@SongBirdJesusFreak With adoption the baby stays alive. Do not underestimate the affect that the Lost Human Potential has had on our economy.
Also, by spending on other people, do you mean giving freely to those in need, or having the government take it away by force and give it to undeserved constituents and bail out banks and given to dictators and spent on themselves and taken up in 'administrative costs'? Did you know Congress can't vote out a benefit?
@SongBirdJesusFreak Not the federal government. They are run by state and city governments, which is fine by me. If a state or city government becomes oppressive with their taxes, you can always move to a new city or state. Unless you like eating foreign food, there is no option for you if the federal government becomes oppressive.
With that said, MOST adoptions are done privately, not through sponsored foster care
The charity thing isn't a bad idea. I think a charity organization could handle every last welfare program far more efficiently than the federal government could (less bureaucrats) You would also be surprised how much more people are willing to give when it's voluntary rather than taxed. The rich (that "evil" 1%) pays 40% of our nation's revenue right now.
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years"
The video could have mentioned that the interest on debt will go up when interest rates on treasuries go up. Currently, we're enjoying a cyclical downturn in interest rates that won't last forever. Eventually, interest on debt will consume a much larger portion of our spending. At that point, we'll have nothing to show for all the taxes we pay.
My 8 grade math teacher had a great idea. Only tax paying citizens should be allowed to vote. Make that law and see how long the leeches keep leeching off the system when they can't vote.
Also he uses a weasel word in the form of "discretionary military spending". What is the difference between discretionary and non-discretionary military spending? He won't say. How much of the 21% "other non-discretionary spending" that he won't cop to is military spending? Beats me I'll have to dig to find out since he provided no useful information. This clown does nothing but spew in his false breathless delivery knowing his ditto heads won't bother to look into anything he says.
21% is "other non-discretionary" spending. Hrm, interesting how he doesn't even mention what that would entail.
Also this shit for brains pretends repub politicians aren't in government and repub voters aren't at the feeding troth he hates so much. Considering older people tend to skew repub - the only reason we have a repub party - its his "producers" that will be getting that entitlement larges.
The video is almost correct when it states that the entitlements are non-discretionary. But since they are based on legislation, they are at the mercy of Congress. Congress can change the law whenever it chooses to. However, since the recipient bloc outvotes the donor bloc, that won't happen.
This will never be fixed because the Democraps depend on all the welfare stooges for votes. They want more perpetual welfare recipients, not less, and they don't care if the country falls to pieces so long as they can keep getting votes. They are small petty opportunistic people with no morals.
$92 Billion for "Corporate Welfare" and $2.2TRILLION for "Individual Welfare".
@rufuguru apparently does not know how to read a graph or listen.
Corporate welfare And Individual welfare Both need to be cut significantly. Make people reapply for Food Stamps and Welfare. Require drug testing as well. I'm not saying that Everyone is on drugs or scamming, but enough Are, that it makes a difference.
@Cwagmire "About $59 billion is spent on traditional social welfare programs. $92 billion is spent on corporate subsidies." (Think By Numbers [dot]org) You're inherently wrong, and Corporate Welfare is part of entitlements. Corporate Welfare is nearly double social welfare. I'm not sure who told you otherwise.
WILL YOU PLEASE STOP CALLING SOCIAL SECURITY AN ENTITLEMENT!! ITS NOT ITS MONEY I PAID IN FROM MY HARD WORK!! its my money that the government has been drawing interest off of all of my life. I am only asking for my money that I let you borrow!! its not entitlement!!! its MY MONEY!!
@gwhollon We should give you back what you paid into it, then, and then kill it. In fact we'll even give it back to you with interest. Then you'll see how feeble an amount it is compared to the size of your monthly check added up over 10-20+ years.
Progressives will always make the case, successfully, that taxing those "other" people is fair, right and just. The United States has long since passed the point of no return regarding maintainable social programs. The bill will be payed in the currency of inflation. Will millions of Americans starve to death in the street? Probably not. However, our definition of poverty will be very, very different. We'll continue to argue cause over potatoes, not meat, wearing heavily layered clothing.
@cennon: The combined wealth of the Forbes 400 list is just over 1 trillion dollars; even if you tax them 100% of their value it does nothing. It doesn't even cover a year of spending, and in order to do it you would have to shut down and sell off Walmart, Microsoft, Apple, and dozens of other corporations employing millions of people. But that's ok just keep living in you delusional little world, that works too.
@Gotterdammerung141 ""Forbes 400 list is just over 1 trillion dollars; even if you tax them 100% of their value it does nothing""
It's clear you're ignorant of the Clinton era where taxes were raised on the rich and the budget was balanced. You have to either be very young, or not living in the USA not to know this.
Taxes were raised on the rich many times throughout history and the sky didn't fall. Also most Americans are in support of raising taxes on the rich.
@michaeldunnjr Comparing slavery to raising taxes on the rich is laughable.
And since we're a free nation that holds regular elections, the majority opinion matters far more than you think. Me and many of my fellow countrymen will vote out those who ignore the will of the people who support this anti tax cult in the Republican party.
It's clear you have no clue what America is about to say what the majority thinks is meaningless. It sounds like you support a dictatorship to say that.
@cennon If my comparison is laughable, refute it. If you believe that whatever the majority says should rule, then I weep for your ignorance. In a country of 1,000,000, if 500,001 people voted that the other 499,999 should be executed, that would be wrong, wouldn't it? My point, which you ignored, is that "everybody wants it" does not make it RIGHT.
@michaeldunnjr I'm against majority rule if it's unconstitutional, which killing innocent Americans would be. but it's totally legal to vote out those that don't support the will of the people when it comes to the issue of raising taxes on the rich.
You just keep proving you're not of the stuff that made this nation great.
@cennon You keep presuming that I have opinions that I've never said. I never argued against voting people out of office. I argued that you justifying taxing the rich by saying "most americans support" it, is idiotic.
I ask you to give me one constitutionally sound argument for why you have the right to take my property based on the fact that I have more property than you. That's what you're doing when you advocate higher taxes for certain parts of society, but not others.
@michaeldunnjr ""I ask you to give me one constitutionally sound argument for why you have the right to take my property based on the fact that I have more property than you."" Taxes have been raised on people for thousands of years. For you to think this is some abstract concept in 2012 shows you're brain is not working right.
@cennon That's not a sound argument. "We've done it before" is not a valid argument for doing a thing being right. People have been enslaved for thousands of years too, and that's not right. Come up with a better argument.
@michaeldunnjr comparing the lawful raising of taxes with slavery is laughable. You can ignore history, however it does show that in many cases taxes were raised (especially on the wealthy) and the economy improved. There's no reason to believe GOP talking points since they've been wrong about so much in recent history.
@cennon Again, if it's laughable, refute it. You're completely missing the point. I'm not arguing that raising taxes is wrong. I'm arguing that "most Americans support it" is NOT a valid justification for it.
@cennon Also, the budget was only balanced using shady accounting. The Social Security trust fund basically bought treasury notes, infusing money into the general fund where it then balanced the budget, disguised as "intra-governmental debt." Make no mistake, that money wasn't really there.
None of this changes the fact that there's simply isn't enough money among "the rich" to pay our bills. Whether it's a good idea to raise taxes or not, there flat out isn't enough income there.
@michaeldunnjr So you still have no clue the budget was balanced by raising taxes on the rich during the Clinton era. You can keep proving your'e a tool for the rich by defending them instead of the vast majority of Americans. It just shows you're not on the side of the average American, but on the side of the elite. I'm sure you would have sided with British royalty during the US revolution as well with your attitude.
@michaeldunnjr Wrong, I'm aware that raising taxes on the rich will help balance the budget just like it did with the Clinton era, where you're the one who ignores recent history. Yep, you're an outsourced paid troll alright. Anyone living in the USA knows about Clinton raising taxes.
@cennon Sure, raising the tax rate on the rich will help reduce the deficit, but it will not CURE it. The rich do not make enough money to pay for our deficit. Fact. I'm not an outsourced paid troll. Fact. The reason the budget balanced under Clinton was the Social Security Trust Fund buying government securities. Fact. Go on, try to refute ANY of these things.
@michaeldunnjr You can keep ignoring Clinton successfully raising taxes on the rich, but that just makes you a historical revisionist.
Was it unconstitutional when taxes were raised on the rich during the 50's? Taxes for the rich was as high as 90% and we had the strongest middle class ever. Historical reality proves you wrong.
@cennon Not true. If you google "historical effective federal tax rates" you would know that the most efffective tax rate is around 40% for the 1%. There were many many loopholes in the 50s.
@cennon I'm not ignoring anything. I am fully aware that Clinton raised taxes on the rich. I'm also fully aware that the budget was balanced. My point, which you've completely ignored (I assume due to its inconvenient truth) is that the tax increase is not the reason the budget was balanced. The budget was balanced because the Social Security Trust Fund was used to buy government securities, thereby giving the government more money - money that has to get paid back at some point.
This video doesn't take into account the fact that those who "don't work and don't pay taxes" also don't get much money. I doubt a large percentage of them would rather live on 15k a year than get a job and make a median 30k if they could. This video unfairly makes it seem like the poor that get welfare, or the old that collect SS are sipping champagne, eating caviar, and laughing at the "working class".
@sarumonkee , You are right. Those who don't work are not eating caviar and drinking champagne while laughing at us. They are drinking beer and smoking pot and watching tv while we are at work. Just look around. You can't see it?
@sarumonkee It doesn't matter what they are or are not doing. What matters is the spending is out of control and it is more then we can afford. Just because you are spending money on the poor or sick doesn't mean it can magically go on forever. Demographics say we are screwed without massive cuts. Even if they aren't eating caviar.
@TXKafir , The constitution implies many things with "promote the general welfare" as found in the preamble and article I section 8. Cut out All welfare? Easy to say, but do you think anyone is going to agree to cut out the safety net entirely and social security?
@rufuguru The operative words are "promote" and "general." The welfare state as we see it today "ensures" the "specific" welfare. Anyway, there's no reason we can't have a safety net. The constitution only requires that it be implemented at the state level.
Celesta920, SS IS considered welfare simply b/c over the course of your receipt of it, you will receive MORE than you put in to it over the course of your employed years. SS is also more than a senior citizen program, it is also for those who are disabled. That's what he meant by keeping the program only for those who are disabled/unable to work. I'd LOVE to have the money back that our family gives to SS every month. We could have some great investments. Most won't invest tho, they'd spend.
Social Security is not welfare. They take money out of people's paychecks over the course of their working years promising to pay it back. If you want to end SS then you have to give the money back first and then stop deducting it from paychecks, otherwise that would be stealing it worker's money. Ron Paul says that promise to pay SS payroll deductions back should be honored. It's not the recipient's of SS fault that the government spent their money on other things.
@celesta920 I'm fifty years old. They could keep everything I've ever paid in if they would stop deducting anything new. Hell, they could keep it if they would cut my payment in half!
@TXKafir you didn't answer my question: Do you see 50% of America's seniors living in poverty as a perceived problem? Or were you not aware that 50% of America's seniors lived in poverty before SS was implemented?
@cennon We were in the middle of the Great Depression. Lots of people lived in poverty. That was no reason to violate the constitution and give us an unsustainable entitlement. The progressives used the moment to pass sweeping legislation giving the federal govt powers the founding fathers never intended them to have.
@cennon 50% of America's seniors living in poverty is still better then 99.99% of Americans living in poverty. Which is what will happen if entitlement spending doesn't have massive cuts. Or do you really think the barter system will raise standards of living? Because the dollar won't be worth the paper it is printed on.
@cheeseburger12 Clearly you're not a patriotic American to be content with 50% of America's seniors living in poverty. Obviously you have little faith in the USA and it's people since you feel that it's a choice between a 50% and a 99.99% poverty rate with America's seniors. Real patriots would demand better of their nation and their leaders and not be content with 50% of it's seniors living in poverty.
You proved you are NOT on the side of the American people with your defeatist attitude.
@cennon What's your solution then? Given the choice between doing what we're doing now, which burns the whole place to the ground, or making drastic cuts to entitlements, I'll take the entitlement cuts. If you don't like those two options, I eagerly await your suggestions.
@michaeldunnjr My solution? Overturn the Citizen's United ruling and major lobbying reform so the rich and powerful don't corrupt our government. End the military industrial complex and end the failed war on drugs. Raise taxes on the rich. And that's just for starters. Want to hear more?
@cennon If the entire department of defense went away, you'd reduce the budget by what? 600 billion? And how would any of the other things you talked about change our addiction to entitlements?
@michaeldunnjr you're confusing ending the military industrial complex with legitimate defense spending. It's clear you have no clue about the military industrial complex that IKE warned us about. If you're an honest patriot you'll google the MIC and look into this. If you're a paid misinformation troll with no sense of patriotism, you will confuse to display your ignorance regrading the MIC.
@cennon The second someone says "military industrial complex" and assumes that anyone that disagrees with them is a "paid misinformation troll", their opinions become moot. You're clearly off your rocker.
@michaeldunnjr Well you should research what the military industrial complex is instead of remain ignorant about it, like you're doing right now.
You proved you have no clue what the MIC means by confusing it with cutting all defense spending. A paid troll will keep remaining ignorant instead of doing research.
Prove you're an honest broker and a US patriot by doing some research on this topic and get back to me.
@cennon Quite frankly, I'm not going to waste my time trying to have a rational conversation with you when you're clearly irrational. The fact of the matter is that in order to avoid financial disaster, we MUST reform entitlements. We simply cannot afford our entitlement addiction. All your rambling about the MIC does not change this unavoidable fact, and only serves to distract from the REAL issues we face.
@michaeldunnjr By you ignoring the Military industrial complex, it leads me to believe you support this version of corruption that is a huge factor in our un balanced budget and increasing the national debt.
We may have to reform entitlements, but let's raise taxes on the rich, end the MIC and end corporate welfare first. Let's end what wrongfully benefits the top 1% first before we deal with SS and Medicare. And let's vote the GOP out since they can't be trusted to fix this.
@cennon You can believe whatever you want - your opinion is pretty much meaningless. You seem to want to blame the military industrial complex for our budget. Clearly you haven't looked at the budget. We pay out more each year, just in mandatory spending (most of which is entitlements) than we collect in taxes. The MIC has nothing to do with that.
@cennon Then you want to vote out the GOP since they can't be trusted. The fact that you think the Democrats can be trusted (based on your failure to call for voting them out) is hysterical. You're a classic "give me free stuff" liberal, and quite honestly, that mentality has no place in a free nation. Go earn your own stuff, and stop trying to take mine.
@michaeldunnjr 1) I'll vote for anyone regardless of party who works to overturn the Citizen's United ruling and ends the military industrial complex. (for starters)
2) Are you saying you're content with the GOP being owned by banksters and corporate lobbyists? If you are and are too afraid to admit it, then duck the question and/or change the subject to Obama and Dems.
@cennon 1) then why is it you only mention the GOP? Your bias is clear, and pretending otherwise is disingenuous.
2) first of all, I never said anything about Obama. Why are you bringing him up? Secondly, do you think the Democrats are any less owned by banksters and lobbyists? What I have a problem with here is your blatant one-sidedness. Your willingness to ignore in Democrats what you chastise republicans for. You're a hypocrite and I have no more time for you.
@michaeldunnjr Everything you say is why I'm for lobbying reform and overturning the Citizen's United ruling to keep the rich and powerful from corrupting our government and both major parties. Do we agree on this, or are you going to dodge this specific topic since you failed to advocate 1 positive solution yet?
@cennon The solution I advocate is the complete cessation of entitlement programs. I advocate abolition of agencies like the Depts of Education, Energy, Commerce, Labor, HHS, and HUD. I advocate elimination of the Federal Reserve, and legislation outlawing the fractional reserve system. I would abolish corporate personhood, which is what you're getting at with the CU ruling. A corporation or union is NOT a person, and should not have the same privileges.
@michaeldunnjr but I am happy to see that we agree that the GOP are owned by banskters and corporate lobbyists. If this was not true you would have disputed this by now. Here's some advice, you should really promote your favorite 3rd party and help with their advertising.
@cennon You're still so one sided. We agree that BOTH parties are unduly influenced by special interests. Personally, I despise political parties entirely, and see them as merely a crutch for the lazy, so they can choose who to vote for without having to pay attention or do any research. My vote this cycle is going to Ron Paul, because he's the only one out there arguing for LESS government interference in our lives.
@michaeldunnjr oh also vote the GOP out of existence since they're wholly owned by banksters and corporate lobbyists and have no desire to change their ways.
Yes Dems suck too, which is why I'm for getting money out of corrupting our political process. An issue Dylan Rattigan always talks about.
@cennon Owned by bankers? You know that no president is more in bed with Wall Street than Obama right? If you think that CEOs make a lot of money, you should see what union bosses make.
@Dog14183 So you know the GOP are owned by banksters and corporate lobbyists. If you felt otherwise you would not have to ignore this and change the subject to Obama.
I take it you're making the case that both parties have failed the American people. So what's your answer since it's clear you don't support Dems or Repubs for being bought off?
@Dog14183 I agree, which is why I'm for overturning the Citizen's United ruling to get money out of politics. Because both parties are corrupted. It's just there's some GOP supporters here so I have to make it clear that liberal bashing is not a reason to vote Republican.
@celesta920 In 1960 (Flemming vs Nestor) The Supreme Court already ruled that there is no contractual right to receive SS payments. Your money was stolen. It is gone. Your only choice is will you take someone else's to replace your mistrust in the politicians, media, and educational system. Either way, someone is going to get screwed.
@TheDeathstarrr Is corporate entitlements clearer? Plus, let's stop bailing out failing businesses and start helping the employees that would loose their jobs to find new ones.
Of course we need to cut that out, corporate welfare is worse than individual welfare, at least someone is more likely to need individual welfare.
I have always been against the bailouts from Day One. A larger proportion of liberals bought the "too big to fail" myth. If anything, TARP should have considered bailing out homeowners instead.
@rufuguru This Republican agrees, but cut out ALL welfare! Nowhere in the constitution is the federal government authorized to transfer wealth from one group to another.
How is social security an entitlement? My employers and I contributed 15% of my wages for almost 45 years. Even at 3% interest, I would have to live into my 90s to back everything that was put in. So how is that entitlement, it was paid for? And what about the poor souls who die before they get a dime back? Oh, I forgot, they get a whopping $255 from social security to pay for the funeral.
@Denvalk Besides the fact that the Supreme court had already rules that it wasn't your money several decades ago? How about the fact that the money was already spent and they can't possibly come up with the money they promised?
@Denvalk Because in 1968, LBJ and Democrats voted to raid the SS fund and use the money for the general budget rather than raise taxes to pay for their shiny new Great Society programs. Now, we have to take money from the general budget to make the SS payments. Therefore: Entitlement.
You are worst than the Gov,in some of your ways. At least they try to help the people in poverty. It seems, you dont even want them to get no benefits at all, you will rather see all that money go in your(and people like you) pockets, and watch your fellow-citizens die off.
@kbdory Well that sounds much worse then bankrupting the entire country. I guess we won't have to worry about people dying after spending on entitlements exceed total federal revenue and the entire economy collapses and dollars become less valuable then toilet paper. As long as you try.
@kbdory What made this country great was that you were free to make millions or starve to death in the street. It was up to you. Then, in the early 20th century, some folks decided it was high time productive people start subsidizing unproductive people and the progressive movement began. We just want to get back to what made this country great. If you want to go somewhere and live on the dole, I hear Europe is nice but you have to wait in line behind all the Arab immigrants...
There is an error on reporting the 43% as borrowed. You should be asking borrowed from whom? US Treasury said it was from China and many other foreign buyers. For the last 2+ years government has covertly bought US Treasury during it's auctions with fiat money and then claimed it was purchased by foreign interest. Now you know why the riots in middle east and Europe are happening because they are forced to buy goods with the worlds reserve currency (US dollar) which is inflating cost.
No need to resort to violence. Such are the methods of the left. Just refute their moronic arguments, expose their socialist leanings & spread the truth.
Mac Slavo should rage re the trillions that went missing from the Pentagon, during the tutelage of Rabbi Dov Zakheim, whose remote control system, whereby pilots instructions can be overwritten in flight, and planes controlled from the ground.
Whence airplanes were flown into the WTC on 911, while billions more were removed from the Iraqi war chest, and since then the sum of fourteen trillion dollars has been bandied about, that has been allegedly unaccounted for by the United States Treasury!
Since you're google foo is obviously better than mine. Could you Elaborate a bit on the entitlement wedge? I'm particularly interested in how much of that wedge pays for Gov Workers (the lady who hands you the food stamp card, social security application etc) Vs. how much actually goes to the people receiving those entitlements. I would really be interested in that info.
great empire,and bam overnight.. collapsed and bankrupt falling to pieces...nothing new under this sun...just judeocommunism at its best...oh yeah, now its refered as democratic capitalism...wonder what the next one is...
I like this. When the ptb shipped the skilled blue collar jobs overseas, their plan to impose poverty on the Amerikan people stepped up a gear. When professionals in India could do what their counterparts here do for a fraction of the cost, the white collars got their comeuppance. Homeless is happening now. Only a third of homeowners own free and clear. Be fired or get sick = homeless. And hungry is on deck. A mass die-off is their goal. Dither or prepare ye ... that's up to you.
In the counsels of government we must guard against the ... military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exist and will persist, we must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. ... Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals. So that security and liberty may prosper together. IKE
@cennon A lot of liberals like to cite that quote. However, if you look at the facts, you will see that it is not military spending that is killing us, it is the entirely liberal idea that government should take care of people. The reason most people don't know these facts is due to the machinations of the Democrat-Media-Academia complex that works to obscure them and teach our children "other" facts.
@TXKafir I've already tried to reason with him about how the rising entitlement costs are as a % of GDP and yet military spending is not increasing as a % of GDP. Those concepts are beyond his grasp.
@TXKafir The facts are SS hasn't added anything to the national debt, while military spending has. (tax cuts as well)
Your "solution" is to return to the days before SS where America's seniors were eating cat food and dying in poor houses. Clearly you're no patriot or on the side of the American people to advocate that as well as the corruption of the military industrial complex that IKE warned us about. Your fake talking points won't sway 80+% of the American people to do away with SS.
@cennon In the days before SS, the average life span was 62 years. That's why the retirement age was set at 65. This ensured the system would remain solvent. Unfortunately, they did not index that age. With the advances in medicine, today's life span is 78 years, so most people spend 15-20 years on the program instead of zero. That's why it is going broke and that's why, while it hasn't contributed to debt now, it will cause the debt to explode in the future.
@TXKafir --In the days before SS, the average life span was 62 years. That's why the retirement age was set at 65. --
This is a valid point, which is why we need to vote the GOP out of existence since they can't be trusted to maintain Social Security. They would have us return to the days of the poor houses and not see a growing number of America's seniors living in poverty as a problem.
@cennon Can you stop with the liberal demagoguery? Republicans don't want to see seniors thrown into poor houses any more than liberals do. The difference is that Republicans know that the quickest way for seniors to end up there is for us to continue to rely on a system that is fiscally unsound. One day, we won't have the money to write the checks. What will happen to seniors then? We need an orderly transition to a plan that can remain solvent for the foreseeable future.
@TXKafir The GOP answer is to turn the SS over to the stock market which creates the future problem of a stock market crash and having America's seniors having little to nothing when they retire. The GOP can keep ignoring this reality and prove my original point: They can't be trusted to fix this problem.
However it is nice to see a historical revisionist like yourself side with the GOP. It just proves they're worthless as a political party. (nothing you say about Dems changes this)
@cennon At least you've changed your tune from "Republicans want seniors to starve" to "Republicans want seniors on a risky retirement system." That's progress. Nobody says it has to be stock market based. It just needs to be sustainable. While the SM can be volatile, it is infinitely better that what we currently have in terms of sustainability.
@TXKafir and you make a great point on why we should vote the Republican party out of existence. The Iraq invasion added around 2 trillion to the national debt and should have never been fought. The national debt is a great reason to be anti GOP.
@TXKafir Yes a lot of liberals like to site a quote from a former WWII General and ex Republican president. Liberals are concerned about such corruption where you are an agent of such corrupt anti American forces.
@TXKafir Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.
@TXKafir You obviously have no clue why SS came into existence in the first place do you? You will either fail to answer or provide a very wrong answer to this question.
@cennon SS was created as part of the New Deal, FDR's knee-jerk reaction to the Great Depression. Read the Wiki article. It was passed because a PERCEIVED danger to seniors, not one that actually existed. The progressives used the GD to pass all sorts of shit that have haunted us ever since. The progressives have come to believe their own bullshit, so now they demagogue anyone who questions the validity, constitutionality, or efficacy of these programs.
@TXKafir You ignore the high number of seniors living in poverty and are revising history. It's clear you're not a patriotic American to straight up lie about why SS came into existence. Either you're ignoring the high poverty rate with America's seniors before SS or care nothing about your fellow countrymen living in poverty.
For being a historical revisionist (either on accident or on purpose) it's clear there's not one patriotic bone in your body. I knew you would trip up.
@TXKafir To call a high poverty rate with Americans seniors and the fact many of them died in the poorhouses as perceived. You prove your utter lack of patriotism. First for being a historical revisionist, second for not seeing Americans living in poverty as a problem.
@TXKafir before SS was passed we had 50% of America's seniors live in poverty. Were you not aware of this, or do you see seniors at a 50% poverty rate as a perceived problem as opposed to a real problem?
@TXKafir I thought it was passed as a way to tax people and make them think they are getting something in return when they were supposed to get nothing. Remember you were supposed to pay the SS tax you entire working life but the average person was supposed to die and not collect benefits. The average life expectancy was 65. Most people weren't supposed to live that long.
@cheeseburger12 It was a way for people who somehow managed to live past 62 to have income and not end up in poor houses. However, like the saying goes: The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Such is the case with SS and all other social programs.
@TXKafir And the average Life expectancy was 61.7. The only way for it to work was if the average person died and received nothing. The average person had to pay in their entire life and get nothing.
@cheeseburger12 Kind of makes you wonder if raiding the trust fund wasn't the progressives' plan all along. I would say that advances in medical science got in the way, but they raided the fund in 1968 despite those advances. I guess Medicare was the next ponzi scheme that was supposed to "help seniors" (wink, wink).
How about if we "DEFUND" the government..................without US, the US Government has NO MONEY...NOT A SINGLE PENNY. THEY work for US......We, the PEOPLE, are 'their 'bosses'.
They have ignored our phone calls, letters, marches and the 2010 election.
Without US..they have NOT A SINGLE DIME to spend on things which mean NOTHING to "We the People"!!!
If we withdraw funding...the power reverts to US. Should we fear the IRS coming after us??? Possibly....ALL of US??????? I do not think so!
Yeah... entitlements. I remember the last time that mother of four down the street who uses food stamps was able to lobby congress. It is kind of pointless to point out entitlements as having a sway on voting when the candidates were picked by corporations. Or owned them ahead of time.
@ZombiBuddy And yet our entitlements keep growing as a % of GDP. It is a good thing we don't ever have to worry about them exceeding the total federal revenue collected. You might think if corporations had that much control over govt, we won't have an entitlement debt bomb threatening to make the dollar worthless.
@cheeseburger12 It is not surprising, societies with powerful elite classes that own the country work only for the maximization of profit and power. This is not always corporate, but it is always detrimental. The capacity for organisation is continually hindered due to interested parties needing to keep the populace from stabilizing.
But hey, that's just from a historical perspective. And what am I but a zombie's friend talking to a cheeseburger.
@ZombiBuddy So you are saying that even though corporations control the country, they are running up massive amounts of debt on programs like social security, medicare, and medicaid that will make all the dollar default and thus wipe out all their wealth? One might think they would just cut all that entitlement spending so all the dollars they have would be worth something. If they really ran everything, that is.
@cheeseburger12 If you are going by this guy then you should realize that he skews the numbers pretty badly. Defense is over half of discretionary spending. The terrifying mandatory spending is never actually allowed to exceed intake (law). That is thanks in part to more people paying than are eligible. Our debt right now is discretionary spending based, which includes subsidies, and a other handouts. So of course entitlements would be the first attacked, they only benefit the working class.
@ZombiBuddy You can call welfare recipients a lot of things, but "working class" isn't generally among them.In fact if you make too much money, they kick you off of welfare, and the benefits are so vast now that it creates an exit barrier from government dependence. There is almost no scenario where the rise in pay above the ceiling makes up for the loss in the value of benefits under the current scheme.
What he fails to address is the fact that the entitled group is somewhat entitled because jobs have been disappearing for decades. He frames it as though there's been a steady increase in laziness among our population and I just don't see any evidence of that. What seems logical to me is there is less work available more than there is a conspiracy of laziness among the masses.
We need the people of the US to march into the White House, Federal Reserve, and House of Congress and depose all these people. At least the very bad ones. I would start with Obama and Bernanke.
Google Holodomor if you think you can prepare enough. Stalin made it a capital offense to posses food. All food was controlled by the State and distributed by them. So you think it can't happen in the USA???
Does 'sooner rather than later' mean anything other than 'soon'?
blogegog 4 hours ago
Wow... Glad to finally see the facts on this. I'm sending this to all of my friends.
Lwenzlaff 15 hours ago
I notice how corporate and farm subsidies are conveniently left out of the pie chart.
bumblejumper 21 hours ago
In general, the art of government consists in taking as much money as possible from one part of the citizens to give to the other.
---Voltaire
The role of the government is to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority.
---James Madison
Let me know where there is a Democracy? Vote away!
bozolazic 1 day ago
Someone answer my question please. If conservatives HATE welfare and spending on other people, why do they believe in adoption instead of abortion???
SongBirdJesusFreak 2 days ago
@SongBirdJesusFreak With adoption the baby stays alive. Do not underestimate the affect that the Lost Human Potential has had on our economy.
Also, by spending on other people, do you mean giving freely to those in need, or having the government take it away by force and give it to undeserved constituents and bail out banks and given to dictators and spent on themselves and taken up in 'administrative costs'? Did you know Congress can't vote out a benefit?
fastonfeat 2 days ago in playlist Liked videos
@fastonfeat Are orphanages and foster care run and funded by the government?
SongBirdJesusFreak 2 days ago
@SongBirdJesusFreak Not the federal government. They are run by state and city governments, which is fine by me. If a state or city government becomes oppressive with their taxes, you can always move to a new city or state. Unless you like eating foreign food, there is no option for you if the federal government becomes oppressive.
With that said, MOST adoptions are done privately, not through sponsored foster care
ssgurgs9 2 days ago
@SongBirdJesusFreak
Because we hate infanticide even more.
karozans 9 hours ago
yes we all know the problem how about a solution instead of just blaming the poor? Maybe having the rich donate to charity to cover those costs?
theprideproductions 2 days ago
@theprideproductions He did, actually. 4:55 to 5:20 didn't sound like blaming the poor to me.
The charity thing isn't a bad idea. I think a charity organization could handle every last welfare program far more efficiently than the federal government could (less bureaucrats) You would also be surprised how much more people are willing to give when it's voluntary rather than taxed. The rich (that "evil" 1%) pays 40% of our nation's revenue right now.
Lwenzlaff 14 hours ago
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years"
Alexis de Tocqueville 1840
ssgurgs9 2 days ago 7
this moron is flat out lying.
mrmustard67 2 days ago
does anybody really think there will be an actual re election process?
Best of Luck to you.
tukkeeprepper 2 days ago
The video could have mentioned that the interest on debt will go up when interest rates on treasuries go up. Currently, we're enjoying a cyclical downturn in interest rates that won't last forever. Eventually, interest on debt will consume a much larger portion of our spending. At that point, we'll have nothing to show for all the taxes we pay.
CaliforniaArchitect 2 days ago
My 8 grade math teacher had a great idea. Only tax paying citizens should be allowed to vote. Make that law and see how long the leeches keep leeching off the system when they can't vote.
GremlinsAndGnomes 2 days ago
Comment removed
henleythecat 2 days ago
IF you want to cut entitlement spending, you MUST also secure our borders.
topgamelord 2 days ago
Also he uses a weasel word in the form of "discretionary military spending". What is the difference between discretionary and non-discretionary military spending? He won't say. How much of the 21% "other non-discretionary spending" that he won't cop to is military spending? Beats me I'll have to dig to find out since he provided no useful information. This clown does nothing but spew in his false breathless delivery knowing his ditto heads won't bother to look into anything he says.
colddrake80 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
21% is "other non-discretionary" spending. Hrm, interesting how he doesn't even mention what that would entail.
Also this shit for brains pretends repub politicians aren't in government and repub voters aren't at the feeding troth he hates so much. Considering older people tend to skew repub - the only reason we have a repub party - its his "producers" that will be getting that entitlement larges.
colddrake80 3 days ago
The video is almost correct when it states that the entitlements are non-discretionary. But since they are based on legislation, they are at the mercy of Congress. Congress can change the law whenever it chooses to. However, since the recipient bloc outvotes the donor bloc, that won't happen.
jetgraphics 3 days ago
He's not saying that the republicans are any better, only the Libetarians make any sense and are HONEST about it.
RON PAUL 2012
AtlUpload 4 days ago
Propaganda! There is not a difference between the republicans and democrats.
Look at who funds Obama and Romney, who funded Bush and Clinton, etc
1.the military industrial complex 2. Big oil 3. Big pharma 4. Big Agra
there are others but these usual suspects are running your country.
Wake UP!!
fourthtunz 4 days ago
Wow :(
BKofficer23 5 days ago 4
I'm a recent college grad and let me tell you, (almost) unanimously, the kids of today think that they are entitled to a good life.
fxnooodle 6 days ago
This will never be fixed because the Democraps depend on all the welfare stooges for votes. They want more perpetual welfare recipients, not less, and they don't care if the country falls to pieces so long as they can keep getting votes. They are small petty opportunistic people with no morals.
jmsnooks 6 days ago
$92 Billion for "Corporate Welfare" and $2.2TRILLION for "Individual Welfare".
@rufuguru apparently does not know how to read a graph or listen.
Corporate welfare And Individual welfare Both need to be cut significantly. Make people reapply for Food Stamps and Welfare. Require drug testing as well. I'm not saying that Everyone is on drugs or scamming, but enough Are, that it makes a difference.
TheHornedOne81 6 days ago
@Cwagmire "About $59 billion is spent on traditional social welfare programs. $92 billion is spent on corporate subsidies." (Think By Numbers [dot]org) You're inherently wrong, and Corporate Welfare is part of entitlements. Corporate Welfare is nearly double social welfare. I'm not sure who told you otherwise.
rufuguru 6 days ago
WILL YOU PLEASE STOP CALLING SOCIAL SECURITY AN ENTITLEMENT!! ITS NOT ITS MONEY I PAID IN FROM MY HARD WORK!! its my money that the government has been drawing interest off of all of my life. I am only asking for my money that I let you borrow!! its not entitlement!!! its MY MONEY!!
gwhollon 6 days ago
@gwhollon We should give you back what you paid into it, then, and then kill it. In fact we'll even give it back to you with interest. Then you'll see how feeble an amount it is compared to the size of your monthly check added up over 10-20+ years.
talshiarr 4 days ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Social Security is NOT entitlement...it has been paid for during my lifetime, every check!
bbfreetube 1 week ago
@bbfreetube You're most likely going to get out more than you put in. Where do you think that extra money is going to come from?
michaeldunnjr 1 week ago
Progressives will always make the case, successfully, that taxing those "other" people is fair, right and just. The United States has long since passed the point of no return regarding maintainable social programs. The bill will be payed in the currency of inflation. Will millions of Americans starve to death in the street? Probably not. However, our definition of poverty will be very, very different. We'll continue to argue cause over potatoes, not meat, wearing heavily layered clothing.
ASeventhSign 1 week ago
@cennon: The combined wealth of the Forbes 400 list is just over 1 trillion dollars; even if you tax them 100% of their value it does nothing. It doesn't even cover a year of spending, and in order to do it you would have to shut down and sell off Walmart, Microsoft, Apple, and dozens of other corporations employing millions of people. But that's ok just keep living in you delusional little world, that works too.
Gotterdammerung141 1 week ago
@Gotterdammerung141 ""Forbes 400 list is just over 1 trillion dollars; even if you tax them 100% of their value it does nothing""
It's clear you're ignorant of the Clinton era where taxes were raised on the rich and the budget was balanced. You have to either be very young, or not living in the USA not to know this.
Taxes were raised on the rich many times throughout history and the sky didn't fall. Also most Americans are in support of raising taxes on the rich.
cennon 1 week ago
@cennon Most Americans were in support of slavery at one point. Saying "the majority" approves is an absolutely meaningless argument.
michaeldunnjr 1 week ago
@michaeldunnjr Comparing slavery to raising taxes on the rich is laughable.
And since we're a free nation that holds regular elections, the majority opinion matters far more than you think. Me and many of my fellow countrymen will vote out those who ignore the will of the people who support this anti tax cult in the Republican party.
It's clear you have no clue what America is about to say what the majority thinks is meaningless. It sounds like you support a dictatorship to say that.
cennon 1 week ago
@cennon If my comparison is laughable, refute it. If you believe that whatever the majority says should rule, then I weep for your ignorance. In a country of 1,000,000, if 500,001 people voted that the other 499,999 should be executed, that would be wrong, wouldn't it? My point, which you ignored, is that "everybody wants it" does not make it RIGHT.
michaeldunnjr 1 week ago
@michaeldunnjr I'm against majority rule if it's unconstitutional, which killing innocent Americans would be. but it's totally legal to vote out those that don't support the will of the people when it comes to the issue of raising taxes on the rich.
You just keep proving you're not of the stuff that made this nation great.
cennon 1 week ago
@cennon You keep presuming that I have opinions that I've never said. I never argued against voting people out of office. I argued that you justifying taxing the rich by saying "most americans support" it, is idiotic.
I ask you to give me one constitutionally sound argument for why you have the right to take my property based on the fact that I have more property than you. That's what you're doing when you advocate higher taxes for certain parts of society, but not others.
michaeldunnjr 1 week ago
@michaeldunnjr ""I ask you to give me one constitutionally sound argument for why you have the right to take my property based on the fact that I have more property than you."" Taxes have been raised on people for thousands of years. For you to think this is some abstract concept in 2012 shows you're brain is not working right.
cennon 1 week ago
@cennon That's not a sound argument. "We've done it before" is not a valid argument for doing a thing being right. People have been enslaved for thousands of years too, and that's not right. Come up with a better argument.
michaeldunnjr 1 week ago
@michaeldunnjr comparing the lawful raising of taxes with slavery is laughable. You can ignore history, however it does show that in many cases taxes were raised (especially on the wealthy) and the economy improved. There's no reason to believe GOP talking points since they've been wrong about so much in recent history.
cennon 1 week ago
@cennon Again, if it's laughable, refute it. You're completely missing the point. I'm not arguing that raising taxes is wrong. I'm arguing that "most Americans support it" is NOT a valid justification for it.
michaeldunnjr 1 week ago
@cennon Also, the budget was only balanced using shady accounting. The Social Security trust fund basically bought treasury notes, infusing money into the general fund where it then balanced the budget, disguised as "intra-governmental debt." Make no mistake, that money wasn't really there.
None of this changes the fact that there's simply isn't enough money among "the rich" to pay our bills. Whether it's a good idea to raise taxes or not, there flat out isn't enough income there.
michaeldunnjr 1 week ago
@michaeldunnjr So you still have no clue the budget was balanced by raising taxes on the rich during the Clinton era. You can keep proving your'e a tool for the rich by defending them instead of the vast majority of Americans. It just shows you're not on the side of the average American, but on the side of the elite. I'm sure you would have sided with British royalty during the US revolution as well with your attitude.
cennon 1 week ago
@cennon Who said I was "siding with the rich"? You keep ignoring the fact that the rich don't make enough money to pay for our deficit.
michaeldunnjr 1 week ago
@michaeldunnjr Wrong, I'm aware that raising taxes on the rich will help balance the budget just like it did with the Clinton era, where you're the one who ignores recent history. Yep, you're an outsourced paid troll alright. Anyone living in the USA knows about Clinton raising taxes.
cennon 1 week ago
@cennon Sure, raising the tax rate on the rich will help reduce the deficit, but it will not CURE it. The rich do not make enough money to pay for our deficit. Fact. I'm not an outsourced paid troll. Fact. The reason the budget balanced under Clinton was the Social Security Trust Fund buying government securities. Fact. Go on, try to refute ANY of these things.
michaeldunnjr 1 week ago
@michaeldunnjr You can keep ignoring Clinton successfully raising taxes on the rich, but that just makes you a historical revisionist.
Was it unconstitutional when taxes were raised on the rich during the 50's? Taxes for the rich was as high as 90% and we had the strongest middle class ever. Historical reality proves you wrong.
cennon 1 week ago
@cennon Not true. If you google "historical effective federal tax rates" you would know that the most efffective tax rate is around 40% for the 1%. There were many many loopholes in the 50s.
TheDeathstarrr 1 week ago
@cennon hoover.org/publications/hoover-digest/article/5728
TheDeathstarrr 1 week ago
@cennon I'm not ignoring anything. I am fully aware that Clinton raised taxes on the rich. I'm also fully aware that the budget was balanced. My point, which you've completely ignored (I assume due to its inconvenient truth) is that the tax increase is not the reason the budget was balanced. The budget was balanced because the Social Security Trust Fund was used to buy government securities, thereby giving the government more money - money that has to get paid back at some point.
michaeldunnjr 1 week ago
It is to be regretted the the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes. --- Andrew Jackson.
That quote is timeless.
cennon 1 week ago
The knee jerk liberal's comments here are sad....Whittle you are correct.
jimanders1967 1 week ago
This video doesn't take into account the fact that those who "don't work and don't pay taxes" also don't get much money. I doubt a large percentage of them would rather live on 15k a year than get a job and make a median 30k if they could. This video unfairly makes it seem like the poor that get welfare, or the old that collect SS are sipping champagne, eating caviar, and laughing at the "working class".
sarumonkee 1 week ago
@sarumonkee , You are right. Those who don't work are not eating caviar and drinking champagne while laughing at us. They are drinking beer and smoking pot and watching tv while we are at work. Just look around. You can't see it?
jimanders1967 1 week ago
@sarumonkee It doesn't matter what they are or are not doing. What matters is the spending is out of control and it is more then we can afford. Just because you are spending money on the poor or sick doesn't mean it can magically go on forever. Demographics say we are screwed without massive cuts. Even if they aren't eating caviar.
cheeseburger12 1 week ago
@TXKafir , The constitution implies many things with "promote the general welfare" as found in the preamble and article I section 8. Cut out All welfare? Easy to say, but do you think anyone is going to agree to cut out the safety net entirely and social security?
rufuguru 1 week ago
@rufuguru The operative words are "promote" and "general." The welfare state as we see it today "ensures" the "specific" welfare. Anyway, there's no reason we can't have a safety net. The constitution only requires that it be implemented at the state level.
TXKafir 1 week ago
BILL! SIMPLEST SOLUTION TO ALL THIS, U DONT MENTION...
YES - ITs TRUE. 1 SOLUTION: END "ALL" THIS - TODAY!
BAN - THE- FED!!! SEE...
'The American Dream-The Dream'
RED PILL AWAKENING. U WILL NOT 'EVER' BE THE SAME.
rew78901 1 week ago
Celesta920, SS IS considered welfare simply b/c over the course of your receipt of it, you will receive MORE than you put in to it over the course of your employed years. SS is also more than a senior citizen program, it is also for those who are disabled. That's what he meant by keeping the program only for those who are disabled/unable to work. I'd LOVE to have the money back that our family gives to SS every month. We could have some great investments. Most won't invest tho, they'd spend.
beckyshm 1 week ago
Social Security is not welfare. They take money out of people's paychecks over the course of their working years promising to pay it back. If you want to end SS then you have to give the money back first and then stop deducting it from paychecks, otherwise that would be stealing it worker's money. Ron Paul says that promise to pay SS payroll deductions back should be honored. It's not the recipient's of SS fault that the government spent their money on other things.
celesta920 1 week ago
@celesta920 I'm fifty years old. They could keep everything I've ever paid in if they would stop deducting anything new. Hell, they could keep it if they would cut my payment in half!
TXKafir 1 week ago
@TXKafir you didn't answer my question: Do you see 50% of America's seniors living in poverty as a perceived problem? Or were you not aware that 50% of America's seniors lived in poverty before SS was implemented?
cennon 1 week ago
@cennon We were in the middle of the Great Depression. Lots of people lived in poverty. That was no reason to violate the constitution and give us an unsustainable entitlement. The progressives used the moment to pass sweeping legislation giving the federal govt powers the founding fathers never intended them to have.
TXKafir 1 week ago
@cennon 50% of America's seniors living in poverty is still better then 99.99% of Americans living in poverty. Which is what will happen if entitlement spending doesn't have massive cuts. Or do you really think the barter system will raise standards of living? Because the dollar won't be worth the paper it is printed on.
cheeseburger12 1 week ago
@cheeseburger12 Clearly you're not a patriotic American to be content with 50% of America's seniors living in poverty. Obviously you have little faith in the USA and it's people since you feel that it's a choice between a 50% and a 99.99% poverty rate with America's seniors. Real patriots would demand better of their nation and their leaders and not be content with 50% of it's seniors living in poverty.
You proved you are NOT on the side of the American people with your defeatist attitude.
cennon 1 week ago
@cennon What's your solution then? Given the choice between doing what we're doing now, which burns the whole place to the ground, or making drastic cuts to entitlements, I'll take the entitlement cuts. If you don't like those two options, I eagerly await your suggestions.
michaeldunnjr 1 week ago
@michaeldunnjr My solution? Overturn the Citizen's United ruling and major lobbying reform so the rich and powerful don't corrupt our government. End the military industrial complex and end the failed war on drugs. Raise taxes on the rich. And that's just for starters. Want to hear more?
cennon 1 week ago
@cennon If the entire department of defense went away, you'd reduce the budget by what? 600 billion? And how would any of the other things you talked about change our addiction to entitlements?
michaeldunnjr 1 week ago
@michaeldunnjr you're confusing ending the military industrial complex with legitimate defense spending. It's clear you have no clue about the military industrial complex that IKE warned us about. If you're an honest patriot you'll google the MIC and look into this. If you're a paid misinformation troll with no sense of patriotism, you will confuse to display your ignorance regrading the MIC.
cennon 1 week ago
@cennon The second someone says "military industrial complex" and assumes that anyone that disagrees with them is a "paid misinformation troll", their opinions become moot. You're clearly off your rocker.
michaeldunnjr 1 week ago
@michaeldunnjr Well you should research what the military industrial complex is instead of remain ignorant about it, like you're doing right now.
You proved you have no clue what the MIC means by confusing it with cutting all defense spending. A paid troll will keep remaining ignorant instead of doing research.
Prove you're an honest broker and a US patriot by doing some research on this topic and get back to me.
cennon 1 week ago
@cennon Quite frankly, I'm not going to waste my time trying to have a rational conversation with you when you're clearly irrational. The fact of the matter is that in order to avoid financial disaster, we MUST reform entitlements. We simply cannot afford our entitlement addiction. All your rambling about the MIC does not change this unavoidable fact, and only serves to distract from the REAL issues we face.
michaeldunnjr 1 week ago
@michaeldunnjr By you ignoring the Military industrial complex, it leads me to believe you support this version of corruption that is a huge factor in our un balanced budget and increasing the national debt.
We may have to reform entitlements, but let's raise taxes on the rich, end the MIC and end corporate welfare first. Let's end what wrongfully benefits the top 1% first before we deal with SS and Medicare. And let's vote the GOP out since they can't be trusted to fix this.
cennon 1 week ago
@cennon You can believe whatever you want - your opinion is pretty much meaningless. You seem to want to blame the military industrial complex for our budget. Clearly you haven't looked at the budget. We pay out more each year, just in mandatory spending (most of which is entitlements) than we collect in taxes. The MIC has nothing to do with that.
michaeldunnjr 1 week ago
@cennon Then you want to vote out the GOP since they can't be trusted. The fact that you think the Democrats can be trusted (based on your failure to call for voting them out) is hysterical. You're a classic "give me free stuff" liberal, and quite honestly, that mentality has no place in a free nation. Go earn your own stuff, and stop trying to take mine.
michaeldunnjr 1 week ago
@michaeldunnjr 1) I'll vote for anyone regardless of party who works to overturn the Citizen's United ruling and ends the military industrial complex. (for starters)
2) Are you saying you're content with the GOP being owned by banksters and corporate lobbyists? If you are and are too afraid to admit it, then duck the question and/or change the subject to Obama and Dems.
cennon 6 days ago
@cennon 1) then why is it you only mention the GOP? Your bias is clear, and pretending otherwise is disingenuous.
2) first of all, I never said anything about Obama. Why are you bringing him up? Secondly, do you think the Democrats are any less owned by banksters and lobbyists? What I have a problem with here is your blatant one-sidedness. Your willingness to ignore in Democrats what you chastise republicans for. You're a hypocrite and I have no more time for you.
michaeldunnjr 6 days ago
@michaeldunnjr Everything you say is why I'm for lobbying reform and overturning the Citizen's United ruling to keep the rich and powerful from corrupting our government and both major parties. Do we agree on this, or are you going to dodge this specific topic since you failed to advocate 1 positive solution yet?
cennon 5 days ago
@cennon The solution I advocate is the complete cessation of entitlement programs. I advocate abolition of agencies like the Depts of Education, Energy, Commerce, Labor, HHS, and HUD. I advocate elimination of the Federal Reserve, and legislation outlawing the fractional reserve system. I would abolish corporate personhood, which is what you're getting at with the CU ruling. A corporation or union is NOT a person, and should not have the same privileges.
michaeldunnjr 5 days ago
@cennon A person, however, has the right to speak, and so while News Corp shouldn't have the right to contribute to campaigns, Rupert Murdoch should.
michaeldunnjr 5 days ago
@michaeldunnjr but I am happy to see that we agree that the GOP are owned by banskters and corporate lobbyists. If this was not true you would have disputed this by now. Here's some advice, you should really promote your favorite 3rd party and help with their advertising.
cennon 5 days ago
@cennon You're still so one sided. We agree that BOTH parties are unduly influenced by special interests. Personally, I despise political parties entirely, and see them as merely a crutch for the lazy, so they can choose who to vote for without having to pay attention or do any research. My vote this cycle is going to Ron Paul, because he's the only one out there arguing for LESS government interference in our lives.
michaeldunnjr 5 days ago
@michaeldunnjr oh also vote the GOP out of existence since they're wholly owned by banksters and corporate lobbyists and have no desire to change their ways.
Yes Dems suck too, which is why I'm for getting money out of corrupting our political process. An issue Dylan Rattigan always talks about.
cennon 1 week ago
@cennon Owned by bankers? You know that no president is more in bed with Wall Street than Obama right? If you think that CEOs make a lot of money, you should see what union bosses make.
Dog14183 1 week ago
@Dog14183 So you know the GOP are owned by banksters and corporate lobbyists. If you felt otherwise you would not have to ignore this and change the subject to Obama.
I take it you're making the case that both parties have failed the American people. So what's your answer since it's clear you don't support Dems or Repubs for being bought off?
cennon 1 week ago
@cennon Both parties are owned by corporate lobbyists. This is nothing new, but to say that just the GOP is in bed with bankers is irresponsible.
Dog14183 1 week ago
@Dog14183 I agree, which is why I'm for overturning the Citizen's United ruling to get money out of politics. Because both parties are corrupted. It's just there's some GOP supporters here so I have to make it clear that liberal bashing is not a reason to vote Republican.
cennon 1 week ago
@celesta920 In 1960 (Flemming vs Nestor) The Supreme Court already ruled that there is no contractual right to receive SS payments. Your money was stolen. It is gone. Your only choice is will you take someone else's to replace your mistrust in the politicians, media, and educational system. Either way, someone is going to get screwed.
cheeseburger12 1 week ago
cut out corporate Welfare. Corporate welfare completely overshadows individual Welfare.
rufuguru 1 week ago 6
Comment removed
TheDeathstarrr 1 week ago
@rufuguru Official estimates online put corporate welfare at about $92 billion a year, thats only about 2.5% of total spending. Its still not enough.
TheDeathstarrr 1 week ago 8
@TheDeathstarrr Is corporate entitlements clearer? Plus, let's stop bailing out failing businesses and start helping the employees that would loose their jobs to find new ones.
rufuguru 1 week ago
@rufuguru Corporate welfare = corporate subsidies + entitlements
Of course we need to cut that out, corporate welfare is worse than individual welfare, at least someone is more likely to need individual welfare.
I have always been against the bailouts from Day One. A larger proportion of liberals bought the "too big to fail" myth. If anything, TARP should have considered bailing out homeowners instead.
TheDeathstarrr 1 week ago
@rufuguru This Republican agrees, but cut out ALL welfare! Nowhere in the constitution is the federal government authorized to transfer wealth from one group to another.
TXKafir 1 week ago
Comment removed
RJBrown40957 1 week ago
@rufuguru Are you out of your mind? Corporate welfare, which should be eliminated, is no where near as large as individual welfare (entitlements).
Cwagmire 6 days ago
How is social security an entitlement? My employers and I contributed 15% of my wages for almost 45 years. Even at 3% interest, I would have to live into my 90s to back everything that was put in. So how is that entitlement, it was paid for? And what about the poor souls who die before they get a dime back? Oh, I forgot, they get a whopping $255 from social security to pay for the funeral.
Denvalk 1 week ago
@Denvalk Besides the fact that the Supreme court had already rules that it wasn't your money several decades ago? How about the fact that the money was already spent and they can't possibly come up with the money they promised?
cheeseburger12 1 week ago
@Denvalk Because in 1968, LBJ and Democrats voted to raid the SS fund and use the money for the general budget rather than raise taxes to pay for their shiny new Great Society programs. Now, we have to take money from the general budget to make the SS payments. Therefore: Entitlement.
TXKafir 1 week ago
You are worst than the Gov,in some of your ways. At least they try to help the people in poverty. It seems, you dont even want them to get no benefits at all, you will rather see all that money go in your(and people like you) pockets, and watch your fellow-citizens die off.
kbdory 1 week ago
@kbdory Well that sounds much worse then bankrupting the entire country. I guess we won't have to worry about people dying after spending on entitlements exceed total federal revenue and the entire economy collapses and dollars become less valuable then toilet paper. As long as you try.
cheeseburger12 1 week ago
@kbdory What made this country great was that you were free to make millions or starve to death in the street. It was up to you. Then, in the early 20th century, some folks decided it was high time productive people start subsidizing unproductive people and the progressive movement began. We just want to get back to what made this country great. If you want to go somewhere and live on the dole, I hear Europe is nice but you have to wait in line behind all the Arab immigrants...
TXKafir 1 week ago
There is an error on reporting the 43% as borrowed. You should be asking borrowed from whom? US Treasury said it was from China and many other foreign buyers. For the last 2+ years government has covertly bought US Treasury during it's auctions with fiat money and then claimed it was purchased by foreign interest. Now you know why the riots in middle east and Europe are happening because they are forced to buy goods with the worlds reserve currency (US dollar) which is inflating cost.
googlesbitch 1 week ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Shoot progressives and liberals on sight
hdfxlrrider 1 week ago
@hdfxlrrider
No need to resort to violence. Such are the methods of the left. Just refute their moronic arguments, expose their socialist leanings & spread the truth.
Razlo5000 1 week ago
counterproductive to make a pie chart with all slices the same color - a perplexing choice
CornerTalker 1 week ago
This is an amazing video. Thank you.
WIprepper 1 week ago
medicare huh? I am sure mostly who profit are pharmaceutical companies.
ajvhan 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A real opportunity to make part time income and share something really heathly with others.
NO BETTER SATISFACTION.
Go to # amazingautosystem.weebly.com # and sign on!
louisbrassyyy 1 week ago
Mac Slavo should rage re the trillions that went missing from the Pentagon, during the tutelage of Rabbi Dov Zakheim, whose remote control system, whereby pilots instructions can be overwritten in flight, and planes controlled from the ground.
Whence airplanes were flown into the WTC on 911, while billions more were removed from the Iraqi war chest, and since then the sum of fourteen trillion dollars has been bandied about, that has been allegedly unaccounted for by the United States Treasury!
MartinTimothy1 1 week ago
Since you're google foo is obviously better than mine. Could you Elaborate a bit on the entitlement wedge? I'm particularly interested in how much of that wedge pays for Gov Workers (the lady who hands you the food stamp card, social security application etc) Vs. how much actually goes to the people receiving those entitlements. I would really be interested in that info.
outlawfj 1 week ago
just like soviet union..
great empire,and bam overnight.. collapsed and bankrupt falling to pieces...nothing new under this sun...just judeocommunism at its best...oh yeah, now its refered as democratic capitalism...wonder what the next one is...
taipohh 1 week ago
I like this. When the ptb shipped the skilled blue collar jobs overseas, their plan to impose poverty on the Amerikan people stepped up a gear. When professionals in India could do what their counterparts here do for a fraction of the cost, the white collars got their comeuppance. Homeless is happening now. Only a third of homeowners own free and clear. Be fired or get sick = homeless. And hungry is on deck. A mass die-off is their goal. Dither or prepare ye ... that's up to you.
r71oats6 1 week ago
In the counsels of government we must guard against the ... military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exist and will persist, we must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. ... Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals. So that security and liberty may prosper together. IKE
cennon 1 week ago
@cennon A lot of liberals like to cite that quote. However, if you look at the facts, you will see that it is not military spending that is killing us, it is the entirely liberal idea that government should take care of people. The reason most people don't know these facts is due to the machinations of the Democrat-Media-Academia complex that works to obscure them and teach our children "other" facts.
TXKafir 1 week ago
@TXKafir I've already tried to reason with him about how the rising entitlement costs are as a % of GDP and yet military spending is not increasing as a % of GDP. Those concepts are beyond his grasp.
cheeseburger12 1 week ago
@TXKafir The facts are SS hasn't added anything to the national debt, while military spending has. (tax cuts as well)
Your "solution" is to return to the days before SS where America's seniors were eating cat food and dying in poor houses. Clearly you're no patriot or on the side of the American people to advocate that as well as the corruption of the military industrial complex that IKE warned us about. Your fake talking points won't sway 80+% of the American people to do away with SS.
cennon 1 week ago
@cennon In the days before SS, the average life span was 62 years. That's why the retirement age was set at 65. This ensured the system would remain solvent. Unfortunately, they did not index that age. With the advances in medicine, today's life span is 78 years, so most people spend 15-20 years on the program instead of zero. That's why it is going broke and that's why, while it hasn't contributed to debt now, it will cause the debt to explode in the future.
TXKafir 1 week ago
@TXKafir --In the days before SS, the average life span was 62 years. That's why the retirement age was set at 65. --
This is a valid point, which is why we need to vote the GOP out of existence since they can't be trusted to maintain Social Security. They would have us return to the days of the poor houses and not see a growing number of America's seniors living in poverty as a problem.
cennon 1 week ago
@cennon Can you stop with the liberal demagoguery? Republicans don't want to see seniors thrown into poor houses any more than liberals do. The difference is that Republicans know that the quickest way for seniors to end up there is for us to continue to rely on a system that is fiscally unsound. One day, we won't have the money to write the checks. What will happen to seniors then? We need an orderly transition to a plan that can remain solvent for the foreseeable future.
TXKafir 1 week ago
@TXKafir The GOP answer is to turn the SS over to the stock market which creates the future problem of a stock market crash and having America's seniors having little to nothing when they retire. The GOP can keep ignoring this reality and prove my original point: They can't be trusted to fix this problem.
However it is nice to see a historical revisionist like yourself side with the GOP. It just proves they're worthless as a political party. (nothing you say about Dems changes this)
cennon 1 week ago
@cennon At least you've changed your tune from "Republicans want seniors to starve" to "Republicans want seniors on a risky retirement system." That's progress. Nobody says it has to be stock market based. It just needs to be sustainable. While the SM can be volatile, it is infinitely better that what we currently have in terms of sustainability.
TXKafir 1 week ago
@cennon Actually, they wanted it to be in bonds, not stock.
ErenorDotCom 1 week ago
@TXKafir and you make a great point on why we should vote the Republican party out of existence. The Iraq invasion added around 2 trillion to the national debt and should have never been fought. The national debt is a great reason to be anti GOP.
cennon 1 week ago
@cennon Yeah, just as soon as Øbama and the Dems took power, they ended all those expensive wars. Oh wait.....
TXKafir 1 week ago
@TXKafir Yes a lot of liberals like to site a quote from a former WWII General and ex Republican president. Liberals are concerned about such corruption where you are an agent of such corrupt anti American forces.
cennon 1 week ago
@TXKafir Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.
Dwight D. Eisenhower
cennon 1 week ago
@cennon
A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover
that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.
- Alexander Tytler 1787
SS, Medicare, and Welfare are all prime examples of this phenomenon and thus they will be the end of our republic.
TXKafir 1 week ago
@TXKafir You obviously have no clue why SS came into existence in the first place do you? You will either fail to answer or provide a very wrong answer to this question.
cennon 1 week ago
@cennon SS was created as part of the New Deal, FDR's knee-jerk reaction to the Great Depression. Read the Wiki article. It was passed because a PERCEIVED danger to seniors, not one that actually existed. The progressives used the GD to pass all sorts of shit that have haunted us ever since. The progressives have come to believe their own bullshit, so now they demagogue anyone who questions the validity, constitutionality, or efficacy of these programs.
TXKafir 1 week ago 2
@TXKafir You ignore the high number of seniors living in poverty and are revising history. It's clear you're not a patriotic American to straight up lie about why SS came into existence. Either you're ignoring the high poverty rate with America's seniors before SS or care nothing about your fellow countrymen living in poverty.
For being a historical revisionist (either on accident or on purpose) it's clear there's not one patriotic bone in your body. I knew you would trip up.
cennon 1 week ago
@TXKafir To call a high poverty rate with Americans seniors and the fact many of them died in the poorhouses as perceived. You prove your utter lack of patriotism. First for being a historical revisionist, second for not seeing Americans living in poverty as a problem.
cennon 1 week ago
@cennon Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. - Samuel Johnson
Similarly, ad hominem attack is the last refuge of a liberal cornered with facts.
TXKafir 1 week ago
@TXKafir According to Wiki, the poverty rate among America's seniors exceed 50%. Something you call a perceived problem.
cennon 1 week ago
@cennon Now, or at the time SS was passed?
TXKafir 1 week ago
Comment removed
cennon 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TXKafir before SS was passed we had 50% of America's seniors live in poverty. Were you not aware of this, or do you see seniors at a 50% poverty rate as a perceived problem as opposed to a real problem?
cennon 1 week ago
@TXKafir I thought it was passed as a way to tax people and make them think they are getting something in return when they were supposed to get nothing. Remember you were supposed to pay the SS tax you entire working life but the average person was supposed to die and not collect benefits. The average life expectancy was 65. Most people weren't supposed to live that long.
cheeseburger12 1 week ago
@cheeseburger12 It was a way for people who somehow managed to live past 62 to have income and not end up in poor houses. However, like the saying goes: The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Such is the case with SS and all other social programs.
TXKafir 1 week ago
@TXKafir And the average Life expectancy was 61.7. The only way for it to work was if the average person died and received nothing. The average person had to pay in their entire life and get nothing.
cheeseburger12 1 week ago
@cheeseburger12 Kind of makes you wonder if raiding the trust fund wasn't the progressives' plan all along. I would say that advances in medical science got in the way, but they raided the fund in 1968 despite those advances. I guess Medicare was the next ponzi scheme that was supposed to "help seniors" (wink, wink).
TXKafir 1 week ago
How about if we "DEFUND" the government..................without US, the US Government has NO MONEY...NOT A SINGLE PENNY. THEY work for US......We, the PEOPLE, are 'their 'bosses'.
They have ignored our phone calls, letters, marches and the 2010 election.
Without US..they have NOT A SINGLE DIME to spend on things which mean NOTHING to "We the People"!!!
If we withdraw funding...the power reverts to US. Should we fear the IRS coming after us??? Possibly....ALL of US??????? I do not think so!
bonsmom 1 week ago
60 SOCIALISTS were here
unholysaint666 1 week ago
The problem isn't just "Big Government" but "Big Business," esp. when it comes to hundreds of trillions of dollars in unregulated derivatives.
danzigstorer 1 week ago
Yeah... entitlements. I remember the last time that mother of four down the street who uses food stamps was able to lobby congress. It is kind of pointless to point out entitlements as having a sway on voting when the candidates were picked by corporations. Or owned them ahead of time.
ZombiBuddy 1 week ago
@ZombiBuddy And yet our entitlements keep growing as a % of GDP. It is a good thing we don't ever have to worry about them exceeding the total federal revenue collected. You might think if corporations had that much control over govt, we won't have an entitlement debt bomb threatening to make the dollar worthless.
cheeseburger12 1 week ago
@cheeseburger12 It is not surprising, societies with powerful elite classes that own the country work only for the maximization of profit and power. This is not always corporate, but it is always detrimental. The capacity for organisation is continually hindered due to interested parties needing to keep the populace from stabilizing.
But hey, that's just from a historical perspective. And what am I but a zombie's friend talking to a cheeseburger.
ZombiBuddy 1 week ago
@ZombiBuddy So you are saying that even though corporations control the country, they are running up massive amounts of debt on programs like social security, medicare, and medicaid that will make all the dollar default and thus wipe out all their wealth? One might think they would just cut all that entitlement spending so all the dollars they have would be worth something. If they really ran everything, that is.
cheeseburger12 1 week ago
@cheeseburger12 If you are going by this guy then you should realize that he skews the numbers pretty badly. Defense is over half of discretionary spending. The terrifying mandatory spending is never actually allowed to exceed intake (law). That is thanks in part to more people paying than are eligible. Our debt right now is discretionary spending based, which includes subsidies, and a other handouts. So of course entitlements would be the first attacked, they only benefit the working class.
ZombiBuddy 1 week ago
@ZombiBuddy You can call welfare recipients a lot of things, but "working class" isn't generally among them.In fact if you make too much money, they kick you off of welfare, and the benefits are so vast now that it creates an exit barrier from government dependence. There is almost no scenario where the rise in pay above the ceiling makes up for the loss in the value of benefits under the current scheme.
DeckKnight 1 week ago
What he fails to address is the fact that the entitled group is somewhat entitled because jobs have been disappearing for decades. He frames it as though there's been a steady increase in laziness among our population and I just don't see any evidence of that. What seems logical to me is there is less work available more than there is a conspiracy of laziness among the masses.
kgelmer 1 week ago
@kgelmer That is not what he was implying!! That is your interpretation.
USA0806 1 week ago
VOTE RON PAUL !!!!!!!!!
VINNYMOR 1 week ago
Excellent. Tanx
eveningbuzz 1 week ago
We need the people of the US to march into the White House, Federal Reserve, and House of Congress and depose all these people. At least the very bad ones. I would start with Obama and Bernanke.
TheFlam3head 1 week ago
Google Holodomor if you think you can prepare enough. Stalin made it a capital offense to posses food. All food was controlled by the State and distributed by them. So you think it can't happen in the USA???
supertruckertom 1 week ago
This is where the entitlement money is going.....
YouTube dot com/watch?v=VuCKkOkQcHY&feature=player_embedded
baracalypse 1 week ago
That's racist!
Clay243 1 week ago
Call it what it is Bill, it is not "wealth distribution" it's THEFT.
Good video.
truefictions 2 weeks ago
2:40 "a liberal president's euphamism for war" -- yes because the liberals have gotten us into so many wars lately.
travismays 2 weeks ago