Who is your audience? This is the most absurd presentation supposedly centered on economics. To say the great depression was caused by tax cuts is absurd. It was caused by poor monetary policy on behalf of the Fed. Your "L-Curve" is a joke, you simply stole the premise of the Lorenz Curve, while taking all meaningful data out of the graphic. You sir are incompetent and should not be allowed to be teaching anyone.
if it wasnt for billionaires, you wouldnt even be typing these comments. you wouldnt own a computer. if you dont think the rich help people then your saying bill gates has done nothing for anyone. microsoft has changed the world and plus he gave billions to charity
When IBM built its first business\personal computer, they needed an operating system to use with it. They went to Bill Gates after their top programer guy wasn't available; Bill bought an existing software program, QDOS, for $50,000, renamed it MS-DOS, and ended up collecting a royalty every time a PC was sold. Gates didn't need billions of dollars to improve the system.
@bhothemetallhead Why? What did this video teach you? It simply showed that Bill Gates has a lot more money than the average American family. You will find this is true in any developed economy.
This is like 21, 22 years after Reagan. So to blame this on Reagan is pretty ridiculous. But in all honesty, let's look. Reaganomics worked...Obamanomics are coming close to doubling the deficit... Do the math.
@lmrspartan No one is blaming Reagan. But, like Obama's economic policies Reaganomics sucks. It only benefited ppl in the 80's. It caused a recession in the early 90's. But, not just the presidents are to blame. Yeah, Clinton and Bush should have never deregulated the banks and the banks should have never loaned money to ppl to buy houses they couldn't afford. But, the big corporations should take most of the blame. Gold and Sachs tricked ppl into investing in CDO's that would go down.
Wouldn't raising taxes scare away businesses and wealthy investors? If a business can pay less taxes in illinois than indiana, they'd move to illinois. How would raising taxes attract investment? I'm openminded and really want to know how it would attract or repel businesses and investment to raise taxes.
@AnotherMasterMind Taxes pay for things like schools, roads, sewer and water systems, and countless other things that increase the quality of life.
What attracts businesses and people to a community are good schools and infrastructure so that their business, employees and their families
all benefit from and have access to these services. It is true businesses can play states off of each other to pay less and less in taxes, but to what end?
@tonkman7 I tend to agree with you, I just have these frustrating conversations with my republican father who always brings up how businesses provide jobs and by raising taxes, we are punishing financial success and driving jobs away to other countries. I feel like this is one of the conservatives strongest talking points. How would you respond to someone who says that "lowering taxes gives business incentives to create jobs, thus encouraging investment while spreading earned money to others."?
@AnotherMasterMind The only thing that creates jobs is demand. Tax breaks for the wealthy do not create jobs, it never has. When people have no money, there is no demand which is why our economy is in the state it is in with no end in sight.
@AnotherMasterMind your dad is a very smart man i use to be a liberal and i was for raising taxes i live in Michigan this is a liberal state and every year we have a thing were we compete against Indiana for job and they ALWAYS WIN they took are industry and jobs WHY cause they are more of a conservative state and have LESS Regulations and LESS taxes so yes it does work LISSIN to your dad bro
@tonkman7 I don't mean to pick on you "tonkman" lol but we pour billions into our schools every yr & decade. Still results get worse. Homeschooling is at an all time high (which denotes a failing public school system). We spend billions on roads still infrastructure is poor. Now, I'm not saying that gov't shouldn't provide SOME functions. But you gotta ask every once in awhile: "what are we getting for the amount of money we as a nation pay?" and "Is it worth it?" lol Thx
Reaganomics wasn't intended to bailout out them rich people that would be you BIG government and the liberals using your money to bail out these people. REAL conservatives like ME and Ronald Reagan believe that NO business is to BIG to fail if you make a mistake with your company you should go threw bankruptcy and start from ground up and rebuild your company.YOU PEOPLE MAKE ME SICK and blaming Reagan when he is agents bailouts. Its you Democrat and you Government picking winners n losers
@AnotherMasterMind Congress could put an end to the practice, but it won't. You speak of scaring away business by raising taxes, business has already left our country by trade polices over the last 30 years of which both republicans and democrats are responsible for. What is happening to this country would take
much more space then I have here. I would highly suggest you google thom hartmann. Listen to his radio show, watch his videos, or purchase his books. You won't regret it
@AnotherMasterMind I'm an econ major, and let me tell you that increasing taxes have many un-intended consequences, and (burdensome) taxes serve no valuable function to our society what so ever. And I'll define "burdensome taxes" as any tax on your personal income. Consumption taxes e.g sales taxes and "value added taxes" aren't nearly as destructive as Income Taxes, and Capital Gains Taxes.
In this case all the businesses and investors should go to somalia. Cause there are no taxes, since they don't even have a working governmont ( A Tea-Party Dreamland!).
The unprecedented prosperity during the 50's 60's and 70's was NOT due to the high taxes, it was IN SPITE of them.
The reason we COULD prosper during that time and have those tax rates, is because WE HAD NO COMPETITION. EVERY SINGLE industrialized nation EXCEPT for the U.S. was reduced to RUBBLE during WWII. WE were the ONLY nation capable of supplying them with the goods and services they needed. In addition we had this massive wave of new consumers - the baby boomers.
Believe it or not, you need individuals with loads of money---business owners! You know why? They create jobs for people! Not to mention this falls under Capitalism, if you work hard you work your way up and earn money.
Right now things are much closer to socialism with way way way too much government control and spending.
Reaganomics is A LOT better than what we have know and it caused large economic growth and yadda yadda look it up.
Hoover was a Keynesian to the extreme. FDR even called him a socialist. Rexford Tugwell said that Hoover practically came up with the idea for the New Deal. I think your argument that Hoover was a supply side economist and that supply-side economics caused the Great Depression is invalid. A choked money supply caused the Depression. I don't dig Corporatism, but command economics(bailouts) always fails. I agree we are socialists now, but I think your premise lacks intellectual content.
regulation caused the great depression you dumb ass have you ever heard of the Smoot–Hawley tarriff? why dont you do your homework be fore you show everyone your cute little football graphs. Reagan spent money on defeating the communists. that was his goal and it worked. dont go blaming deregulation for all your problems.
@yaidonyknowwhattoput I usually just let people spew their vitriol and ignorance without comment because it just goes to show the depth of our nation's problems. Just a quick note. The great depression was caused because of deregulation, not regulation. The great depression occurred in 1929 under a republican Congress and a republican president. The Smoot–Hawley tarriff was enacted into law in 1930 by the same republican administration who brought us the great depression. Have a nice day.
@tonkman7 regulation hurts business, regulation cost more tax dollars, regulation like the minimum wage makes less jobs available or jacks up prices. regulation like tariffs causes DGP to plummet. please tell me how ignorant i am because under Reagan the united states saw the most economic growth it had seen in over 30 years. i would love for you to keep bashing the republican party because i dont belong to it. just because my interperatation of the past is in favor of a repubican,
please dont think i am in favor of every thing they do. im guessing because of ur attack on republicans youare a democrat. by your logic you are proslavery and love to kill babies.
@tonkman7 Smoot-Hawley was only one of a series of taxes that were raised - and one of the last. Tariffs on grain and other imports, and govt. interferance, is what led to the depression. The policies of massive government involvement is what turned a short recession into a decades long depression. If you look, the Crash of 1929 helped take unemployment up to double digits, but by June of the very next year - it had already fallen to the 6% range. But then govt. decided to "help".
@tonkman7 Hoover signed the "Norris-LaGuardia Act-banned "yellow-dog" contracts between employers & employees. He est the "Reconstruction Finance Corporation" that gave aide to big corporations; he adhered to the "Under-consumption Theory"-a Keynesian belief & he signed the Smoot-Harley Tariff. Furthermore, the FED lowered rates by 3%,low interest rates facilitate production & consumption.So, with so much gov't intervention what deregulation-absence of gov't r u talkin about? Have a nice day!
@kn9ioutom UM - ONLY if you use Norway as the measuring stick. If you set North Korea as the measuring stick - IT would be number one and we would fall further down the list.
Good job dude, I just learned all that stuff myself very recently. WE ARE IN TROUBLE UNLESS PEOPLE LEARN THIS....... FAST!!!!!!!! We did it before ...we must tax the richest again. ASAP!!! or collapse is emminent.
@exv152 ...Wrong!! Reaganomics IS why we are in collapse... Reaganomics cut tax revenues so dramatically that we have NO money left in reserves. His idea is not a horrible idea, its just that the tax cuts were just TOO steep... and all the politicians today are "in bed" with the Rich/elite... and won't reverse the trend. OK?
President Jefferson wanted to have a govt that governed least, but he the united states was being explored (lewis and clark) for new lands. Slavery was being expanded into new areas. Hippocritical.
Is this guy actually saying that creating billionaires is a bad thing? He wants less billionaires in the US? Why? There are no billionaires in the Congo or Zimbabwe, does he like the way they live?
Little blurb about debt shall we? The United States was, since the beginning of its foundation, in debt. Social programs like healthcare, welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, and other unfunded liabilities are causing the real debt. Pensions and unions make the industrial future of America bleak. In the US, people want more when in reality, only the successful are powerful. Gates is rich only because of his business and inventive knowledge. Welcome to capitalism.
i'd like to point out to 'tonkman' that the three presidents he mentioned, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton grew the economy ( GDP ) at 43%, 13%, and 35% respectively.
you throw in the second bush you have another 32% growth. unemployment hovering around 5%, etc.
and those guys who we 'fought against in the revolution...' well, those guys were rich too. the rich don't make money, neither do the poor.
@KEV8551 Its easy to grow the GDP when you borrow 13 trillion dollars. If you look at quality of life the man has a point. The top 1% of income earners has recived an almost 300% in income while the lower middle class has recived about 20%. Balance that against the cost of living, the increse in personal debt, and that 13 trill we have to pay back with interest.
@freakyfatdog actually... Reagan added $1.3 trillion to the debt. Reagan added $1.6 trillion to the GDP. the group that benefitted the most proportionately was the middle class. those making $20 - $29K increased 29%. those making $30 - $49K increased 28%. those making $50K up increased by 7%. the % of 'poor' decreased from 27% to 25%. the rich got richer, and so did the rest. house.gov/jec/growth/prosper/prosper. htm house.gov/jec/growth/prosper/prosper. htm
@KEV8551 I'm talking about the state of the nation since his tax code which we have had through Bush SR, Clinton, to Obama. It is true the top 1% of wage earners have benifited far more than any other demographic in the last 30 years. Their income has gone up by 281%. You can google that number. All the while we have a 13 trill debt not including trade and entitlement debts.
@freakyfatdog the middle class ( $20K - $29K ) grew 29% in the 80's. the wages of the upper middle ( $30K - $49K ) grew 28%. $50K up wages grew 7% in the 80's.
there was real growth. sure, those with more capital to invest grew more. but most got better. the deficits up until now were less than 4% of real GDP. that's not desireable but it's acceptable.
now we're sitting at 11 - 12% of real GDP. that isn't sustainable. there was a paradigm shift in '08...for the worse.
@freakyfatdog if it was easy to grow the GDP with deficits...we'd be through the roof right now...which i think is a testament to the US econom thus far.
as for our 'trade deficits.' we're 3rd in the world in exports. we export $1.1 trillion...$200 billion less than China and right on Germany's heels. our problem is we buy stuff from overseas...we do that because it's cheap.
that's a good thing about China keeping their currency low...it helps our purchasing power.
@KEV8551 The through the roof is the actual GDP numbers. The GDP is a reflection of product sold. It doesn’t consider the personal debt to buy the product. An example is trip to the clinic without health insurance.
The wage growth in the last 30 years did not compensate for the cost of transportation, education, food, housing, health insurance etc. That’s why we have so much personal debt, and working people living in Section 8 receiving Food Stamps.
@freakyfatdog gdp is all products, services, etc. all debt isn't bad. debt you can pay down is ok.
the personal debt is high because starting in the 90's anytime the economy would slow down the Fed would lower rates, making money 'cheaper ' ( lower rates to borrow ) and that's what people did.
with a good economy, people figure they can save next year.
our economy is STILL strong. but, we need to start now, cutting spending and not monetarizing more debt.
wow, all I hear is this guy is failing to use the benefits of Reaganomics. Those that had that wealth weren't born with such a huge income, they actually had to work for that pay, so why can't the reap the benefits? you aren't bailing them out, they bail themselves out.
the problem with this guy is he fails to relize these billionares are spending their money. and it's not like theres a limited amount of money. they've GENERATED that money. they earned that value through something they did in the FREEE economy. YOU yes you, reading this, have the ability to make that kind of money if you put your mind to it. don't do drugs. don't be an idiot. buckle down! you're in America. you have a right TO prosperity. you're not GIVEN prosperity. go get it.
the economy would just work better if we just let the old, the mentally challenged and psyically handicapped just die off. no more social security. further more the peasants need to get out and work 60+ hours a week with no benefits or safety precations. get rid of anyone who cant turn a profit for a low wage. i would personaly feel much better when our kings and queens can live well, and i will work extra hard to ensure they can. C'mon america, lets all pitch in.
@oldwatchman I'm so tired of people playing the 'socialism' card. Socialism is a collection of philosophies. It's not a form of government. Second of all without socialism in our society we wouldn't have social security (aka welfare for the elderly), handicapped people would have no resources or rights, children would not be protected and more.
Not everyone can win that is why there aren't many rich people because most people aren't winners. Being rich is like being smart how many people make it to the National Honor Society ? You can't bitch because you didn't make it to the NHS. A lot of people that are rich deserve to be rich. but there are also a lot of people who are just rich because they were born in a rich family . This guy is stupid because The U S A is a Republic not a Democracy . and in the 70's people had bad inflation.
@skins703 - The military buildup was necessary after a botched American attempt under Carter to rescue American hostages. The USSR could not compete with our industrial and financial might under Reagan and ended the cold war. Reagan understood the Government was a hollow suit without the private sector at full tilt. It's too bad the Americans that love Obama cannot see through the socialist muslim sympathizing zero that he is. We were far better as a nation under Reagan than under Obama.
Richard Nixon had been forced from the presidency because of an implicitly authorized "petty burglary" and his own explicit efforts to cover up the felony, a serious matter of obstructing justice. Ronald Reagan authorized a deliberate violation of law and public policy, and several high officials in his government - including his secretary of defense, his top national security advisor, and almost certainly Vice-President Bush - lied under oath about it.
@oldwatchman it wasn't just under reagan. it was a compilation of other things, for many years, that resulted to the dissolving of the USSR. Reagan deserves his share of credit, but definitely not all of it Definitely not. Also, I'd rather have Obama, hell I'd rather have Bush Jr. than Reagan.
@lozr0ckz go watch history channel, under Reagan the nation BOOMED. He kept interest rates low and brought down inflation from 10% to 4% at the end of his first term. How can u pick obama when he hasnt proved anything, but that he can sure print alot of money and blame bush.
@rustyoneone - Two undeniable facts: 1) You cannot tax your way to prosperity; 2) The poor do not create jobs. If anybody is an ass hole, I think it's you. The Government is nothing without the private sector investor. We give them their money and make them their guns. You have a lot to learn.
@oldwatchman ...but it's also true that you can't give tax cuts and not pay for them..Reagan gave the largest tax cut in american history and financed the largest military build up in peace time by massive borrowing....deficit spending was the whole cornerstone of Reaganomics...using deficit spending to stimulate private investment...Reagans supply-side' policy was effectively stimulating demand through the Keynesian multiplier effect.....but it left massive deficits.
They make billions of dollars because they earn it. If you know so much, go make a billion dollars then use it to preach about how it's wrong to have a billion dollars.
This teacher needs to find a new job. None of his info is correct. Now ether he is intentionally lying or he simply cant research anything for himself. Which ever one it is, this teacher should not have this job.
This man is giving us facts but was limited by a short video--the list of atrocities for which the Teflon Don aka Ronnie The Crook was and is responsible is a long, long phattie. E.g., the immigrinti you see, hear and fear = Ronnie's 1986 Amnesty and de facto open borders. Just think of Ronnie's last movie: "The Killers"--Ronnie was playing himself.
3. So by the information that i have submitted, its clear that middle class income actually GREW during the Reagan years. More people were lifted out of poverty and into prosperity. The bottom 5th's income actually GREW. Our economy also grew more than any other previous decade in history. And to the people who say that the tax cuts were only for the rich and the middle class and poor paid more taxes, under Reagan the rich actually paid MORE of the tax burden than the middle class and poor.
@bRizzle2009100 ...deficit spending was the whole cornerstone of Reaganomics...using deficit spending to stimulate private investment...Reagans supply-side' policy was effectively stimulating demand through the Keynesian multiplier effect.....but it left massive deficits..it's not worth it.
@skinz703 umm... no. Keynesian economics is the complete opposite of Reaganomics. Although Reagan and a DEMOCRATIC Congress might have spent a lot of money it was mainly cold-war defense spending. Had it not been for the cold war, the deficits would have been a lot smaller. Non-defense spending as a percentage of national income actually stabilized during the Reagan years while during previous Administrations, it had continued an upward trend.
2. Real GDP grew at an annual rate of 3.9% during the Reagan years, higher than the post-WWII average of 3.6% that this teacher claims was more prosperous than the Reagan years. Under the Reagan tax cuts, the wealthy actually paid MORE in taxes than under Carter. In 1981, the top 1% paid 17.6% of the burden. By 1988, they paid 27.5% of the burden. The top 10% in 1981 paid 48% of the burden. By 1988, it jumped to 57.2%. The bottom 50% in 1981 paid 7.5% of the burden. By 1988, it DROPPED to 5.7%.
This teacher did not present ONE shred of evidence for his claims. Allow me:
1. The U.S. Census Bureau says, the % of households with incomes over $50,000 increased from 17.6% in 1980 to 23.5% in 1989. % of households making less than $15,000 decreased from 27.5% in 1980 to 25.3% in 1989. In 1982, Real Median Family Income was $36,326. By 1989, it rose to $40,890. In 1982, Real Average Family Income of the lowest 5th was $10,072. By 1989, it rose to $11,311.
Stop them from what? Running the worlds most successful companies that employ thousands of people not to dimension producing the products we love? You forget we live in a free market, if these companies began making bad decisions they'd go out of business. BTW the bail outs went to banks not Bill Gates, you have no clue about economics or how the bail out works. You my friend are an idiot.
How was what Bush did anything close to Reagan. "Oh he cut taxes for the rich..." problem is that it is not a true claim. Bush decided he would persue easy money policies and government spending, and that never ends well. Reagan helped get us out of the failure of the Keynesian model, left us with a healthy economy, millions of jobs created, and new investments. He also left us with a deficit, but the deficit was not due to tax cuts but due to spending.
@DarthByss Bush cut taxes for every american that pays federal income tax, I know so, plus Bush did the right thing to sign those tax cuts into law, the surplus that was left behind by Clinton was our money to begin with. This guy is the video is a retard, anyone that thinks Reagan fucked up the economy is a retard, go do research on Reaganomics and you will learn that the economic boom under Clinton resulted from Reagan's economic policy.
Well you don't impose a system of socialism designed to take incentive away from investors, incentive away from innovation, incentive to rely on Goverment. Without private sector enterprise there is nothing because the Government belongs to the people, and the Government is far too well fed. What was done in the past worked perfectly. A handful of unethical crooks gave it a black eye. That's not the fault of free enterprise, it's a flaw existing in those crooks.
I hate to brake it to you, but you already live in a socialist country. The public roads, police and fire departments, libraries, court system, patent office, medicare, and the VA to name a few. It is called the "Commons" or the "General Welfare" clause in the constitution. I am not opposed to capitalism or making as much $ as I can, but this notion of free trade and free markets is a talking point. There is no such thing. Everything you do in this world has rules, like them or not.
@tonkman7 I would suggest you are dead wrong on "general welfare". Our founders had an issue with the Fed govt.gaining too much power.This clause was of great concern - but it was left in because it's SUPPORTERS argued that to claim it justified an expansive government was absurd. Madison MOCKED those people saying to interpret General Welfare in such a way would mean the government could justify ANYTHING.He was wrong on denying it would be interpreted this way, but RIGHT on it's implications.
Socialism means the government has very much power and can own the means of production. Things like the court system, patents, the police, the army, etc. are things we get for our tax money. But that is part of the social contract. We will bear the burden of taxes as long as we get from the government: defense from foreign invaders, defense from domestic threats, settling of disputes through the court system, etc. That does not make us socialist.
Your statement that "A handful of unethical crooks gave it a black eye" Are you kidding me, these handful of people brought this country to the brink of a depression. A danger I do not believe we have escaped from. It is precisely their actions which is why the Founders were so opposed to concentrated wealth by a very few individuals. Billionaires feeding Congress millions of dollars to do their bidding is like a couple of dollars to you and me. Just look at the current health care bill.
@tonkman7 Well your right about one thing, congress is retarded. You do realize that this latest recession had a heavy hand of government in it right? Bill Clinton made it illegal not to hand out sub prime mortgages. Jimmy Carter created Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These 2 companies provide insurance for bad bank loans, they would never exist in a free market. These 2 government sponsored companies ruined our economy. Please stop spreading around ignorance.
The founders warned about corruption (topic of justice is mentioned throughout the Declaration more so than any other topic). Corporatism is not a failure of free market or capitalism but the sign of a corrupt government, a government that can be bought. Reagan's tax reform, (1981 and 1988) lowered income tax burden of middle class from 57.5 percent in 81 to 48.7 percent in 88. Real median family income grew by $4,000 during Reagan, loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years.
@tonkman7 I do believe you are talking out of your ass. The constitution made no attempt to help the less fortunate or any social program for that matter. Roads, airports, and railways, have to contain federal influence to travel through state boarders anyways (commerce clause). The biggest bull is your statement on spreading wealth away from billionaires feeding congress. George Washington was the richest man in America during presidency. There was no attempt to stop wealth concentration.
socialism? all we want is the same set of laws that govern the social and economic behavior of us regular people, to apply to the rich and powerful people of this country.
I Never heard such a crock of shit in all my life. There is nothing wrong with the fundamentals of capitalism. A handful of greedy corporate crooks with no personal responsibility sold this country out for cheap labor after WWII. This is the result of the made in China sticker that Reagan never stood for. Most of the media is controlled by the far left. When was the last time a poor man gave you a job? In what book of economics is it written you can tax your way to prosperity? Total Bullshit!
There is much which needs to be done, but by far the most important is to remove money from government. There are two ways in which to do this; Public funding of all federal elections, and to make it illegal to to give money or services in any way to members of congress or the executive branch. Until this is done, we will never have the types of reforms that are necessary to return government to the people. Some things in the past did work, but the protections that existed were removed.
Who is your audience? This is the most absurd presentation supposedly centered on economics. To say the great depression was caused by tax cuts is absurd. It was caused by poor monetary policy on behalf of the Fed. Your "L-Curve" is a joke, you simply stole the premise of the Lorenz Curve, while taking all meaningful data out of the graphic. You sir are incompetent and should not be allowed to be teaching anyone.
mikeswanon8989 1 month ago
if it wasnt for billionaires, you wouldnt even be typing these comments. you wouldnt own a computer. if you dont think the rich help people then your saying bill gates has done nothing for anyone. microsoft has changed the world and plus he gave billions to charity
LeftsMakeMeAngry 2 months ago
@LeftsMakeMeAngry- FYI.
When IBM built its first business\personal computer, they needed an operating system to use with it. They went to Bill Gates after their top programer guy wasn't available; Bill bought an existing software program, QDOS, for $50,000, renamed it MS-DOS, and ended up collecting a royalty every time a PC was sold. Gates didn't need billions of dollars to improve the system.
ZAGGNUT1 2 months ago
Comment removed
GrandAmGT1990 2 months ago
i say we spread this video. Everyone share this on Facebook!
bhothemetallhead 5 months ago
@bhothemetallhead Why? What did this video teach you? It simply showed that Bill Gates has a lot more money than the average American family. You will find this is true in any developed economy.
mikeswanon8989 1 month ago
This guy did a great job but 7:54 is not enough time to cover all the failures of reaganomics.
TheCaliCapitalist 5 months ago
@TheCaliCapitalist got that right, i wish this was longer too.
UtopiaMinor666 4 months ago
This is like 21, 22 years after Reagan. So to blame this on Reagan is pretty ridiculous. But in all honesty, let's look. Reaganomics worked...Obamanomics are coming close to doubling the deficit... Do the math.
lmrspartan 7 months ago
@lmrspartan No one is blaming Reagan. But, like Obama's economic policies Reaganomics sucks. It only benefited ppl in the 80's. It caused a recession in the early 90's. But, not just the presidents are to blame. Yeah, Clinton and Bush should have never deregulated the banks and the banks should have never loaned money to ppl to buy houses they couldn't afford. But, the big corporations should take most of the blame. Gold and Sachs tricked ppl into investing in CDO's that would go down.
Gasparro18 7 months ago
I bet your the same guy that thinks unions are a good idea.
SMWhit3out 7 months ago
Dude just stop please.
SMWhit3out 7 months ago
What kind of stupid horseshit am I watching.
Fuck this tubby cunt, I'm going to bed.
Hokibukisa 7 months ago
Wouldn't raising taxes scare away businesses and wealthy investors? If a business can pay less taxes in illinois than indiana, they'd move to illinois. How would raising taxes attract investment? I'm openminded and really want to know how it would attract or repel businesses and investment to raise taxes.
AnotherMasterMind 8 months ago
@AnotherMasterMind Taxes pay for things like schools, roads, sewer and water systems, and countless other things that increase the quality of life.
What attracts businesses and people to a community are good schools and infrastructure so that their business, employees and their families
all benefit from and have access to these services. It is true businesses can play states off of each other to pay less and less in taxes, but to what end?
tonkman7 8 months ago
@tonkman7 I tend to agree with you, I just have these frustrating conversations with my republican father who always brings up how businesses provide jobs and by raising taxes, we are punishing financial success and driving jobs away to other countries. I feel like this is one of the conservatives strongest talking points. How would you respond to someone who says that "lowering taxes gives business incentives to create jobs, thus encouraging investment while spreading earned money to others."?
AnotherMasterMind 8 months ago
@AnotherMasterMind The only thing that creates jobs is demand. Tax breaks for the wealthy do not create jobs, it never has. When people have no money, there is no demand which is why our economy is in the state it is in with no end in sight.
tonkman7 8 months ago
@AnotherMasterMind your dad is a very smart man i use to be a liberal and i was for raising taxes i live in Michigan this is a liberal state and every year we have a thing were we compete against Indiana for job and they ALWAYS WIN they took are industry and jobs WHY cause they are more of a conservative state and have LESS Regulations and LESS taxes so yes it does work LISSIN to your dad bro
GrandAmGT1990 2 months ago
@tonkman7 I don't mean to pick on you "tonkman" lol but we pour billions into our schools every yr & decade. Still results get worse. Homeschooling is at an all time high (which denotes a failing public school system). We spend billions on roads still infrastructure is poor. Now, I'm not saying that gov't shouldn't provide SOME functions. But you gotta ask every once in awhile: "what are we getting for the amount of money we as a nation pay?" and "Is it worth it?" lol Thx
coolcatj7 8 months ago
Comment removed
GrandAmGT1990 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Reaganomics wasn't intended to bailout out them rich people that would be you BIG government and the liberals using your money to bail out these people. REAL conservatives like ME and Ronald Reagan believe that NO business is to BIG to fail if you make a mistake with your company you should go threw bankruptcy and start from ground up and rebuild your company.YOU PEOPLE MAKE ME SICK and blaming Reagan when he is agents bailouts. Its you Democrat and you Government picking winners n losers
GrandAmGT1990 2 months ago
@AnotherMasterMind Congress could put an end to the practice, but it won't. You speak of scaring away business by raising taxes, business has already left our country by trade polices over the last 30 years of which both republicans and democrats are responsible for. What is happening to this country would take
much more space then I have here. I would highly suggest you google thom hartmann. Listen to his radio show, watch his videos, or purchase his books. You won't regret it
tonkman7 8 months ago
@tonkman7 I'll try that. thanks.
AnotherMasterMind 8 months ago
@AnotherMasterMind I'm an econ major, and let me tell you that increasing taxes have many un-intended consequences, and (burdensome) taxes serve no valuable function to our society what so ever. And I'll define "burdensome taxes" as any tax on your personal income. Consumption taxes e.g sales taxes and "value added taxes" aren't nearly as destructive as Income Taxes, and Capital Gains Taxes.
coolcatj7 8 months ago
@AnotherMasterMind
In this case all the businesses and investors should go to somalia. Cause there are no taxes, since they don't even have a working governmont ( A Tea-Party Dreamland!).
Oh Wait!!!
MrAchilles1984 6 months ago
The unprecedented prosperity during the 50's 60's and 70's was NOT due to the high taxes, it was IN SPITE of them.
The reason we COULD prosper during that time and have those tax rates, is because WE HAD NO COMPETITION. EVERY SINGLE industrialized nation EXCEPT for the U.S. was reduced to RUBBLE during WWII. WE were the ONLY nation capable of supplying them with the goods and services they needed. In addition we had this massive wave of new consumers - the baby boomers.
ToddAldrich 8 months ago 2
Believe it or not, you need individuals with loads of money---business owners! You know why? They create jobs for people! Not to mention this falls under Capitalism, if you work hard you work your way up and earn money.
Right now things are much closer to socialism with way way way too much government control and spending.
Reaganomics is A LOT better than what we have know and it caused large economic growth and yadda yadda look it up.
iownyouatlife 8 months ago
Hoover was a Keynesian to the extreme. FDR even called him a socialist. Rexford Tugwell said that Hoover practically came up with the idea for the New Deal. I think your argument that Hoover was a supply side economist and that supply-side economics caused the Great Depression is invalid. A choked money supply caused the Depression. I don't dig Corporatism, but command economics(bailouts) always fails. I agree we are socialists now, but I think your premise lacks intellectual content.
TheLackofattack 9 months ago
regulation caused the great depression you dumb ass have you ever heard of the Smoot–Hawley tarriff? why dont you do your homework be fore you show everyone your cute little football graphs. Reagan spent money on defeating the communists. that was his goal and it worked. dont go blaming deregulation for all your problems.
yaidonyknowwhattoput 9 months ago
@yaidonyknowwhattoput I usually just let people spew their vitriol and ignorance without comment because it just goes to show the depth of our nation's problems. Just a quick note. The great depression was caused because of deregulation, not regulation. The great depression occurred in 1929 under a republican Congress and a republican president. The Smoot–Hawley tarriff was enacted into law in 1930 by the same republican administration who brought us the great depression. Have a nice day.
tonkman7 9 months ago
@tonkman7 regulation hurts business, regulation cost more tax dollars, regulation like the minimum wage makes less jobs available or jacks up prices. regulation like tariffs causes DGP to plummet. please tell me how ignorant i am because under Reagan the united states saw the most economic growth it had seen in over 30 years. i would love for you to keep bashing the republican party because i dont belong to it. just because my interperatation of the past is in favor of a repubican,
yaidonyknowwhattoput 9 months ago
@yaidonyknowwhattoput i apologize *GDP*
yaidonyknowwhattoput 9 months ago
please dont think i am in favor of every thing they do. im guessing because of ur attack on republicans youare a democrat. by your logic you are proslavery and love to kill babies.
yaidonyknowwhattoput 9 months ago
@tonkman7 Smoot-Hawley was only one of a series of taxes that were raised - and one of the last. Tariffs on grain and other imports, and govt. interferance, is what led to the depression. The policies of massive government involvement is what turned a short recession into a decades long depression. If you look, the Crash of 1929 helped take unemployment up to double digits, but by June of the very next year - it had already fallen to the 6% range. But then govt. decided to "help".
ToddAldrich 8 months ago
@tonkman7 Hoover signed the "Norris-LaGuardia Act-banned "yellow-dog" contracts between employers & employees. He est the "Reconstruction Finance Corporation" that gave aide to big corporations; he adhered to the "Under-consumption Theory"-a Keynesian belief & he signed the Smoot-Harley Tariff. Furthermore, the FED lowered rates by 3%,low interest rates facilitate production & consumption.So, with so much gov't intervention what deregulation-absence of gov't r u talkin about? Have a nice day!
coolcatj7 8 months ago
@tonkman7 I <3 you
tommy16p 9 months ago
SOCALIST NORWAY IS NUMBER ONE IN QUALITY OF LIFE ! GOP DRAGGED AMERICA DOWN TO NUMBER FIFTEEN !!!
kn9ioutom 10 months ago
@kn9ioutom UM - ONLY if you use Norway as the measuring stick. If you set North Korea as the measuring stick - IT would be number one and we would fall further down the list.
This is essentially what this "study" did.
ToddAldrich 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
.................. REAGANOMICS HAS DESTROYED THIS COUNTRY!!!!
REAGANOMICS SUCKS... REAGANOMICS SUCKS ... REAGANOMICS SUCKS...
REAGANOMICS SUCKS... REAGANOMICS SUCKS ... REAGANOMICS SUCKS...
REAGANOMICS SUCKS... REAGANOMICS SUCKS ... REAGANOMICS SUCKS...
elwaybigfan 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
.................. REAGANOMICS HAS DESTROYED THIS COUNTRY!!!!
REAGANOMICS SUCKS... REAGANOMICS SUCKS ... REAGANOMICS SUCKS...
REAGANOMICS SUCKS... REAGANOMICS SUCKS ... REAGANOMICS SUCKS...
REAGANOMICS SUCKS... REAGANOMICS SUCKS ... REAGANOMICS SUCKS...
elwaybigfan 10 months ago
Good job dude, I just learned all that stuff myself very recently. WE ARE IN TROUBLE UNLESS PEOPLE LEARN THIS....... FAST!!!!!!!! We did it before ...we must tax the richest again. ASAP!!! or collapse is emminent.
elwaybigfan 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
.................. REAGANOMICS HAS DESTROYED THIS COUNTRY!!!!
REAGANOMICS SUCKS... REAGANOMICS SUCKS ... REAGANOMICS SUCKS...
REAGANOMICS SUCKS... REAGANOMICS SUCKS ... REAGANOMICS SUCKS...
REAGANOMICS SUCKS... REAGANOMICS SUCKS ... REAGANOMICS SUCKS...
elwaybigfan 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
.................. REAGANOMICS HAS DESTROYED THIS COUNTRY!!!!
REAGANOMICS SUCKS... REAGANOMICS SUCKS ... REAGANOMICS SUCKS...
REAGANOMICS SUCKS... REAGANOMICS SUCKS ... REAGANOMICS SUCKS...
REAGANOMICS SUCKS... REAGANOMICS SUCKS ... REAGANOMICS SUCKS...
elwaybigfan 10 months ago
Reaganomics makes Americans lived better!
MichaelJefta 11 months ago
Reaganomics is a lame excuse, your economy is in virtual collapse because it's based on pure capitalism, and China is outdoing you at your own game.
exv152 11 months ago
@exv152 ...Wrong!! Reaganomics IS why we are in collapse... Reaganomics cut tax revenues so dramatically that we have NO money left in reserves. His idea is not a horrible idea, its just that the tax cuts were just TOO steep... and all the politicians today are "in bed" with the Rich/elite... and won't reverse the trend. OK?
elwaybigfan 10 months ago
@elwaybigfan Are you aware of the FACT that the government had an ALL TIME RECORD in 2007 in terms of revenues it collected?
How can those low tax rates be responsible for no reserves when the government "made" more money than at ANY time in it's history?
You need to use that thing between your ears for something other than as an experiment with the latest illicit pharmaceuticals.
ToddAldrich 8 months ago
This video is not good for those Tea Party illiterate tools, it doesn't help their cause!
deeppurple28 1 year ago
@deeppurple28 What does literacy have to do with watching a video?
tbirdpunk 10 months ago
President Jefferson wanted to have a govt that governed least, but he the united states was being explored (lewis and clark) for new lands. Slavery was being expanded into new areas. Hippocritical.
IANBOT2 1 year ago
What ever happen to the middle class?
Dvader64909 1 year ago
Is this guy actually saying that creating billionaires is a bad thing? He wants less billionaires in the US? Why? There are no billionaires in the Congo or Zimbabwe, does he like the way they live?
jjrglobal 1 year ago
never heard a person talking so much trash and being so serious about it...
Wolky702 1 year ago
Little blurb about debt shall we? The United States was, since the beginning of its foundation, in debt. Social programs like healthcare, welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, and other unfunded liabilities are causing the real debt. Pensions and unions make the industrial future of America bleak. In the US, people want more when in reality, only the successful are powerful. Gates is rich only because of his business and inventive knowledge. Welcome to capitalism.
Coondog3607 1 year ago
Comment removed
Coondog3607 1 year ago
i'd like to point out to 'tonkman' that the three presidents he mentioned, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton grew the economy ( GDP ) at 43%, 13%, and 35% respectively.
you throw in the second bush you have another 32% growth. unemployment hovering around 5%, etc.
and those guys who we 'fought against in the revolution...' well, those guys were rich too. the rich don't make money, neither do the poor.
KEV8551 1 year ago
@KEV8551 Its easy to grow the GDP when you borrow 13 trillion dollars. If you look at quality of life the man has a point. The top 1% of income earners has recived an almost 300% in income while the lower middle class has recived about 20%. Balance that against the cost of living, the increse in personal debt, and that 13 trill we have to pay back with interest.
freakyfatdog 1 year ago
KEV8551 1 year ago
@KEV8551 I'm talking about the state of the nation since his tax code which we have had through Bush SR, Clinton, to Obama. It is true the top 1% of wage earners have benifited far more than any other demographic in the last 30 years. Their income has gone up by 281%. You can google that number. All the while we have a 13 trill debt not including trade and entitlement debts.
freakyfatdog 1 year ago
@freakyfatdog the middle class ( $20K - $29K ) grew 29% in the 80's. the wages of the upper middle ( $30K - $49K ) grew 28%. $50K up wages grew 7% in the 80's.
there was real growth. sure, those with more capital to invest grew more. but most got better. the deficits up until now were less than 4% of real GDP. that's not desireable but it's acceptable.
now we're sitting at 11 - 12% of real GDP. that isn't sustainable. there was a paradigm shift in '08...for the worse.
KEV8551 1 year ago
@freakyfatdog if it was easy to grow the GDP with deficits...we'd be through the roof right now...which i think is a testament to the US econom thus far.
as for our 'trade deficits.' we're 3rd in the world in exports. we export $1.1 trillion...$200 billion less than China and right on Germany's heels. our problem is we buy stuff from overseas...we do that because it's cheap.
that's a good thing about China keeping their currency low...it helps our purchasing power.
KEV8551 1 year ago
@KEV8551 The through the roof is the actual GDP numbers. The GDP is a reflection of product sold. It doesn’t consider the personal debt to buy the product. An example is trip to the clinic without health insurance.
The wage growth in the last 30 years did not compensate for the cost of transportation, education, food, housing, health insurance etc. That’s why we have so much personal debt, and working people living in Section 8 receiving Food Stamps.
freakyfatdog 1 year ago
@freakyfatdog gdp is all products, services, etc. all debt isn't bad. debt you can pay down is ok.
the personal debt is high because starting in the 90's anytime the economy would slow down the Fed would lower rates, making money 'cheaper ' ( lower rates to borrow ) and that's what people did.
with a good economy, people figure they can save next year.
our economy is STILL strong. but, we need to start now, cutting spending and not monetarizing more debt.
KEV8551 1 year ago
typical keynesian horseshit!
BAhern63 1 year ago
this peace of crap communist needs to never say what washington/ jefferson thought!
drahm33 1 year ago
wow, all I hear is this guy is failing to use the benefits of Reaganomics. Those that had that wealth weren't born with such a huge income, they actually had to work for that pay, so why can't the reap the benefits? you aren't bailing them out, they bail themselves out.
RyderStudios 1 year ago
@RyderStudios Actually they probably were.
Blackwater1 1 year ago
the problem with this guy is he fails to relize these billionares are spending their money. and it's not like theres a limited amount of money. they've GENERATED that money. they earned that value through something they did in the FREEE economy. YOU yes you, reading this, have the ability to make that kind of money if you put your mind to it. don't do drugs. don't be an idiot. buckle down! you're in America. you have a right TO prosperity. you're not GIVEN prosperity. go get it.
pamansprewell33 1 year ago
the economy would just work better if we just let the old, the mentally challenged and psyically handicapped just die off. no more social security. further more the peasants need to get out and work 60+ hours a week with no benefits or safety precations. get rid of anyone who cant turn a profit for a low wage. i would personaly feel much better when our kings and queens can live well, and i will work extra hard to ensure they can. C'mon america, lets all pitch in.
holysnake9 1 year ago
Comment removed
VivaVarlamov 1 year ago
@oldwatchman I'm so tired of people playing the 'socialism' card. Socialism is a collection of philosophies. It's not a form of government. Second of all without socialism in our society we wouldn't have social security (aka welfare for the elderly), handicapped people would have no resources or rights, children would not be protected and more.
AMagicalUsername 1 year ago
One problem with all this. The derivatives markets and the naked short selling. Not to mention the insuring of junk paper with tax payer money.
hbjon 1 year ago
Not everyone can win that is why there aren't many rich people because most people aren't winners. Being rich is like being smart how many people make it to the National Honor Society ? You can't bitch because you didn't make it to the NHS. A lot of people that are rich deserve to be rich. but there are also a lot of people who are just rich because they were born in a rich family . This guy is stupid because The U S A is a Republic not a Democracy . and in the 70's people had bad inflation.
AllTheSame711 1 year ago
@skins703 - The military buildup was necessary after a botched American attempt under Carter to rescue American hostages. The USSR could not compete with our industrial and financial might under Reagan and ended the cold war. Reagan understood the Government was a hollow suit without the private sector at full tilt. It's too bad the Americans that love Obama cannot see through the socialist muslim sympathizing zero that he is. We were far better as a nation under Reagan than under Obama.
oldwatchman 1 year ago
@oldwatchman
Richard Nixon had been forced from the presidency because of an implicitly authorized "petty burglary" and his own explicit efforts to cover up the felony, a serious matter of obstructing justice. Ronald Reagan authorized a deliberate violation of law and public policy, and several high officials in his government - including his secretary of defense, his top national security advisor, and almost certainly Vice-President Bush - lied under oath about it.
utubeaccount00 1 year ago
@oldwatchman it wasn't just under reagan. it was a compilation of other things, for many years, that resulted to the dissolving of the USSR. Reagan deserves his share of credit, but definitely not all of it Definitely not. Also, I'd rather have Obama, hell I'd rather have Bush Jr. than Reagan.
lozr0ckz 1 year ago
@lozr0ckz go watch history channel, under Reagan the nation BOOMED. He kept interest rates low and brought down inflation from 10% to 4% at the end of his first term. How can u pick obama when he hasnt proved anything, but that he can sure print alot of money and blame bush.
VivaVarlamov 1 year ago
@oldwatchman If you looked at any statistics you would see that you are horribly wrong.
Blackwater1 1 year ago
@rustyoneone - Two undeniable facts: 1) You cannot tax your way to prosperity; 2) The poor do not create jobs. If anybody is an ass hole, I think it's you. The Government is nothing without the private sector investor. We give them their money and make them their guns. You have a lot to learn.
oldwatchman 1 year ago
@oldwatchman ...but it's also true that you can't give tax cuts and not pay for them..Reagan gave the largest tax cut in american history and financed the largest military build up in peace time by massive borrowing....deficit spending was the whole cornerstone of Reaganomics...using deficit spending to stimulate private investment...Reagans supply-side' policy was effectively stimulating demand through the Keynesian multiplier effect.....but it left massive deficits.
skinz703 1 year ago
You should change the title to "Failure to Understand what the Hell I'm talking about."
GoWulfpack 1 year ago
They make billions of dollars because they earn it. If you know so much, go make a billion dollars then use it to preach about how it's wrong to have a billion dollars.
TumisHumis 1 year ago
@TumisHumis They earned it by having other people do work for them, then cleaning house to maximize their profits. Yeah right. Get a clue.
Blackwater1 1 year ago
King Bozo 1981-1989 aka What Ronnie Meant
"I want all my subjects
Happy every day."
'Let 'em choke on jellybean'
Is what he really say.
Johnny "The Right" LeBright
aka Johnny "The Bean Dream" Seen
3/3/86
lumpagogo 1 year ago
This teacher needs to find a new job. None of his info is correct. Now ether he is intentionally lying or he simply cant research anything for himself. Which ever one it is, this teacher should not have this job.
disfunction88 1 year ago
@disfunction88
This man is giving us facts but was limited by a short video--the list of atrocities for which the Teflon Don aka Ronnie The Crook was and is responsible is a long, long phattie. E.g., the immigrinti you see, hear and fear = Ronnie's 1986 Amnesty and de facto open borders. Just think of Ronnie's last movie: "The Killers"--Ronnie was playing himself.
lumpagogo 1 year ago
3. So by the information that i have submitted, its clear that middle class income actually GREW during the Reagan years. More people were lifted out of poverty and into prosperity. The bottom 5th's income actually GREW. Our economy also grew more than any other previous decade in history. And to the people who say that the tax cuts were only for the rich and the middle class and poor paid more taxes, under Reagan the rich actually paid MORE of the tax burden than the middle class and poor.
bRizzle2009100 1 year ago
@bRizzle2009100 ...deficit spending was the whole cornerstone of Reaganomics...using deficit spending to stimulate private investment...Reagans supply-side' policy was effectively stimulating demand through the Keynesian multiplier effect.....but it left massive deficits..it's not worth it.
skinz703 1 year ago
@skinz703 umm... no. Keynesian economics is the complete opposite of Reaganomics. Although Reagan and a DEMOCRATIC Congress might have spent a lot of money it was mainly cold-war defense spending. Had it not been for the cold war, the deficits would have been a lot smaller. Non-defense spending as a percentage of national income actually stabilized during the Reagan years while during previous Administrations, it had continued an upward trend.
bRizzle2009100 1 year ago
2. Real GDP grew at an annual rate of 3.9% during the Reagan years, higher than the post-WWII average of 3.6% that this teacher claims was more prosperous than the Reagan years. Under the Reagan tax cuts, the wealthy actually paid MORE in taxes than under Carter. In 1981, the top 1% paid 17.6% of the burden. By 1988, they paid 27.5% of the burden. The top 10% in 1981 paid 48% of the burden. By 1988, it jumped to 57.2%. The bottom 50% in 1981 paid 7.5% of the burden. By 1988, it DROPPED to 5.7%.
bRizzle2009100 1 year ago
This teacher did not present ONE shred of evidence for his claims. Allow me:
1. The U.S. Census Bureau says, the % of households with incomes over $50,000 increased from 17.6% in 1980 to 23.5% in 1989. % of households making less than $15,000 decreased from 27.5% in 1980 to 25.3% in 1989. In 1982, Real Median Family Income was $36,326. By 1989, it rose to $40,890. In 1982, Real Average Family Income of the lowest 5th was $10,072. By 1989, it rose to $11,311.
bRizzle2009100 1 year ago
Stop them from what? Running the worlds most successful companies that employ thousands of people not to dimension producing the products we love? You forget we live in a free market, if these companies began making bad decisions they'd go out of business. BTW the bail outs went to banks not Bill Gates, you have no clue about economics or how the bail out works. You my friend are an idiot.
thebestsumoeva 1 year ago
Great video!!
mbmart2005 1 year ago
How was what Bush did anything close to Reagan. "Oh he cut taxes for the rich..." problem is that it is not a true claim. Bush decided he would persue easy money policies and government spending, and that never ends well. Reagan helped get us out of the failure of the Keynesian model, left us with a healthy economy, millions of jobs created, and new investments. He also left us with a deficit, but the deficit was not due to tax cuts but due to spending.
DarthByss 2 years ago
@DarthByss Bush cut taxes for every american that pays federal income tax, I know so, plus Bush did the right thing to sign those tax cuts into law, the surplus that was left behind by Clinton was our money to begin with. This guy is the video is a retard, anyone that thinks Reagan fucked up the economy is a retard, go do research on Reaganomics and you will learn that the economic boom under Clinton resulted from Reagan's economic policy.
ryan9942 1 year ago
Well you don't impose a system of socialism designed to take incentive away from investors, incentive away from innovation, incentive to rely on Goverment. Without private sector enterprise there is nothing because the Government belongs to the people, and the Government is far too well fed. What was done in the past worked perfectly. A handful of unethical crooks gave it a black eye. That's not the fault of free enterprise, it's a flaw existing in those crooks.
oldwatchman 2 years ago
I hate to brake it to you, but you already live in a socialist country. The public roads, police and fire departments, libraries, court system, patent office, medicare, and the VA to name a few. It is called the "Commons" or the "General Welfare" clause in the constitution. I am not opposed to capitalism or making as much $ as I can, but this notion of free trade and free markets is a talking point. There is no such thing. Everything you do in this world has rules, like them or not.
tonkman7 2 years ago 10
@tonkman7
great point tonkman! he couldnt come back from that
Piglatinsuperstar 1 year ago
@tonkman7 i wish i had a dollar for everytime i've told this to somebody XD
TRISTANRAMEZ 9 months ago
@tonkman7 I would suggest you are dead wrong on "general welfare". Our founders had an issue with the Fed govt.gaining too much power.This clause was of great concern - but it was left in because it's SUPPORTERS argued that to claim it justified an expansive government was absurd. Madison MOCKED those people saying to interpret General Welfare in such a way would mean the government could justify ANYTHING.He was wrong on denying it would be interpreted this way, but RIGHT on it's implications.
ToddAldrich 8 months ago
@tonkman7
Socialism means the government has very much power and can own the means of production. Things like the court system, patents, the police, the army, etc. are things we get for our tax money. But that is part of the social contract. We will bear the burden of taxes as long as we get from the government: defense from foreign invaders, defense from domestic threats, settling of disputes through the court system, etc. That does not make us socialist.
CommanderGene 5 months ago
Your statement that "A handful of unethical crooks gave it a black eye" Are you kidding me, these handful of people brought this country to the brink of a depression. A danger I do not believe we have escaped from. It is precisely their actions which is why the Founders were so opposed to concentrated wealth by a very few individuals. Billionaires feeding Congress millions of dollars to do their bidding is like a couple of dollars to you and me. Just look at the current health care bill.
tonkman7 2 years ago 7
@tonkman7 Well your right about one thing, congress is retarded. You do realize that this latest recession had a heavy hand of government in it right? Bill Clinton made it illegal not to hand out sub prime mortgages. Jimmy Carter created Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These 2 companies provide insurance for bad bank loans, they would never exist in a free market. These 2 government sponsored companies ruined our economy. Please stop spreading around ignorance.
thebestsumoeva 1 year ago
@tonkman7 and not to mention the contribution caps are now taken off.. These "handful of enethical crooks" can now potentially buy elections.
a1Drummer07 1 year ago
@tonkman7
The founders warned about corruption (topic of justice is mentioned throughout the Declaration more so than any other topic). Corporatism is not a failure of free market or capitalism but the sign of a corrupt government, a government that can be bought. Reagan's tax reform, (1981 and 1988) lowered income tax burden of middle class from 57.5 percent in 81 to 48.7 percent in 88. Real median family income grew by $4,000 during Reagan, loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years.
JJW88c 1 year ago
@tonkman7 Good Post, hey what school is that?
Slayerfan84 1 year ago
@tonkman7 I do believe you are talking out of your ass. The constitution made no attempt to help the less fortunate or any social program for that matter. Roads, airports, and railways, have to contain federal influence to travel through state boarders anyways (commerce clause). The biggest bull is your statement on spreading wealth away from billionaires feeding congress. George Washington was the richest man in America during presidency. There was no attempt to stop wealth concentration.
Coondog3607 1 year ago
@tonkman7 So you want to put MORE power in the hands of the few? You need to think through your logic.
Smaller government is what the founders designed for us, not one where the Federal government has so much power and control.
ToddAldrich 8 months ago
@oldwatchman
socialism? all we want is the same set of laws that govern the social and economic behavior of us regular people, to apply to the rich and powerful people of this country.
that's not socialism,
you ass hole!
rustyoneone 1 year ago
I Never heard such a crock of shit in all my life. There is nothing wrong with the fundamentals of capitalism. A handful of greedy corporate crooks with no personal responsibility sold this country out for cheap labor after WWII. This is the result of the made in China sticker that Reagan never stood for. Most of the media is controlled by the far left. When was the last time a poor man gave you a job? In what book of economics is it written you can tax your way to prosperity? Total Bullshit!
oldwatchman 2 years ago
so, what do you suggest? what was done in the past has not worked.
onlybst 2 years ago
There is much which needs to be done, but by far the most important is to remove money from government. There are two ways in which to do this; Public funding of all federal elections, and to make it illegal to to give money or services in any way to members of congress or the executive branch. Until this is done, we will never have the types of reforms that are necessary to return government to the people. Some things in the past did work, but the protections that existed were removed.
tonkman7 2 years ago