not receive the highest amount. The only way to start a "green thing" is for there to be a demand
@nannyberries stimulus because without it for one the economy would have been significantly worse. And Places like China are getting ahead in green technologies because they know that you can't just keep sucking the earth dry and contributing to making climate change even worse.
@nannyberries green energy industry, the rest of the world is leaving us behind on this, green energy IS the new big industry that may bring America out of the dumpster, we need to invest back into the auto industry and into new technologies. The republican's are even against just CLOSING LOOPHOLES which would bring more revenue. The republicans aren't doing anything to bring back jobs to America, they want those jobs to go to China, so they can continue to play the blame game against the Pres.
@TheBlackKnight22 for the products. Wind and solar for home use has been around for 20 to 30 years. Even with some stats having it mandatory on new homes it still is not top selling product. It will never be what brings us out of the dumpster. There are way to many grid things to figure out yet. WE as tax payers need to invest? I don't think so. That is for the investors with money to do. The republicans have bills for the sent to vote on and they haven't yet. The free market has a proven histor
UGH! Count on LearnLiberty to simplify a subject to death. Subsidies and crony contracting is not the same sort of spending as infrastructure and education. Clearly they have never heard of economic multipliers, or have an agenda in not discussing them.
@Magicwillnz They have heard of economic multipliers. It's just that multipliers are bunk. Any benefit that comes from make-work infrastructure project is less than what it would have been done had the money been used where it's most productive.
@shamgar001 I read a summary of Bastiat. It is an interesting idea, and definitely makes a good point, but doesn't really take into account a situation where there is no opportunity cost (i.e. the money is not spent at all) or how the glazier, for example, might then buy from the store owner, cycling the money. I will read Hazlitt later. Thank you for providing them to me.
@Magicwillnz Gov. Strickland and public contracting. Why are union mostly doing gov. contracts? Boston, Merit Construction Alliance verses the unions. Also this. There’s almost a direct correlation these days between the Obama Administration’s complaints about “special interests” and its own fealty to such interests. Consider its latest decree that federal contractors must be union shops. If you look at the history of the union, you will see that the unions and dems are in bed together.
@nannyberries That's not a terribly good argument, when I can just point at defense contractors and how much they charge the government for screws, and titanic farm subsidies that ruin our system of agriculture. Neither of those are "caused" by unions, and they make up for much more of the spending. Clearly we give subsidies to non-union shops. Also, the law in question only requires contractors to inform employees they are legally allowed to be in a union. It isn't mandatory unionization.
@Magicwillnz I agree with most of what you are saying. But I was not talking about that. I was talking about infrastructure and education. Yes, subsidies do tend to waste money. Go to mises.org/daily/3553#note4 And you will see more of what I was talking about. Yes it is mandatory unionization.
@nannyberries I can't find any evidence of this law, and I find it hard to believe as I know several federal contractors that aren't part of a union. Please show me the documentation.
I don't get your argument. Most teachers are part of a union. Is building more schools a give-away to the unions? Is building highways and piping? That's a tail-wags-dog argument, even if true, would be a bad reason not to build schools and infrastructure. I read the document, but it doesn't elucidate much.
@Magicwillnzfederal rule, which went live yesterday, implements an executive order President Obama signed within weeks of taking office. It encourages federal agencies to require "project labor agreements" for all construction projects larger than $25 million. This means that only contractors that agree to union representation are eligible for work financed by the U.S. taxpayer. Wall street journal April 14 2010. Crony = favoritism. I wish that you tube would let links be put in here.
@nannyberries Thanks. I read through it. I don't think it is what you think it is, read sec 3 and sec 4(b). It merely gives federal agencies the ability to use unionized shops and require it if they want on a project-by-project basis. It allows "all contractors and subcontractors to compete for contracts and subcontracts without regard to whether they are otherwise parties to collective bargaining agreements". So you see it isn't what you think it is.
The link was the White House's transcript. Just google "Project Labor Agreement." It should be the fourth result, although it may be different for you.
Not necessarily. It simply gives agencies the option to require PLAs, it doesn't mandate they have to require them. The bill essentially overturns the Bush executive order that PLAs can never be a condition of employment. Evidently that caused some problems.
@Magicwillnz I somewhat agree, but see the "option" as being a (no you can't have the job if the agency requires the labor party agreement. Otherwise it would sound perfectly normal. I guess I am just suspicious, knowing the closeness of the government and unions through history.
the liberal point of view is that our debt is so high that we couldn't possibly cut the debt away. so they want increased subsidies in pretty much everything except oil and therefore creating an economic boom that would bring wealth back to the US. but i dont see how this will help in the short term
Note that he did not say WHAT was cut. Cuts to social welfare programs can make large numbers of people unable to contribute to the economy by becoming unemployable and by lessening their ability to use their money to make more money. Other cuts have NONE of these problems and can help grow the economy (military). The problem is, the cuts that the GOP is focused on are all to social welfare. They're not cutting to help the economy, only to kill Democratic programs. It's political.
@helios5868 When you have a large welfare state, people are encouraged to go on welfare. Many (not all) of these people would be productive members of the economy if they weren't being paid to be unemployed.
ARRRG!!! NOT ONE WORD ABOUT HOW A CUT IN WASHINGTON IS ACTUALLY AN INCREASE IN SPENDING!!!
Libertarians, you NEED to understand this in order for things to change in Washington, D.C. The federal government needs to switch from its Baseline Budgeting account method to a Zero Based Budgeting accounting method, otherwise cuts are just cuts in the rate of growth.
watch?v=QtU0pbRXfAI
P.S. I am a conservative so on fiscal issues we are the same, almost.
@FartyFace Exactly why cutting spending isn't a good idea RIGHT NOW. We have a lot of short-term issues that need resolution and that needs to be done with spending. Later...well, I'm sharpening my machete for latter.
If we don't cut spending RIGHT NOW TODAY, our dollar will collapse and you will need that machete to hunt for food.
The only people that should be in favor of increasing spending are the terminally ill who don't plan to live more than a year or two, and those on student visas or people who don't plan on being US citizens for very long.
If you plan on living in the USA for more than 2 or 3 years you are either A) In favor of cutting spending B) Mentally Retarded
After 1945 most of FDR's stupidity was reversed ....
mallardhead 5 days ago
Sweden will be the new bail out provider when German is wasted.
mallardhead 5 days ago
i like how he uses these countries as good examples. they all have healthcare. which this channel is anti.
GotmyplaceinHell 5 days ago
As much as I hate comparing one country to another ... I do agree we need our budget put under control. It's not just the spending, it's spending too much on things that really should not cost much at all.
KittenKoder 1 week ago
Keynes was wrong how long will it take for people to realize this?
brett22278 1 month ago
OK. Given today's economy, who is actually saying we need the government to spend more? Geez!
homeyhawkeye 1 month ago
I wish that the United States Legislative and Executive Branch watched this channel, then we would have a chance for a restored economy, more liberty, and more social justice; which should be a common goal among all politicians.
BnHwrd 1 month ago in playlist More videos from LearnLiberty
This has been flagged as spam show
RON PAUL 2012! FREEDOM IS TRUTH, AN TRUTH IS POWER,9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB
d0ct0rd3ath 2 months ago in playlist More videos from LearnLiberty
One thing this guy forgets to mention is that after WWII the rest of Europe's manufacturing base was DESTROYED. The US was really the only country that could meet much of the worlds industrial needs.
Hewhosmokeswomen 4 months ago
@Hewhosmokeswomen
Well stated.
AkivaII 4 months ago
@Hewhosmokeswomen If Europe produced nothing then how did American goods earn a profit? Either Europe was not poor or the goods were in fact purchased through US government loans, etc. The latter can only have happened if the US economy was productive in its private sector since such transfers are a form of welfare/consumption. If you disable your neighbor how can that increase your prosperity when he can no longer produce anything for you to purchase with your productive activity?
ParadiddleMcFlam 4 months ago
@ParadiddleMcFlam
What Hewhosmokeswomen is saying that you seem to not understand is that their manufacturing base was destroyed and as it was rebuilding American exports were high, thus a mass influx of money (production and employment) to America. I am not a Keynesian in anyway but you got to admit that Europe's Keynesian policies of raising aggregate demand when they had a destroyed manufacturing base sure did help America.
ihatemoses 3 months ago
@ihatemoses Raising aggregate demand? How did they do this exactly? Out of thin air? By printing money? If so why did Americans want that money? To buy nonexistent goods from Europe? The countries that received the least US aid grew the fastest. A mass influx of money does not create prosperity.
ParadiddleMcFlam 3 months ago
@ParadiddleMcFlam
Wow, you really don't get it. Money is money. They can print money without causing hyperinflation. We're doing that right now. You don't see anyone saying "no" to the greenback. As Europe rebuilt it's economy it bought a lot of goods from America. I don't know about US aid and I wasn't even talking about US aid anyway. The mass influx of money came from exporting goods, not from a printing press. That's good money.
ihatemoses 3 months ago
@ihatemoses You are the one who does not get it. Americans are exporting and getting what? Either European currencies and using them to buy European goods with dollars which came from Europeans who got them by selling stuff to Americans. You are incapable of explaining how Europe created anything to sell by means of "raising aggregate demand" which is a bogus concept to begin with. If americans could not buy any European goods then there is no demand from Europe to buy American goods.
ParadiddleMcFlam 3 months ago
@Hewhosmokeswomen
Fantastic point. Kind of makes you wonder--is the global economy a zero-sum game?
lordmahan11 2 months ago in playlist Economics Playlist
@Hewhosmokeswomen Why would he have to mention that, it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
TWSceptic 1 month ago
@TWSceptic
It has everything to do with the topic at hand. Europe had little industry, thus it had almost no capacity to meet demand. The United States was the only country that could fully meet the demand of the world, because it was the only country whose production base wasn't bombed.
Hewhosmokeswomen 1 month ago
@Hewhosmokeswomen So what it's not relevant to what he's pointing out. It wasn't the point he was making.
TWSceptic 1 month ago
@TWSceptic
It has everything to do with what he's pointing out. He's making references to numbers that are inflated due to factors much bigger than the slashing of government spending
Hewhosmokeswomen 1 month ago
Who spends your money better then you do?
nannyberries 5 months ago
A government cut in spending typically mean an accelerated increase in spending that is somewhat less than they were originally planning.
Solverwiz 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
***Black THIS Out Moneybomb For Ron Paul -- October 19th***
Inspired by the mainstream media's blatantly biased reporting of Ron Paul.
Pledge at BlackTHISOut (DOT) com
+8000 pledges so far! (Official page&Facebook!)
Check my profile for life changing Ron Paul video!
Please spread the word!!
qwerty94376 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
***Black THIS Out Moneybomb For Ron Paul -- October 19th***
Inspired by the mainstream media's blatantly biased reporting of Ron Paul.
Pledge at BlackTHISOut (DOT) com
+8000 pledges so far! (Official page&Facebook!)
Check my profile for life changing Ron Paul video!
Please spread the word!!
qwerty94376 5 months ago
We do not need to cut spending by taking it out of our economy. I'm all for making large spending cuts. Don't cut the small 1% or .1% programs. Look at the Defense budget that's the size of Texas and then decide where to cut.
TheBlackKnight22 5 months ago
@TheBlackKnight22 When you cut the spending, you actually put the money back into the economy in a more productive way. The less the government spend the less the tax payer pays.
nannyberries 5 months ago
@nannyberries Well the truth is you could do that by not taxing the middle class and crushing them, and asking the top 2, even the top 1 percent to pay a little more, as the top one percent are not buying everyday consumer goods like the middle class. If the republican methodology was correct in saying that by taxing the rich you are killing "job creators" where are the jobs? The rich have the lowest percent on taxes they have in the last 50 years!
TheBlackKnight22 5 months ago
@TheBlackKnight22 As of 2008 the top 1% pay about 14 times more than the bottom 50% do in federal income taxes. That's about three times higher than the ratio during the Clinton years.
PissedFechtmeister 5 months ago
@PissedFechtmeister Thank you
nannyberries 5 months ago
@PissedFechtmeister I don't believe that, and the top 1 percent take over 24 percent of U.S. Income.. is that income equality? No.
TheBlackKnight22 5 months ago
@TheBlackKnight22 My numbers come from the Tax Foundation which gets its numbers from the IRS. Go the their website and check the numbers for yourself. The top 1%, incidentally earn 20% of the income but pay 38% of the federal income tax. These numbers only include people with positive adjusted gross income, BTW. No country has income equality, even communist countries, and income equality isn't even desirable. There's no way someone who flips burgers should make as much as an engineer.
PissedFechtmeister 5 months ago
@TheBlackKnight22 Do you realize that 42 percent of the people pay no fed income tax? The rich are already paying most of the income tax. And why are there no jobs?
KnightTemplar1000 5 months ago
@TheBlackKnight22 They do not buy every day consumer goods? Bath room stuff, food, light bulbs. pen paper. What els am I missing? Taxes are not the only factor in job greeting. Regulations do not help either. What do you think you will achieve by raising their taxes? Cut the dam Spending already.
nannyberries 5 months ago
@nannyberries I didn't mean those things, but they are yes less likely to spend their tax savings then the average consumer. Of course you need to cut spending but you also need more revenue. You can't get it out of the middle class cause that of course would harm the economy. And Nobody seems apposed yet to what I said about taking it out of defense which is one of the largest parts of our damn budget! Asking the top 1% to pay more would give more revenue, which the gov could use for stimulus.
TheBlackKnight22 5 months ago
@TheBlackKnight22 Government stimulus doesn't work (Japan has been trying it for 30 years). Well, it lines the pockets of political cronies, so in that sense it works. I agree with you about cutting military spending. We could easily cut that in half and still have the most powerful military in the world. We could then apply the savings to the federal debt.
PissedFechtmeister 5 months ago
@PissedFechtmeister Use it to cover the debt. I agree 100%. But the government only sees it as MOORE money to spend on something else and say see it's payed for.
nannyberries 5 months ago
@TheBlackKnight22 Increasing taxes on any one now, only gives the government more to spend. Not pay off the debt as they lead us to believe. You say we need more revenue. For what? So they can waist it like they have been. Can you imagine if they cut the spending in half for at least two years and added no more spending programs. Did you know there is more government jobs then there is in the privet sector. The more money you have the more you spend the more you need.
nannyberries 5 months ago
@nannyberries Revenue for economic stimulus! The economy would have been a lot worse if not for the stimulus that was created, but only recently did we realize that it wasn't even large enough! Don't take money out of spending for the US and take it out of defense as I have been saying! Are you opposed to taking it out of defense are our you not catching that part? of COURSE I agree that there are pleanty of things that we can cut, like subsidies for oil companies, and we can help start a
TheBlackKnight22 5 months ago
@TheBlackKnight22 Stimulus? The numbers just do not show any improvement in the economy. The only real permanent jobs created were the 80,000 government jobs. Here is a place to look at what is happening Pro Publica. We are spending money we do not have. With iran and china building their military I would like a strong one ourselves. Military did not receive the highest amount. The only way to start a "green thing" is for there to be a demand
nannyberries 5 months ago
@nannyberries stimulus because without it for one the economy would have been significantly worse. And Places like China are getting ahead in green technologies because they know that you can't just keep sucking the earth dry and contributing to making climate change even worse.
TheBlackKnight22 5 months ago
@TheBlackKnight22 Well we both have our views on life and thats what makes it fun.
nannyberries 5 months ago
@nannyberries okay lol
TheBlackKnight22 5 months ago
@nannyberries green energy industry, the rest of the world is leaving us behind on this, green energy IS the new big industry that may bring America out of the dumpster, we need to invest back into the auto industry and into new technologies. The republican's are even against just CLOSING LOOPHOLES which would bring more revenue. The republicans aren't doing anything to bring back jobs to America, they want those jobs to go to China, so they can continue to play the blame game against the Pres.
TheBlackKnight22 5 months ago
@TheBlackKnight22 for the products. Wind and solar for home use has been around for 20 to 30 years. Even with some stats having it mandatory on new homes it still is not top selling product. It will never be what brings us out of the dumpster. There are way to many grid things to figure out yet. WE as tax payers need to invest? I don't think so. That is for the investors with money to do. The republicans have bills for the sent to vote on and they haven't yet. The free market has a proven histor
nannyberries 5 months ago
@nannyberries And like I said don't take it out of projects here at home, take the money out of supplying for our damn empire all over the world!
TheBlackKnight22 5 months ago
@stefminus A specific and astute answer -- very satisfying, too. No follow-up questions, at all. You, sir, are clearly a genius.
sweatyshorts 5 months ago
Comment removed
sweatyshorts 5 months ago
UGH! Count on LearnLiberty to simplify a subject to death. Subsidies and crony contracting is not the same sort of spending as infrastructure and education. Clearly they have never heard of economic multipliers, or have an agenda in not discussing them.
Magicwillnz 5 months ago
@Magicwillnz They have heard of economic multipliers. It's just that multipliers are bunk. Any benefit that comes from make-work infrastructure project is less than what it would have been done had the money been used where it's most productive.
shamgar001 5 months ago
@shamgar001 Could you provide a source for that?
Magicwillnz 5 months ago
@Magicwillnz I would recommend Henry Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson", or Frederic Bastiat's "That Which Is Seen and That Which is Unseen".
shamgar001 5 months ago
@shamgar001 I read a summary of Bastiat. It is an interesting idea, and definitely makes a good point, but doesn't really take into account a situation where there is no opportunity cost (i.e. the money is not spent at all) or how the glazier, for example, might then buy from the store owner, cycling the money. I will read Hazlitt later. Thank you for providing them to me.
Magicwillnz 5 months ago
@Magicwillnz Infrastructure and education = union = subsidies and crony contracting.
nannyberries 5 months ago
@nannyberries You have got to be shitting me. Unions cause crony contracting? Give me a single shred of evidence.
Magicwillnz 5 months ago
@Magicwillnz Gov. Strickland and public contracting. Why are union mostly doing gov. contracts? Boston, Merit Construction Alliance verses the unions. Also this. There’s almost a direct correlation these days between the Obama Administration’s complaints about “special interests” and its own fealty to such interests. Consider its latest decree that federal contractors must be union shops. If you look at the history of the union, you will see that the unions and dems are in bed together.
nannyberries 5 months ago
@nannyberries That's not a terribly good argument, when I can just point at defense contractors and how much they charge the government for screws, and titanic farm subsidies that ruin our system of agriculture. Neither of those are "caused" by unions, and they make up for much more of the spending. Clearly we give subsidies to non-union shops. Also, the law in question only requires contractors to inform employees they are legally allowed to be in a union. It isn't mandatory unionization.
Magicwillnz 5 months ago
@Magicwillnz I agree with most of what you are saying. But I was not talking about that. I was talking about infrastructure and education. Yes, subsidies do tend to waste money. Go to mises.org/daily/3553#note4 And you will see more of what I was talking about. Yes it is mandatory unionization.
nannyberries 5 months ago
@nannyberries I can't find any evidence of this law, and I find it hard to believe as I know several federal contractors that aren't part of a union. Please show me the documentation.
I don't get your argument. Most teachers are part of a union. Is building more schools a give-away to the unions? Is building highways and piping? That's a tail-wags-dog argument, even if true, would be a bad reason not to build schools and infrastructure. I read the document, but it doesn't elucidate much.
Magicwillnz 5 months ago
@Magicwillnzfederal rule, which went live yesterday, implements an executive order President Obama signed within weeks of taking office. It encourages federal agencies to require "project labor agreements" for all construction projects larger than $25 million. This means that only contractors that agree to union representation are eligible for work financed by the U.S. taxpayer. Wall street journal April 14 2010. Crony = favoritism. I wish that you tube would let links be put in here.
nannyberries 5 months ago
@nannyberries Thanks. I read through it. I don't think it is what you think it is, read sec 3 and sec 4(b). It merely gives federal agencies the ability to use unionized shops and require it if they want on a project-by-project basis. It allows "all contractors and subcontractors to compete for contracts and subcontracts without regard to whether they are otherwise parties to collective bargaining agreements". So you see it isn't what you think it is.
WSMartin86 5 months ago
@WSMartin86 Which link may you be referring to?
nannyberries 5 months ago
@WSMartin86 But they have to agree to union representation to be eligible.
nannyberries 5 months ago
@nannyberries
The link was the White House's transcript. Just google "Project Labor Agreement." It should be the fourth result, although it may be different for you.
Not necessarily. It simply gives agencies the option to require PLAs, it doesn't mandate they have to require them. The bill essentially overturns the Bush executive order that PLAs can never be a condition of employment. Evidently that caused some problems.
Magicwillnz 5 months ago
@Magicwillnz I somewhat agree, but see the "option" as being a (no you can't have the job if the agency requires the labor party agreement. Otherwise it would sound perfectly normal. I guess I am just suspicious, knowing the closeness of the government and unions through history.
nannyberries 5 months ago
Where is your god now spawk?
sharperguy 5 months ago
the liberal point of view is that our debt is so high that we couldn't possibly cut the debt away. so they want increased subsidies in pretty much everything except oil and therefore creating an economic boom that would bring wealth back to the US. but i dont see how this will help in the short term
TheMCBADGER 5 months ago
Note that he did not say WHAT was cut. Cuts to social welfare programs can make large numbers of people unable to contribute to the economy by becoming unemployable and by lessening their ability to use their money to make more money. Other cuts have NONE of these problems and can help grow the economy (military). The problem is, the cuts that the GOP is focused on are all to social welfare. They're not cutting to help the economy, only to kill Democratic programs. It's political.
helios5868 5 months ago
@helios5868 When you have a large welfare state, people are encouraged to go on welfare. Many (not all) of these people would be productive members of the economy if they weren't being paid to be unemployed.
shamgar001 5 months ago
@helios5868 What should we cut, and by how much?
sweatyshorts 5 months ago
ARRRG!!! NOT ONE WORD ABOUT HOW A CUT IN WASHINGTON IS ACTUALLY AN INCREASE IN SPENDING!!!
Libertarians, you NEED to understand this in order for things to change in Washington, D.C. The federal government needs to switch from its Baseline Budgeting account method to a Zero Based Budgeting accounting method, otherwise cuts are just cuts in the rate of growth.
watch?v=QtU0pbRXfAI
P.S. I am a conservative so on fiscal issues we are the same, almost.
MrConservative608 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I'm taking Krugman over this guy any day.
grnbbllntrck 5 months ago
I'm taking Krugman over this guy any say.
grnbbllntrck 5 months ago
@grnbbllntrck lol
AntixSchiTTxreport 5 months ago
You my friend are amazing!
laboxingdannyvega 5 months ago
CUTTING SPENDING DOES NOT REDUCE UNEMPLOYMENT.
cikcikosman 5 months ago
@cikcikosman clearly you didn't understand a word he said you should probably stop commenting on things
boristhepython 5 months ago
@cikcikosman
In the short term? No not really. Its more for medium/long term gains.
FartyFace 5 months ago
@FartyFace Exactly why cutting spending isn't a good idea RIGHT NOW. We have a lot of short-term issues that need resolution and that needs to be done with spending. Later...well, I'm sharpening my machete for latter.
helios5868 5 months ago
@helios5868
If we don't cut spending RIGHT NOW TODAY, our dollar will collapse and you will need that machete to hunt for food.
The only people that should be in favor of increasing spending are the terminally ill who don't plan to live more than a year or two, and those on student visas or people who don't plan on being US citizens for very long.
If you plan on living in the USA for more than 2 or 3 years you are either A) In favor of cutting spending B) Mentally Retarded
FartyFace 5 months ago 12
@cikcikosman IF YOU CUT TAXES, IT DOES.
LESS TAXES ON ECONOMY MAKES JOBS.
THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT MAKE LONG-TERM JOBS WITH DIRECT INVOLVEMENT. THEY NEED TO GET OUT OF THE MARKET SYSTEM.
DanteWolfwood 5 months ago
@cikcikosman IF YOU CUT TAXES, IT DOES.
LESS TAXES ON ECONOMY MAKES JOBS.
THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT MAKE LONG-TERM JOBS WITH DIRECT INVOLVEMENT. THEY NEED TO GET OUT OF THE MARKET SYSTEM.
DanteWolfwood 5 months ago
@cikcikosman YES IT WILL.
especially if they quit taxing the businesses to death.
DanteWolfwood 5 months ago
Subtle eye roll @ 2:05
dvide 5 months ago
His accent makes it seem like he can't possibly be wrong. Damn those British accents!
DigitalShaolin 5 months ago 51
@DigitalShaolin yyesssss so true!!!! haahaha
grnbbllntrck 5 months ago
This year, New Hampshire cut ONE BILLION DOLLARS, 11%, from it's annual budget.
If this sounds like a good start to you, join the Free State Project and move to New Hampshire.
FreeStateProject (dot) org
FreeStateProject (dot) org
FreeStateProject (dot) org
FreeStateProject (dot) org
FreeStateProject (dot) org
realrockvince 5 months ago 34
@realrockvince Too cold. Sorry. Why couldn't it be Washington state?
H1TMANactual 5 months ago
@H1TMANactual
Step 1: Buy a jacket.
Step 2: Move to New Hampshire.
Step 3: Enjoy your new liberties and work for more of them.
realrockvince 5 months ago
@realrockvince Rather move to Hong Kong or Singapore.
H1TMANactual 5 months ago 6
these videos are my favorite!
WhatAxBrit 5 months ago