6 - State Against Blacks - Conservative Dr. Walter Williams

[sendyoshit]

The wrong people are always in office

[governmentdidit]

Walter Williams is a hero...

[peitsch517]

Rangel has no idea what Williams is talking about.

[pretorious700]

Rangel was an idiot then and still is.

[pimpstoney]

@pretorious700 not anymore! That corrupt bastard's gone!

[fringeelements]

"300 years of racism" - blacks live for 300 years?

[MrGreeneggsnham]

Rangel was stupid back then too.

[haze2r1]

@MrGreeneggsnham no he's PROGRESSED...wha wha whaaaaaa.

[cheese1010100]

Thanks for posting.

[mpc91]

1. This is the richest country on the planet IN SPITE of government programs, not because of them.

2. We aren't going bankrupt from tax cuts, taxes brought in about 20% of GDP when the top rate was 90%, and when it was 30%. People spend their money better than bureaucrats do. It's spending that's bankrupting us, that's what's growing exponentially.

3. It worked very well in this country pre-FDR. Private charities work better than public dependency does.

[schmoborama]

@mpc91

1. Pffft Prove it. But then wtf is the problem? Being the richest is not good enough? Then why should I believe that dumping the poor in the gutter will satisfy you?

2. Increased revenue will also keep us from going bankrupt. You do realize there are 2 sides to a see-saw?

3. Sorry but that's a crock of shit. Was there a charity in every state to represent every other state in the union?

[mpc91]

@schmoborama - 1. Who said anything about dumping the poor in the gutter? Government programs don't fix poverty, they keep people poor. It's great for politicians who want to buy votes and stoke class warfare, but it doesn't help people.

2. Raising taxes doesn't increase revenue. It stifles economic growth and reduces revenue. It's not a see-saw.

3. Sorry, but you are completely ignorant of how the world actually works. Your second question is just nonsense, but so is your whole post.

[schmoborama]

@mpc91

1. Stop dodging the question. Why is being the richest not good enough? How is that anything but the definition of Greed?

2. The same simplistic excuse to lower taxes again. Bush's tax cuts did NOT SPUR GROWTH and Clinton's increase did NOT KILL IT. The see-saw is expenses and income. Reducing expenses is NOT the only way to bring balance.

3. "You're just stupid" is not an argument from someone who has an answer. So why didn't Charities prevent revolutions in France, Philipines, etc.?

[mpc91]

@schmoborama - 1. I'm not dodging anything. I answered your question. But your logic is flawed. One person being rich does not make anyone else poor. Economics is not a zero sum game.

2. Bush's tax cuts came with massive spending increases, and Clinton's increase came with a balanced budget. Spending has nearly DOUBLED in the past ten years (from 2 trillion to 3.5 trillion). Tax rates do not correspond to tax revenue.

3. You want me to respond seriously to "crocek of shit",

[schmoborama]

@mpc91

1. WHY IS BEING THE RICHEST NOT GOOD ENOUGH?

2. That's only counting the Clusterfuck we're in, caused by right-wing greed. See #1.

3. I want you to respond the fact that Charities do NOT serve as well as Welfare and SS. France and the Philippines (Marcos was NOT a foreign power) are classic examples of the rich fucking the poor too much. WHY DIDN'T CHARITIES KEEP PEOPLE FROM BEING POOR? Why were there any poor before Social programs if they're the cause??

[mpc91]

@schmoborama - 1. People get rich by helping others, by providing some good or service. The desire to get richer makes people provide more goods, and more services, this helps everyone.

2. No, it was caused by government interference in the market, and folks like Barney Frank trying to buy votes. Political greed. The idea that home ownership is a right. Bad zoning laws helped too, made housing expensive by limiting supply.

3. Your examples are not the rich but GOVERNMENT fucking the poor

[schmoborama]

@mpc91

"People get rich by helping others, by providing some good or service-this helps everyone"

Yes the guys who ran Enron are fucking SAINTS aren't they. And McDonalds making so many people healthy out of the goodness of their hearts! Does Monsanto lobbying to keep their genetic-altered shit-food off of the label help ANYONE?

The *only* time business helps ANYONE is when they get more out of it than they put it in. PERIOD. THAT IS BUSINESS.

[mpc91]

@schmoborama - Enron was engaged in fraud. That's illegal, and should always be illegal. They also got caught, but not by the government.

We all benefit when business gets more out of it than they put in. That's called profit. It makes people wealthy and feeds the world. It leads to innovation and tremendous wealth.

[schmoborama]

@mpc91

"Enron was engaged in fraud"

Yes that's what fucking GREED does. Oh sorry - "the desire to get richer".

"We all benefit when business gets more out of it than they put in"

So we benefit from Monsanto keeping GMO food off the labels?? From McD's fattening, non-nutritious food w/ artificial ingredients??

The rich are making RECORD PROFITS and the middle class makes the same amount or LESS that it made DECADES ago, so you're *obviously* DEAD WRONG.

[mpc91]

@schmoborama - The middle class makes less than it did decades ago? I'm going to call you on that one.

The middle class, for this I'll go with median per capita income. it has gone down a little during the current gov't caused crisis, 2008-2010. But for DECADES, it's DOUBLED.

In 2010 dollars (US Census Data)

2010 - 26,487

2000 - 28,293

1990 - 23,266

1980 - 19,618

1970 - 15,920

All the stats that talk about incomes going down are based on household income, not per capita income.

[schmoborama]

@mpc91

"middle class makes less than it did decades ago?"

Learn how to READ. I said it makes THE SAME... OR LESS. Less because many haven't worked for years. But congrats on finding a more favorable *looking* statistic - but what actually MATTERS is how it compares to upper incomes. Google income inequality.

"Americans have the highest income inequality in the rich world & over the past 20–30 years Americans have also experienced the greatest increase in income inequality among rich nations"

[mpc91]

@schmoborama - So even though a person's standard of living has greatly increased over a period of time, it's still an injustice that in order for that increase to occur, someone else's standard of living would need to increase even further?

You focus on income inequality, which is in itself a product of two fallacies (diff. people are making the income, and it's based on household, and not per capita income), instead of the fact that everyone is better off?

[schmoborama]

@mpc91

"instead of the fact that everyone is better off?"

Yea look around you, middle class is doing GREAT. But those corporations making record profits... I have so much pity for them- No wait, that's YOU who pities Multi-Fucking-Billionaires- who are so unsatisfied with Billions, sad that they can't become Trillionaires because of those evil heartless poor.

"We all benefit when business gets more out than they put in"

That is fucking WRONG and that's the POINT, which you continue to EVADE.

[mpc91]

@schmoborama - You are so thick. You miss the absolute FACT that it is government that has created the situation you abhor. You can't see the role of the federal reserve. You don't see how big business gets control of the regulators, and takes advantage of them to keep out competition.

You don't see the natural limits that the free market contains. The risk of failure and loss keeps people from taking big risks, gov't took that away. That's where we are now.

[schmoborama]

@mpc91

"the absolute FACT that government created the situation"

The gov't did NOT create GREED, that comes from BUSINESSMEN. It's the RIGHT side of gov't that's been in FAVOR of being BOUGHT by greedy-ass business for GENERATIONS.

THAT'S WHY THEY HAVE SO MUCH POWER NOW.

You want everyone to live on the verge of DEATH or financial RUIN just to make them as DESPERATE about making MONEY as YOU are (standard rightwing malignant narcisism), AND let business run rampant over the population.

[mpc91]

@schmoborama - No, government did not create greed. Greed is a constant, and it's always something that everybody else is and you are not. But you ignore that government is greedy as well, and unlike business, they can legally use force to sate their greed. People ALWAYS want more money, but government enables them to get it by pleasing them instead of the customer.

It's your ideas that have led to financial run.

[schmoborama]

@mpc91

"Greed is - something that everybody else is and you are not"

I do think that greed is a VIRTUE.

YOU and the "job creators" DO.

"government is greedy as well"

Yea that's where SS and Welfare come from. That's STUPID.

The only greed in gov't are the ones that go there specifically to KISS RICH ASS. To help the rich make MORE MONEY, so they can at least get cushy Lobbyist jobs. In other words, the majority of the Republican party.

[mpc91]

@schmoborama - Yes, Social Security and Welfare comes from greed. Greed for power. Everyone in government can feel great when they "give" people things. Especially when they can get someone else to pay for it.

Social Security is a ponzi scheme. Money is taken from some with the promise that they someday will be given money taken from someone else.

Welfare programs have created large bureaucracies, spent trillions, and had ZERO effect on poverty.

[schmoborama]

@mpc91

"Yes, Social Security and Welfare comes from greed. Greed for power. Everyone in government can feel great when they "give"

You are fucking SICK if you think MOTHER THERESA is GREEDY, you don't know what the fucking word MEANS. You TWIST it's meaning for your own TWISTED goal - MAKE MORE MONEY.

SS had TRILLIONS in RESERVE until your fuckbuddy Bush gave it to HALLIBURTON. But go ahead and keep PARROTING that "ponzi" BS to help them do more of the same.

[mpc91]

@schmoborama - Mother Theresa actually helped poor people.

Social Security has nothing but IOUs in reserve. There is no trust fund, and there never was. Funny, you want to blame it all on one party, when the other party has had control of the congress for the better part of the past 75 years.

Even if SS had not been raided, it's still bad. It takes from the poorest workers to give to the richest. It discourages saving and investment, and gives it to wasteful government, who wastes it.

[schmoborama]

@mpc91

"Mother Theresa actually helped poor"

Yea by giving them HEALTHCARE and FOOD. "discouraging" them from taking care of themselves! What a "GREEDY" woman.

You're SICK and *still* TWISTING reality to suit your sick mind.

"SS has nothing but IOUs in reserve"

Yes since your CORRUPT buddies gutted it.

"It takes from the poorest workers to give to the richest."

CORRUPT fuckers that YOU SUPPORT gave it to the rich, so you use that as an excuse to get rid of it. TYPICAL RIGHTWING BS.

[schmoborama]

@mpc91

"Welfare programs have created large bureaucracies, spent trillions, and had ZERO effect on poverty"

Where do you think the Trillions end up? You think it was set on fire?? It STAYS IN THE ECONOMY.

Meanwhile, the tax cuts that you dance to like a witch doctor get spent on LOBBYING, which is BUYING THE GOVT.

BRILLIANT.

[mpc91]

@schmoborama - It stays in the bureaucracy, and goes to that part of the economy which provides no good or service. Those trillions could have gone to business, to create more goods, more cheaply and make everyone wealthier (to a greater extent than they already did.) So essentially it was set on fire.

If you reduce the size of government, you reduce the incentive to lobby. How do you not get that? If gov't doesn't pick winners and loser, or give out money, then lobbying money is wasted.

[schmoborama]

@mpc91

"It stays in the bureaucracy,"

How does a check to a senior that pays for food and medicine "staying in the bureaucracy"??

WHO THE HELL IS GOING TO BUY ANY PRODUCTS when the ALL the money is in Trillionaires accounts?

"trillions could have gone to business, to create more goods"

and more LOBBYING to remove ANY safety regulation or inspection, to remove the minimum wage, to allow UNLIMITED risky Wall st. gambling. Stop IGNORING this.

[mpc91]

@schmoborama - Except that it doesn't. All the programs DON'T ACTUALLY DO WHAT YOU THINK THEY DO.

I'm not ignoring anything. That's all you. The poverty rate in this country was declining before Johnson started "the Great Society", then it flatlined. Medicare increased the cost of healthcare, so that now the deductibles for seniors are more than the prior total cost. The minimum wage hurts the poor. All this creates inflation, which really does FUCK the poor. But they make you feel warm inside.

[schmoborama]

@mpc91

"poverty rate in this country was declining"

Oh you're full of shit. Poverty rates will always fluctuate, so when it goes down you use it as an excuse.

Doing NOTHING about poverty has been TRIED since the BEGINNING of HISTORY. And guess what? It's NEVER SOLVED IT. Welfare hasn't turned the poor into greedy fucks like you, that doesn't mean it hasn't worked.

"The minimum wage hurts the poor"

Yea right and making $200/mo. with rent of $400 wouldn't hurt at all.

[mpc91]

@schmoborama - I love how you take facts you don't like and just ignore them. It suits you.

Poverty rates DON'T always fluctuate. As societies evolve, they get wealthier, and poverty rates drop. There was no "war on poverty" in the 1100 AD. Everyone was poor. By today's standard, poverty was 100%. It was 85% in 1820, and has been dropping worldwide ever since. It's a function of the prosperity that the free market provides, that capital equipment provides.

[mpc91]

@schmoborama - Making $200/mo with a $400 rent is bad, but making $0 is worse. If the value of labor to an employer is $5, but the minimum wage is $7.25, he will not hire anyone. Both sides lose. The potential employee loses both the $5 an hour, and the opportunity to make more as his skill increases his value to his current or future employer. But it makes you feel better to have a high minimum wage, and you think your helping. Calling me "greedy" makes you feel good. But you are hurting people

[schmoborama]

@mpc91

"If you reduce the size of government, you reduce the incentive to lobby"

Yes, by removing SS, Welfare and all regulations, there's no incentive to Lobby. Just let them legally FUCK us, and all will be GRAND.

[mpc91]

@schmoborama - You idiot. They are fucking us now. Social Security and Medicare are underfunded by $114 TRILLION. The baby boomers are retiring. It can't last.

We don't need the state to "protect us" from anybody. We need to be protected from their vote-buying schemes that don't work.It would be one thing if they were bankrupting us with programs that worked, but they don't. And you love them. Do you work for the gov't, or are you getting a check on Tuesday?

[schmoborama]

@mpc91

"underfunded by $114 TRILLION"

pffft BULLSHIT. That's your rightwing greedy-fuck buddies' exaggeration of every possible cost. The programs are set to LEVEL OFF after 2030.

"We don't need the state to "protect us" from anybody"

I would fucking LOVE IT if all you rightwing-nuts were given unregulated food and flew on unregulated planes. It would solve ALL the nation's poblems.

[mpc91]

@schmoborama - Let's just say they are exaggerated (they aren't, but I'll humor you), what if it was only half that. That $57 trillion. That's still unsustainable.

You think food companies and the airlines have less incentive and expertise to keep their products safe than a bureaucrat does? Gov't inspectors check food by looking at it, food companies check it with microscopes. Radiating food would make it much safer, but that has been made illegal.

[schmoborama]

@mpc91

"the absolute FACT that government created the situation"

Just because you think that rich people are fucking GODS does NOT mean that gov't caused this mess. I've given you many examples of their willingness to HARM the public for their own profit, money that's FAR beyond what they need to have an OPULENT life, but you still kiss their ASS.

Or are you trying to get your own ass kissed?

[mpc91]

@schmoborama - Who said rich people are gods? I don't trust them either. But yes, government caused this.

It was government that created the Fed, which intentionally created the housing bubble. It was government that pressured banks to make loans, and gov't that enabled businesses to take big chances to make big profits without the fear of risk. It was gov't that assured the bailouts.

It was politicians looking to keep power, who gave us this mess.

[schmoborama]

@mpc91

"government created the Fed"

The Fed is a PRIVATE BANK run for PROFIT. The gov't uses it at the behest of the BANKS. They BOUGHT enough gov't to get that passed. You can't blame the ENTIRE institution of Government and not the GREEDY FUCKS that BUY the laws they want.

There is ALWAYS money in *every* gov't - all YOU can do about it is to STOP VOTING for the people who are in FAVOR of it being bought, the people who want to make the buyers MORE POWERFUL, for their OWN BENEFIT.

[mpc91]

@schmoborama - The Federal Reserve is not a private bank. It is independent WITHIN government. It was created by government and given the power to print money. Can any other bank do that? It is also, until recently, immune from audit, yet it itself has regulatory power to audit other banks. It was created to "stabilize the economy" and "prevent inflation", and has done the EXACT opposite in both counts.

I, and many others want it abolished.

[schmoborama]

@mpc91

"The Federal Reserve is not a private bank"

Would they want you to know it was private?? State issued currency was called the GREENBACK, NOT the "Federal RESERVE Note". WHY do you think it's been immune to auditting??

Yet any time greedy fucks buy a piece of gov't, people like YOU use it as an EXCUSE to DE-REGULATE the greedy fucks even MORE.

watch?v=JXt1cayx0hs

"the common people lost their lands and homes, just as is about to happen soon in America" - 1996

[mpc91]

@schmoborama - Do you have any idea the size and scope of the regulatory agencies we currently have?

Your argument is cyclical. Because the regulation doesn't work, and can be corrupted, we therefore need more regulation. This new regulation will surely be immune from corrupting influence. It's nonsense.

It was government that caused the mess, and you want more government to fix it. It's like putting a fire out with gasoline. It will never work.

[schmoborama]

@mpc91

"Your argument is cyclical"

Only to a simpleton.

YOU are the one saying regulation never works - NOT ME. The corruption is REMOVING regulations.

"It was gov't that caused the mess, and you want more gov't to fix it"

Yes it was the big-bad Gov't fault for DE-REGULATING the BANKS. So we should DE-REGULATE THEM MORE. Genius. Would ANY of this happen if the banks were not allowed to loan 33 TIMES more money than they had?? That's FAKE money, that's a BUBBLE, that SS had NOTHING to do with.

[mpc91]

@schmoborama - I love that you call me a simpleton. You live in a fantasy world, and you call me a simpleton. You repeat myth after myth after myth, and you call me a simpleton. That's hilarious.

You miss that established businesses like regulation, because it lets them keep new competitors out and prices artificially high.

Where do you think the fake paper money comes from? The government established FED.

[mpc91]

@schmoborama - When did I say that banks should be able to lend more than they had? It was the government that allowed them to do that. That's a function of taking us OFF of the gold standard, and insuring bank accounts. You completely ignore the role the banks have in writing the regulation, and the way they use that regulation to protect them from suffering losses and protect themselves from competition. If account holders could walk up to the bank and demand their gold, the problem is solved.

[schmoborama]

@mpc91

"You don't see the natural limits that the free market contains"

Oh BS. They're NOT limits, they're only FACTORS. Business doesn't want their customers to die? WRONG. They don't want to LOSE MONEY, and that CAN be affected by deaths. But ONLY if people can make a CONNECTION. If they CAN'T, then business DOES NOTHING ABOUT IT.

So they buy the newspapers and pay for their own studies, problem solved. And YOU want to make that LEGAL.

[schmoborama]

@mpc91

1. The desire to get richer makes people BUY GOVERNMENT to pass or remove laws that INCREASE PROFITS. You'd be an idiot to deny that.

2. Interference in the market? In one of the most capitalist countries in history?? Why haven't socialist countries all collapsed then? Even after the global shitstorm created by - US.

3. Yes, Government... BOUGHT BY THE RICH. How can you not see the connection??

[mpc91]

@schmoborama - 1. Yes, this is why we need government to be limited. It has no business picking winners and losers.

2. I'm guessing that you've never heard of the Soviet Union, or the bloc surrounding it. Does Greece ring a bell? Socialist countries either move away from socialism, or they do collapse. It's the fact that we are as capitalist as we are that is keeping us afloat.

3. So limit government. How do you not see that smaller government is the answer?

[schmoborama]

@mpc91

1. You missed the part where I said they pay to REMOVE laws, for profit. That's making gov't SMALLER for PROFIT. That's why you righties want it small; *more money*. "Big" gov't is the opposite of being bought.

2. Greece is in the shitter because of US. And those socialist countries have not created a Global Depression which WE DID with our capitalism taken TOO FAR. And you want it taken FURTHER.

3. See 1., and stop avoiding the point. They're examples of the RICH fucking EVERYONE.

[mpc91]

@schmoborama - 1. I haven't avoided your "points", but you are effectively covering your ears like a child and screaming "I CAN'T HEAR YOU". What laws are they removing? Government is growing rapidly.

2. That's just foolish. Greece is in trouble because 40% of their economy is government. That's 40% of the money in Greece wasted. That's not capitalism, that's socialism.

3. CAPITAL letters and RANDOM FUCKS don't make you seem clever, they make you look like an angry child.

[schmoborama]

@mpc91

1. WHAT am I not listening to?? Just because I don't believe your excuses doesn't mean I didn't hear them. I ALREADY GAVE YOU examples of laws removed!! Who's not listening?? SEE WHY I USE CAPS? I'M the one that keeps having to REPEAT myself!

- Citizens United

- Ban on single ownership of media in a given area

- safety regulations

- food labelling

AGAIN you're IGNORING my point that it's SMALL gov't, not Big, that the rich *buyers* of gov't want!!

[mpc91]

@schmoborama - 1. If RICH people GET their WAY and the TREND is TOWARDS smaller government WITH fewer REGULATIONS, then why is the size of GOVERNMENT growING EXPONENTIALLY?

All of your examples are limits on freedom. All of them are positive rollbacks of government overreach.

But if you can't see that government has grown too large, and it's influence too pervasive in attempting to control everyday life, then I can't help you. Your dedication to Marxist fallacy makes debate pointless.

[schmoborama]

@mpc91

1. It is NOT "growing exponentially", that's *Bullshit*. Welfare & SS only grow with the size of population.

"your examples are limits on freedom"

There we have it, you care more about MONEY than the citizens of the country dying from businesses using toxic ingredients, dangerous products and deadly working conditions. You could've saved a whole lot of argument if you admitted that in the 1st place. You're true rightwing, bitterly selfish & greedy.

[mpc91]

@schmoborama - It is growing exponentially, it's doubled in spending in the past ten years, and regulation and government control is out of control.

You're absolutely full of shit, in that you think passing a law or making a rule actually makes people safer. The market is what makes people safe, and gov't spends money and takes credit. Business don't want to poison their customers, they want workers who are safe, this is what makes them successful.

You've bought a lot of myths.

[schmoborama]

@mpc91

"it's doubled in spending in the past ten years"

IF YOU COUNT THE CLUSTERFUCK WALL ST. STARTED and Bush's war of PROFIT. Creditting that to SS is *Bullshit*.

"you think passing a law or making a rule actually makes people safer"

You're a moron.

Next tell me that seatbelts kill everyone that wears them. You think planes would be SAFER if they reduced maintenance??

If it's LEGAL and PROFITTABLE, you DO IT. PERIOD. THAT IS BUSINESS. That INCLUDES risking peoples' lives.

[mpc91]

@schmoborama - I love when you call me a moron - it's reassuring.

Do laws making people safer? The drug laws certainly don't. But let's go with seat belt laws. Federal law requires that children on airplanes must have restraints, which stops parents from flying with children on their laps. Sounds great, makes people feel safe. But since they have to now buy an extra seat for the child, some will choose to drive instead, far flying is safer than driving. The risk to the child goes up, not down.

[schmoborama]

@mpc91

"some will choose to drive instead, flying is safer than driving"

That is PATHETIC. You can piece together an excuse for ANYTHING that way. The Helmet laws were fought the same PATHETIC way - ONE person died from wearing a helmet and THOUSANDS of people who died with head injuries were ignored.

Trucks have to have bars mounted low in the back, because when cars ran into them, they would slide under the truck and decapitate the riders. TELL ME HOW THAT LAW KILLS PEOPLE.

[schmoborama]

@mpc91

"Do laws making people safer?"

Obviously they do, or you wouldn't have to ignore every one of my examples and find some other law to attack.

[schmoborama]

@mpc91

"You've bought a lot of myths"

Oh do tell me how Citizen's United is a myth, how corporations really are human beings. Tell me that the meat industry was not overrun by rats and feces when Roosevelt created the FMIA. Tell me there was no such thing as child labor. No such thing as deplorable working conditions and pay which sparked riots and created the unions. That the food industry didn't label FRUIT LOOPS with their "SMART CHOICE" label.

[mpc91]

@schmoborama - Citizen's United is a group of people exercising their right to free speech, they disagree with you. Sorry. Corporations are groups of people. Unions are groups of people. People have the right of free association, and the Bill of Rights limits the power of government to regulate the speech of people, and as follows, groups of people.

There was child labor, but the alternative was starvation. We still have those laws, and they stop 16 year olds from getting experience.

[schmoborama]

@mpc91

"Corporations are groups of people"

That's SHIT. A corporation is a TOOL designed ONLY to make itself bigger at ANY COST, INCLUDING the people of the nation. But thanks to cunts like you, pretty soon our President will have to have a Logo plastered on his fucking head every time he's on camera.

"the alternative was starvation"

Which is EXACTLY what you're trying to bring back. The days when business could do ANY FUCKING THING THEY FELT WANT and people would have to eat it or starve.

[mpc91]

@schmoborama - I'm having an increasingly difficult time taking you seriously. You seriously seem to buy every economic fallacy ever imagined. The cunt thing was really funny, are you drunk when you write this stuff?

I'm not trying to bring back child labor, far from it. You are. Free markets let parents earn enough so that they don't need to have their children working to earn wealth so that all may be fed.

/watch?feature=player_embedded­&v=jbkSRLYSojo - This is what ends child labor, not laws

[schmoborama]

@mpc91

"I'm not trying to bring back child labor"

You want to decriminalize it AND remove the min. wage - but somehow not bring child labor back??

"You are"

Yea right, an educated public & social security cause child labor!! Look at all the child labor we have in the U.S.!!

When corporations control EVERYTHING, like YOU WANT, people will NOT earn enough, pay will go DOWN, because that INCREASES PROFIT.

"/watch?"

And how many of those countries have 100% free market??

[mpc91]

@schmoborama - That you ignore the FACT that government laws had little if anything with preventing child labor in this country, and tremendous economic prosperity did. Couple that with the fact that in some poorer countries the result of outlawing child labor is child prostitution, drug running, and starvation.

Corporations don't control what you want, unless you are a sheep (which you seem to be), you do. They react to what you want, or someone else does.

[mpc91]

@schmoborama - The minimum wage is and has been a great tool of exclusion, racism and poverty throughout the years.

The minimum wage prevents people whose skills do not yet make it economically feasible to hire them at that wage from getting the experience they need to get a better job, paying more. The first minimum wage (Wagner Act) was DESIGNED to keep Black construction workers from underbidding competitors.

And they all got wealthier over 200 years as the world economy has become freer.

[mpc91]

@schmoborama - As for charities preventing poverty, they don't prevent poverty. But the mutual aid societies that disappeared after the creation of the welfare state did help people until they could get back on their feet.

But since the creation of the Welfare state, we have spent over $13 trillion (adjusted for inflation) in over 120 programs, and people are still poor. But government has no incentive to get these people back on their feet, because that would eliminate the need for beaurocrats

[deimateos]

@mpc91

Whoa now, be careful with all those factual realities fella, people might start thinking for themselves, pulling themselves out of the gutter and stop begging for government treats like a dog!

People making their own way, and busting their asses to riches (AKA The American Dream), instead of being a jealous little shit with entitlement issues...That's scary stuff, am-I-right?

Dr Williams opponents ruined whatever arguments they thought they had when they pulled the "complexity" card

[schmoborama]

@mpc91 "One person being rich does not make anyone else poor"

Doesn't matter if it's a direct consequence or not, because the rich buy up government and rulings such as Citizens United or play Wall St. / Enron games to fleece the middle class. Speaking of which, let me rephrase; France and the Philippines are classic examples of the rich MAKING everyone else poor. You would let the rich pay NO taxes while the rest of us pay it all AND die in foreign wars of PROFIT for THEM.

[schmoborama]

@mpc91

"Bush's tax cuts came with massive spending increases"

So what? It would've created jobs anyway, if that actually worked as well as you say.

"Tax rates do not correspond to tax revenue"

Yes they DO. Your over-simplified excuse that they stifle the economy so much that there's no increase in revenue is an over-simplified excuse. The response by the economy to increases or cuts are FACTORS in the amount of revenue, NOT the only determining factor.

[mpc91]

@schmoborama - You're understanding of economics is non-existent.

I don't expect you to understand. You are too poisoned by class warfare dogma to see how the world really works.

Tax rates absolutely do not correspond to tax revenue. If anything, lowering tax rates increases tax revenue.

Income tax revenue has stayed around 18% of GDP for the past 60 years, during that time tax rates have fluctuated greatly.

It may make you feel better to raise tax rates, but it doesn't increase revenue.

[schmoborama]

@mpc91

"You're understanding of economics is non-existent"

'Economics' as you define it, yes. Your definition is - fuck everyone you can for as much money as you can.

"If anything, lowering tax rates increases revenue"

Right that's why we had LESS REVENUE AFTER BUSH'S CUTS - you'll believe your excuses instead of your own fucking eyes.

"tax revenue has stayed around 18% of GDP"

All this says to me is that the Middle class has MADE UP for what the fucking millionaires USED to pay.

[mpc91]

@schmoborama - We had less revenue directly after Bush's tax cuts, but that wasn't a function of the tax cuts, it was a function of the recession. When that recession ended, with the tax cuts still in place, revenue went up again. It stayed up again until the current recession. You can look it up, google "Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary". The facts are there.

The net effect of the tax cuts was in fact, higher real inflation adjusted revenue.

[schmoborama]

@mpc91

"We had less revenue directly after Bush's tax cuts ... but that was a function of the recession"

WTF that's the same FUCKING reason they use to pass MORE tax cuts. If they don't do any good without a perfect economy, why do they tell us they do?? Because they'll use ANY excuse to pass tax cuts and then to explain why they DON'T WORK.

"revenue went up again"

Did it come ANYWHERE CLOSE to what the tax cuts cost us?? NO.

[mpc91]

@schmoborama - 3. Seriously... the French Revolution was against a monarchy, the Philipinnes revolted against a foreign power.

And back to 1. Does Bill Gates being rich anybody any poorer? People get rich by creating wealth, by making some good, or providing some service very, very well. The rich getting rich doesn't make the poor poorer. Add to that the fact that "the poor" and "the rich" are not the same people over time.

The thing keeping those in poverty are well-intentioned gov't policies

[eyeonwashparish]

6:39 Translation : These lazy trifling negroes will never amount to anything without the white man's guiding light and hand.

Rangel is a true sellout of the community although many of our people would label Williams with that title. Williams = hero.

[SUCKITHARD02]

Hypothetical: If all three were expert mountain guides and each had a group to lead and half of each group were blind, who would make it to the top first and more importantly how would each group member behave towards the other in their group?

[freddo27]

I've never seen a Conservative who isn't either overpaid or thick as a plank. Or both.

[grapevine808]

@freddo27 you obviously don't get out much then.

[freddo27]

@grapevine808 I get out more than enough to see Conservative voters who don't know their arse from their elbow, or ones that are grossly overpaid. Or both.

[grapevine808]

@freddo27 You're highly intelligent aren't you!

[freddo27]

@grapevine808 An ability to sniff out bullshit is more of an instinct.

[periechontology]

@freddo27

Liberals live in "bullshit" (cut and paste) how can they sniff it out?

[periechontology]

@freddo27

Riiiight. If you want to see overpaid, maybe you should take a look at Cornel West.

[USfutbol]

@freddo27 well i am conservative and i am neither overpaid or thick as a plank. Could you please stop trying avoid the issues. Making generalization of conservatives like this just make liberals like you seem even more blind to how things actually work. We conservatives are realists while liberals seem to completley ignore how the world works.

[jamesa4050]

williams was encouraged to take on responsibility from an early age and now he is a man of substance.

i'm not saying there shouldn't be social programs but the ones we have are not working and the people deserve better.

[jamo387]

Walter E. Williams must be laughing at this Rangel idiot now that he's about to be thrown out on his ass for criminal activity. Williams has a thousand times more integritynad intelligence than this clown Rangel. He always has and always will.

[jjmdirector]

Rangel has prettier hair than the moderator. he is still a progressive puke

[ehdezdet]

Dr. Bernard Anderson:

Appointed by President Bill Clinton to be Assistant Secretary of Labor. Head of Employment Standards Administration, the Department of Labor's largest agency, which includes 1) Wage and Hour Division; 1) Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs; 3) Office of Workers Compensation Programs; and 4) Office of Labor Management Services. (1993)

[The442nd]

Progressives have a sweet place in Hell. The crimes they perpetuate are unforgiving. To have absolutely no expectations of your fellow man is a great crime indeed.

[OriginalMamaBear]

Great series. Rangel showed his colors well. Attacking personally, being snide and snippy, yup his politics as usual. Whoever voted for the man needs some serious intervention.

The moderator was very good and did seem quite fair especially since two of the three on the panel were quite liberal.

[franceseattle]

There's no reason for Rangel to understand this since he's been busy buttering his own bread at the taxpayer's expense for many years. He's the direct beneficiary of the "wonderful" government programs which have, be now, of course, eliminated all poverty among black youth, as well as discrimination.

For those of you obsessed with "elites"--I've got news for you, Mr. Rangel is a typical example of these "elites", as is Dr. Anderson, who is obviously obsessed with his own superiority.

[murphycline]

If I go to a barber whose subpar and he does a bad job then I won't go back and I'll likely tell my family and friends that said barber doesn't do a good job. Is it really that difficult for someone like Rangel to understand this concept?

[nootch76]

@murphycline judging from rangel's haircut I would say, yes.

[Krampfarsch]

@nootch76 lmao!! :D

[schmoborama]

@murphycline

If you believe that Williams' answers to problems are correct, then you have to believe that none of the problems ever existed - that businesses never took advantage of people, always offered fair wages and never discriminated against minorities, before the first social program was created. And that's pretty ridiculous.

His argument amounts to - don't do anything at all. And there's no examples of that working for a whole society.

[murphycline]

@schmoborama

No, you don't have to believe in fantasyland to agree with Williams' points. And your two points are contradictory; if businesses by their very nature take advantage of minorities then they'll hire more minorities. Why would a business hire a white guy at $10 an hour when he could supposedly "exploit" a minority guy at $5 an hour? Have social programs actually helped? No. Most serious discrimination has been state approved in our country's history.

[schmoborama]

@murphycline

"you don't have to believe in fantasyland to agree with Williams"

Yes, you do. The *only* suggestions he has is to remove social programs, which he blames the problems on. That assumes that the problems didn't exist before the programs did. And *again*, there's no examples ANYWHERE of his ideas actually working. Unless you go to a pygmy tribal society or something.

[murphycline]

@schmoborama

If you subsidize something you get more of it. Ergo, if you subsidize poverty you're going to get more poverty. The problem lies in the limitations of knowledge.

[schmoborama]

@murphycline

And if you don't "subsidize" it you get hell-on-earth; bums and the dead littering the streets and a lot more viloence. Do you want the town next to yours to be like that?

"The problem lies in the limitations of knowledge"

Well maybe you should talk to the people who *always* want to kill education funding; Republicans.

[schmoborama]

@murphyclin

And FORTUNATELY, paying someone less money because of their SKIN COLOR is ILLEGAL. Thank god people like you are in the minority.

"Most serious discrimination has been state approved"

Right, enforcing equal rights and equal pay for equal work is worse than being lynched by a mob of rednecks.

[murphycline]

@schmoborama

It's not a question of paying somebody based upon his skin color. Payment for a job is based upon a mutual agreement between the owner of a business and workers. But take a look at the history of unions and minorities, black in particular, to get what I'm driving at. They were called Jim Crow laws because they were laws. And lynchings occurred because the authorities allowed them to occur.

[schmoborama]

@murphycline

"It's not a question of paying somebody based upon his skin color"

you obviously have no idea what racism is. "mutual agreement" is not going to raise the average pay for a black man in Alabama. It does jack shit to provide equal pay for equal work.

"lynchings occurred because the authorities allowed them to occur."

What?? So the KKK got permission to lynch people?? Do you blame the autorities for every other crime that gets committed too??

[murphycline]

@schmoborama

It's almost impossible to have a system like they had in the Jim Crow South without legal enforcement. And yes, more or less. In some cases law enforcement were Klansmen. So yes, the law often turned a blind eye to such activities.

[schmoborama]

@murphycline

"In some cases law enforcement were Klansmen"

You're talking about *illegal* police negligence or activity. That doesn't mean that "Most serious discrimination has been state approved", not in the slightest.

You're trying to say that social programs are discrimintory because of some racist, overrturned laws passed by a few southern states 50 years ago... ?? That's pretty pathetic.

[murphycline]

@schmoborama

I was answering your question about the KKK having permission to lynch people, in some instances they more or less did. Separate issue from the question of who was the most responsible for serious discrimination. And once again; Jim Crow laws. There's a reason they were called laws. And no social programs are not necessarily discriminatory, they just subsidize poverty and are there counterproductive.

[schmoborama]

@murphycline

"they just subsidize poverty and are therefore counterproductive"

No they don't "subsidize poverty", that's an exaggeration that your side takes as 100% fact, because you have something to gain by it. Exaggerate the smallest negative aspect and dismiss any positive ones, that's the game isn't it.

You're ignoring the fact that societies that say "tough shit" to anyone who's had some bad luck *have been tried before*. We did that we were cavemen, on up to the middle ages.

cont -

[murphycline]

@schmoborama

You're conflating voluntarily charity with tax-funded welfare, which is based on coercion. No society that ignores the less fortunate will survive. But to say that one is under a moral imperative to help ones fellow man isn't the same as advocating for wealth transfers through taxation. If you subsidize corn production you get more corn, this rule applies to welfare as well. You conflate things and put too much importance on intentions as opposed to results

[schmoborama]

@murphycline

"ur conflating charity with tax-funded welfare, which is based on coercion"

1. where did you get that idea? Results are all I care about, and the Bush years gave poor results, and you want to go further than they did.

2. why bring up 'coercion', taxes for fire dept. are gathered the same way.

"No society that ignores the less fortunate will survive" Good to hear you admit that, but what do you propose besides charity? That obviously hasn't cut it.

[mpc91]

@schmoborama - 1. If results are all you care about, you would have been convinced that the social engineering that the government has been attempting for 50+ years has not worked.

2. We aren't bankrupting our country paying for fire departments, but we are doing just that with entitlements. Add to that the smaller pool of personal funds for private charities, and the chilling impact on job creation that taxes have.

The best way is promote personal responsibility, not dependence.

[schmoborama]

@mpc91

1. This is the richest country on the planet, the streets are not littered with dead families, the poor haven't taken up arms to revolt and kill the aristocrats, how has it not 'worked'?

2. Wtf does what YOU want the money to be spent on have to do with whether it's "coercion" or not? We're going bankrupt from Mutli-Trillion $ tax cuts and a Trillion $ war of PROFIT

3. How would you do that? Cut every bit of aid, and say sink-or-swim? Think you can show me where that's ever worked?

[Ravengaurd6]

@schmoborama effective investment. is always better than charity. if you can give strength to an entrepreneur within a poor community he will change both himself and the community around him.

[USfutbol]

@schmoborama What we need to do help poor people is not to give them money or things to help them survive. We need to give them the environment in which they can learn to survive on their own. If we don't do that they will always be dependent on someone else to help them survive and never be able to get out of poverty.

[schmoborama]

USfutbol -"What we need to help poor people is not - help them survive"

You can assume that I've heard all the excuses to dump people in the gutter, because I have. If this one made sense there wouldn't be any poor in the first place; they came BEFORE social programs. It's the same old "only the strong should survive" mentality the right has had since the caveman days - for what? So people who have more than they can spend in 10 lifetimes can get more, faster.

[USfutbol]

@schmoborama How will the poor the get out of poverty if you spend your whole time feeding them? They will get out of poverty if you give them the environment that allows them to make their own food.

[schmoborama]

@USfutbol

"How will the poor the get out of poverty "

How will they get a job if they can't even shower and are wearing filthy clothes?

What's this "environment that allows them to make their own food"? It's the "be lucky to be born with opportunities or die" environment. Your side proposes NOTHING else.

[schmoborama]

Know why that's gone now? Because we don't want to live like barbarians anymore. That's what happens when you say tough shit; they don't just sit there until they starve to death, they turn to crime. Especially since everyone is saying 'tough shit' to them anyway. They would band together like the stray dogs that killed a UK woman this week. You and I would then be forced to barricade our houses, carry guns and wear body armor just to go shopping.

[manoman0]

@murphycline lol, some people really have problems following your coherent line of arguments....

[schmoborama]

@manoman0

"some people really have problems following"

Obviously I do follow, otherwise I wouldn't have been able to rip it to shreds. Maybe you don't realize that because you can't follow mine?

[manoman0]

@schmoborama I'll look into that. It's not that I am the pope (infallible). I might have misunderstood you.

[mpc91]

@schmoborama - You haven't ripped anything to shreds. You're like a quarterback celebrating wildly after throwing an interception for a touchdown. True, the ball is in the endzone, just not the one you were shooting for. It would be funny to watch on a football field, and it's just as funny to watch you tilt at windmills.

Your arrogance matches those whose examples you follow. Your faith in the state to solve people's problems blinds you to reality. But boy, can you flail and repeat jargon.

[schmoborama]

@mpc91

"You haven't ripped anything to shreds"

Yea that's why you pathetic rightwingnuts and douchebaggers have resorted to taunts while ignoring what I say, instead of refuting what I say. Winners never fight with facts or logic, just accusations and insults.

[mpc91]

@schmoborama - "You're true rightwing, bitterly selfish & greedy." "pathetic rightwingnuts and douchebaggers" "dumping the poor in the gutter" (twice).

Yep, you're above insults and accusations. No taunts there.

I have refuted what you say, but you ignore it. You cling to these notions that are flatly false, accuse government of being corrupt, and then clamor for more of it. You make up facts, then call me a moron for not jumping on your fantasy. The act is getting old.

[harbar3000]

@murphycline Sometimes I think that Rengel and his ilk DO perfectly understand that concept. However, Rengel et al make their living from doing something about the plight of blacks. Therefore their true interest is not in eliminating barriers that blacks face, but to keep and invent new barriers to black progress. This way Rengel keeps getting his votes and he and others get their "charitable" contributions (in many cases little more that extortion payments) and their comfortable lives continue.

[AFRIKTODAY]

That worthless senator is a moron! Who voted for that fool anyway?

[WarVideo]

Got to give it to the moderater, she was very fair, usually you notice some hostility from them when you have someone like Walter Willaims on.

[Libertarian71776]

and Charles Rangel is currently being investigated for ethics violations! HA!

[AFRIKTODAY]

Great!

[cooldude5able]

Yeah! Those people are messed up!