The best in arts & entertainment, news, pop culture, and your mom since 2002.

[Total: 64    Average: 3.6/5]
95 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 14232
Rating: 3.6
Category:
Date: 10/14/11 07:11 AM

95 Responses to The 7 Biggest Economic Lies

  1. Profile photo of kitteh9lives
    kitteh9lives Female 70 & Over
    8044 posts
    October 13, 2011 at 5:40 pm
    Link: The 7 Biggest Economic Lies - Robert Reich reveals 7 of the biggest lies about the economy. Does he speak the truth I-A-B?
  2. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    October 14, 2011 at 7:23 am
    Hmm, granted he only gave himself 2:47 to go over 7 points, I think the majority of what he said is a plausible argument. I don`t necessarily agree with all of it as some of it is looked at a little too simplistic, but I agree with the gist of it.
  3. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    6174 posts
    October 14, 2011 at 7:27 am
    Correction: The 7 biggest Libiral bullshat talking points by Rober Reich.
  4. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    October 14, 2011 at 7:28 am
    MeGrendel: Perhaps, but explain to me how trickle down economics has ever succeeded.
  5. Profile photo of madest
    madest Male 40-49
    7378 posts
    October 14, 2011 at 7:30 am
    Is that how you see everything MeGrendel? Your party vs the other party? Would be nice if you put your country before party. But I suppose that`s too much to ask of a narcissist.
  6. Profile photo of SumRandom1
    SumRandom1 Male 18-29
    794 posts
    October 14, 2011 at 7:36 am
    ok being that i work in personal financial services, and not politics, everything seems to be right except SS(#6), it is very close to a PONZI scheme, in a ponzi scheme you get new investors to pay out old investors, social security does just that, pays people that are on SS with the money it collects from people that are not on SS yet but are required to pay the SS tax, plus if you read your SS statement (page 1 not page 2 where it says how much $ u will get) it states that SS will run out of funds by 2036 unless laws change, plus you are only guaranteed $0.72 of every dollar promised on pg2, look it up yourself visit their website

    now on another note, doesn`t this look like an older version of Mark Gonzales the pro skateboarder???
  7. Profile photo of FoSchizle
    FoSchizle Male 18-29
    330 posts
    October 14, 2011 at 7:42 am
    That was bullcrap. Take ANY economics course and you will find the exact opposite.

    Look at Germany and Canada, they cut taxes and spending and they`re doing a heck of a lot better than we are with our massive government. THAT`S the fact. Look at Hong Kong too, they have no "safety nets" like we have here, and their GDP is quickly rising. No unemployment benefits, either, so the average time to find a job after being laid off is a heck of a lot faster than here.

    Less government promotes higher economic freedom, which gives us higher GDP.
  8. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    6174 posts
    October 14, 2011 at 7:43 am
    When taxes are carefully crafted to only include the real rich, there can be a nasty surprise for the middle class and the nation. For example, the Carter`s tax on yachts.

    After typical class warefare tactics, Carter and the Dems enacted a stiff tax on the purchase of yachts. (After all, they could afford it.)

    As a result of the tax, most rich people did one of two things, either didn`t buy a yacht or purchased a new one abroad where the tax did not apply.

    Result of this tax? The American yacht industry was destroyed (one New Jersey town whose economy was totally dependent on yacht building faced economic disaster) and associated jobs and income tax revenues (unemployed people generally pay little or no income tax) were lost.

    Even if successful, the yacht tax would not have raised much tax revenue, but it DID decimate an industry.
  9. Profile photo of FoSchizle
    FoSchizle Male 18-29
    330 posts
    October 14, 2011 at 7:51 am
    Also, smaller government doesn`t mean get rid of the things government is SUPPOSED to do (e.g. police, military, education, roads etc.), but it does mean getting rid of all the erroneous crap that it was never intended to have its hands in. The things he talked about wouldn`t have to shrink, they`d have even more funding in fact.
  10. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    6174 posts
    October 14, 2011 at 7:51 am
    madest-`Would be nice if you put your country before party. `

    Strange, I didn`t mention a party. I mentioned a mindset. (or, if you will, a mental disorder).

    `Liberal` was a party in the UK, and is in Canada, but not in the U.S. (oh, there`s an occasional meeting at McDonalds of groups that call themselves the `Liberal party`, but that`s about it).

    There`s never been a President who ran as member of the `Liberal Party` (Republican, Democrat, Whig, Democratic-Republican, Independent and Federalist, in order of numbers).

    Nor is there a `Liberal Party` represented in Congress (Republican, Democrat, Connecticut for Lieberman & Independent, currently)
  11. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    October 14, 2011 at 7:53 am
    MeGrendel: Cool story, but that still didn`t provide an example of trickle down economics working, rather it`s an example of a ridiculously specific tax hurting a specific industry. Note that I`m not calling your example ridiculous, rather the tax itself, but you still haven`t provided cogent examples of the success of trickle down economics.

    "Look at Germany and Canada, they cut taxes and spending and they`re doing a heck of a lot better than we are with our massive government."

    Our government is much more involved in everything we do than yours, seeing as how we`re much more socialist. So what I hear you saying is that socialist economies do better than yours?
  12. Profile photo of auburnjunky
    auburnjunky Male 30-39
    10339 posts
    October 14, 2011 at 8:01 am
    No it isn`t.
  13. Profile photo of auburnjunky
    auburnjunky Male 30-39
    10339 posts
    October 14, 2011 at 8:03 am
    Trickle down economics manifested itself in the 90`s. Remember that time, when everyone had money?

    That was TDE working, and Clinton said "Oh mama! Look at all this money! Let`s spend it!" and then, well we all know what happened after that.
  14. Profile photo of Agent00Smith
    Agent00Smith Male 18-29
    2581 posts
    October 14, 2011 at 8:04 am
    OR we could just forget about money and stop playing these games.
  15. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    October 14, 2011 at 8:07 am
    auburnjunky: Do you remember your own country`s history? Reagan instituted trickle down economics which was in the 80s, not the 90s. In any case that`s still correlation implying causation. The 90s had several burgeoning industries such as internet start-ups and such, so you can`t just assume trickle down is responsible.
  16. Profile photo of yoda141
    yoda141 Male 18-29
    266 posts
    October 14, 2011 at 8:08 am
    Funny how all those things are what the right believes... but not surprising at all.
  17. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    6174 posts
    October 14, 2011 at 8:12 am
    Reagan`s Trickle-Down (or supply-side) economics cut the highest tax bracket from 70% to 28%:
    Results:
    Spending increased almost 9%.
    Unemployment went from 7.0% to 5.4%
    Inflation declined from 10.% to 4.2%
    GDP growth from -0.3% to 4.1%.
    On 8 of the 10 key economic variables, the American economy performed better during the Reagan years than during the pre- and post-Reagan years.
    Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years.
    Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency.
  18. Profile photo of auburnjunky
    auburnjunky Male 30-39
    10339 posts
    October 14, 2011 at 8:13 am
    No economic plan in history garnered immediate returns. Ever. The first indicator of an economic plan working, is job growth. What happened in the mid to late 80`s? Unemployment went from 9%, to less than 4%. (Regular) People started to make money. Then Dumbass Bush #1 came in, and raised taxes, and it started to level off. Then Clinton came in, and didn`t touch the economy. That was a smart move. When the dot com bubble began to grow, he started fiddling with it, and it went BLARGH! It would have taken longer, but those stupid wars happened.
  19. Profile photo of auburnjunky
    auburnjunky Male 30-39
    10339 posts
    October 14, 2011 at 8:13 am
    MeGrendel explained it better.
  20. Profile photo of FoSchizle
    FoSchizle Male 18-29
    330 posts
    October 14, 2011 at 8:17 am
    @patchgrabber

    Not what I`m saying at all, but good try. I was looking at the specific actions of cutting government spending and lowering taxes, not the government structure as a whole. Notice I also didn`t just single out Canada, but mentioned Germany and Hong Kong as other examples.

    Keep trying though, bud, you`ll get it eventually.
  21. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    6174 posts
    October 14, 2011 at 8:18 am
    yoda141-"Funny how all those things are what the right believes... but not surprising at all."

    Not funny at all. As it was a video of an idiot trying to put forth Liberal `truths`. So he had to find stances by conservatives, call them `lies` and give his `truth` (which, of course, is nothing of the sort).

    There was much more bu!!poo in his responses than there were in the 7 `lies` he listed. (except for 3: I`ve never personally heard `if we shrink government, we`ll create jobs`. He just came up with that so that he try and infer that the other side wants to fire teachers, firemen and police. When, of course, THOSE are not the government jobs that need to be eliminated)
  22. Profile photo of Student_Law
    Student_Law Male 30-39
    1010 posts
    October 14, 2011 at 8:22 am
    He is right about the health care economy. Govt leverage for bargaining is crucial for medicine to be cheap, not to mention effective. There are two main reasons that every single developed country in the world has adopted public medicine (and even some developing countries, and of course except the USA) number one is the removal of "corporate skim", there are no expensive links in the process of maintaining health and number two - health care and market does not make an effective combination. Simply because a market cant have a healthy population paying as little as possible for medicine as a goal: it would undermine the very market it is dependent on. Eventually you will get a sicker population, (like in the US) smaller work force - and the result is obviously a bad economy.

    But hey: why can`t the whole damn world be wrong, and US medical corps be right? LOL
  23. Profile photo of Student_Law
    Student_Law Male 30-39
    1010 posts
    October 14, 2011 at 8:25 am
    @MeGrendel: why would you type "bu!!poo" with the classical "autocencor- avvoiding" symbol stuff when the iab forum is going to change "bull5hit" (if you type it correctly) into "bullpoo" anyway...?
  24. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36695 posts
    October 14, 2011 at 8:25 am
    FoShizle - Germany and Canada could affort to cut tax because they had already spent and created jobs, just like the video said - spend then cut. Bill Clinton went in and raised taxes. We then had 7 years of record booming economy, defecit paid down and SSI had a surplus. Bush immediately cut taxes on the rich and raised them on the middle class. Then he cut services and we`ve been spiraling out of control since.
  25. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    October 14, 2011 at 8:26 am
    Good points MeGrendel, the Reagan administration did preside over a large economic expansion, but a lot of it could also be explained by the fact that the unemployment in the 70s was extremely high, and that because unemployment was reducing from a high peak, it is consistent with Keynesian economics for the economy to grow as employment increases while inflation remains low, although Reagan did lower inflation using the Keynesian method: by increasing interest rates.

    Also, "Spending during Reagan`s two terms averaged 22.4% GDP, well above the 20.6% GDP average from 1971 to 2009. In addition, the public debt rose from 26.1% GDP in 1980 to 41.0% GDP by 1988. In dollar terms, the public debt rose from $712 billion in 1980 to $2,052 billion in 1988, a three-fold increase".
  26. Profile photo of auburnjunky
    auburnjunky Male 30-39
    10339 posts
    October 14, 2011 at 8:27 am
    Or we could let Insurance companies compete with each other, which would drive down insurance costs, which would drive down medical costs.

    Government regulation of medicine is what has caused the prices to rise, NOT insurance companies.
  27. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    October 14, 2011 at 8:31 am
    Also his expansion of AMT shifted the tax burden from rich people to middle class americans, so I`m not entirely sure that it`s as simple as "cut taxes for the rich and the economy gets better", but at least your argument has some sound backing.
  28. Profile photo of Student_Law
    Student_Law Male 30-39
    1010 posts
    October 14, 2011 at 8:33 am
    On the other hand, it does not matter what people think as long as the Congress is bought and paid for :-p
  29. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    6174 posts
    October 14, 2011 at 8:39 am
    patchgrabber-"unemployment in the 70s was extremely high"

    The 70`s high unemployment was in 1975, which was 8.5%.

    What, exactly, is it now?
  30. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    6174 posts
    October 14, 2011 at 8:42 am
    Student_Law-"On the other hand, it does not matter what people think as long as the Congress is bought and paid for"

    Hear Hear, these days the difinition of an `Honest Politician` is one that STAYS bought.
  31. Profile photo of mervviscious
    mervviscious Male 40-49
    1793 posts
    October 14, 2011 at 8:44 am
    this is the truth... trickle dow economics (or as we called it in the 80`s piss on our head economics) only gives the rich more money to hoard...
  32. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    October 14, 2011 at 8:51 am
    MeGrendel: I mis-wrote(?), I didn`t mean the 70s I meant the early 80s. Thank you for pointing that out. What I meant was that Reagan created high unemployment in the very early 80s by using Keynesian methods of increasing interest rates to lower inflation then ride out the increase in economy by virtue of employment starting to increase. Taxes didn`t have as much influence on unemployment as you claim.
  33. Profile photo of Draculya
    Draculya Male 40-49
    14628 posts
    October 14, 2011 at 8:59 am
    Social security is indeed a ponzi scheme. It`s also built on bad credit.

    It is indeed unfair that lower income people pay less tax. It is a practical reality of society. They can`t pay and still eat. Just as it is impractical to over tax the rich. They`ll never pay, they`ll restructure their tax exposure.
  34. Profile photo of Draculya
    Draculya Male 40-49
    14628 posts
    October 14, 2011 at 9:01 am
    Here`s an example of my last point. In China income tax is high. In a tax talk I attended they said that in China there is no legal differentiation between tax evasion and tax avoidance... and the penalty is death. Yet the rich almost universally evade tax to an utterly ridiculous extent.
  35. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    October 14, 2011 at 9:11 am
    Damn you draculya and your relentless logic! ;)
  36. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15841 posts
    October 14, 2011 at 9:13 am
    The biggest lie is that this little turd has a clue.
  37. Profile photo of Kain1
    Kain1 Male 18-29
    1473 posts
    October 14, 2011 at 9:18 am
    I`ve recently stopped caring.. Not because i don`t feel solidarity with people being trampled by debt etc... I just realized that there is truly nothing i can do about it.. kind of like that old quote:
    "strenght to change what i can, and to accept what i can not.. and wisdom to know the difference"
  38. Profile photo of Kain1
    Kain1 Male 18-29
    1473 posts
    October 14, 2011 at 9:19 am
    Think i`ll just sit back and watch it all go up in smoke..
  39. Profile photo of Klamz
    Klamz Male 18-29
    689 posts
    October 14, 2011 at 9:41 am
    "Think i`ll just sit back and watch it all go up in smoke.."

    I agree.
  40. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36695 posts
    October 14, 2011 at 9:42 am

    SSI is a ponzi scheme? That`s funny!

    SSI taxes are collected and are supposed to be held in trust to be paid out later. The funny part is that the politicians are the thieves who stole the money then call it a scheme so they don`t have to pay it back.

    If we ditch SSI we also need to ditch the lifetime free retirment and free universal healthcare that politicians enjoy. What`s that? "Never gonna happen" you say?
  41. Profile photo of NottaSpy
    NottaSpy Male 40-49
    881 posts
    October 14, 2011 at 9:45 am
    It is sad how the rich have used their money to destroy truths such as Keynesian economics, evolution, and climate change. The truly sad part is that in the long run, they`ll suffer too.
  42. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10732 posts
    October 14, 2011 at 9:51 am
    Waiting for Lee Doren`s response.
  43. Profile photo of QueenZira
    QueenZira Female 18-29
    2228 posts
    October 14, 2011 at 10:03 am
    For the benefit of draculya re Social Security.
  44. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10732 posts
    October 14, 2011 at 10:15 am
    1)[quote">...median hourly wage stagnated and dropped[/quote"> BS, MeGrendel explains this well.
    2)[quote">...tax rates were as high 70%...[/quote">...and brought in the lowest revenue in terms of GDP.
    3)This is assuming only the government can create jobs in such times. A grossly flawed assumption.
    4)Mort Zuckerman: "We`ve had the most stimulative fiscal policy since the great depression, and we`re still at 9%+ unemployment".
    5)[quote">Healthcare costs are rising[/quote"> The government barely regulates abortion, those costs have remained steady in real terms.
    [quote">Medicare has lower administrative costs[/quote">Claim not valid in any state
  45. Profile photo of simim23
    simim23 Female 18-29
    1427 posts
    October 14, 2011 at 10:17 am
    Has anyone on here ever taken an economics class?

    The numbers are sound, and what he`s saying is economically sound.
  46. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10732 posts
    October 14, 2011 at 10:21 am
    6)Hmm gee now I pay into a system, and the investors get money out. Worst of all there`s no expectation that I`ll see any benefit. At least Charles Ponzi didn`t force me to pay into his scheme.
    7)Not that I really disagree, but EVERYONE has to pay those pesky fees. But considering the money involved enforcing this unsimple tax system we got, it`s unsound.
  47. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10732 posts
    October 14, 2011 at 10:22 am
    @simim

    Yes I have, and I disagree thoroughly based on what I learned in said class.
  48. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    October 14, 2011 at 10:22 am
    "The government barely regulates abortion, those costs have remained steady in real terms."

    One aspect of the greater whole? Fallacy of composition.
  49. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    6174 posts
    October 14, 2011 at 10:27 am
    NottaSpy-"used their money to destroy truths such as Keynesian economics.."

    The truth is that the serious flaw with Keynesian economics is the involvement of government in the private sector. While Keynesian economics calls for specific or direct government spending to create favorable economic conditions, politicians may choose to ignore this and spend money on whatever they wish.

    Do YOU trust the government? (a `yes` there would prove you are a fool)
  50. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10732 posts
    October 14, 2011 at 10:27 am
    @QueenZira

    My response to your venn Diagram
  51. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    6174 posts
    October 14, 2011 at 10:27 am
    NottaSpy-"used their money to destroy truths such as...evolution"

    Last time I checked, evolution (micro & macro) was pretty much a scientific fact while the Theory of Evolution ranks up there with the Theory of Gravity or Relativity (i.e., the best bet going.)

    "...and climate change."

    The truth is that the climate changes, has been doing so for approximately the last 4.55 billion years. It is the norm, not the exception. The current change is neither significant, caused in any appreciable manner by man nor resemble anything that Al Gore says it does (Mr. `The Earth has a Fever` is, after all, in it for the money and control).

    Those truths?
  52. Profile photo of Altaru
    Altaru Male 18-29
    3483 posts
    October 14, 2011 at 10:29 am
    Maybe Social Security should be switched around with some kind of investment system instead...

    Like I, personally, elected to use part of my paycheck every week to buy stock in the company I work for. Even if the stock doesn`t go up very much, by the time I leave my job I`ll have a modest amount to sustain me until I get another job, if I don`t already.

    As it is, social security is just taking money from the people while they work, putting it in a vault, and letting it set there until they aren`t working and want it back (or the politicians decide to squander it, which just completely f*cks it up). Which is, actually, the definition of a Ponzi Scheme. Paying the investors with their own money, or the money of other investors...

    Maybe there should be some kind of "investment assistance" system. That way, the money can not only work for the person, but can actually be used by businesses to boost the economy too.
  53. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10732 posts
    October 14, 2011 at 10:31 am
    @patchgrabber

    Maybe, but generally speaking the less government`s involved the better as proved by the Clinton admin.
  54. Profile photo of QueenZira
    QueenZira Female 18-29
    2228 posts
    October 14, 2011 at 10:32 am
    Cajun, the Cato institute think tank makes me laugh, as do the Heritage foundation and the Neo Birchers. But thanks, I needed the jocularity!
  55. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10732 posts
    October 14, 2011 at 10:35 am
    The current change is neither significant

    In absolute temperature a 1% change would be disastrous for man kind.

    caused in any appreciable manner by man

    That remains to be determined.
  56. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10732 posts
    October 14, 2011 at 10:36 am
    @QueenZira

    So you didn`t even bother reading my article?

    Tsk, tsk.
  57. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    6174 posts
    October 14, 2011 at 10:39 am
    QueenZira-"the Cato institute think tank makes me laugh"

    Translation: "Rather than offer any rational argument (which I cant`t) I will redicule your cite instead and try to change the subject. LOOK! SQUIRREL!!!!"
  58. Profile photo of Altaru
    Altaru Male 18-29
    3483 posts
    October 14, 2011 at 10:44 am
    The truth is that the climate changes, has been doing so for approximately the last 4.55 billion years.
    The difference is that over most of the last 4.55 billion years there weren`t 7 Billion humans and nearly as many, if not more, vehicles pumping out toxic chemicals and CO2 into the atmosphere.

    4.55 billion years ago toxic and radioactive waste were, at worst, the natural by-product of a natural process that created something that naturally benefited the ecosystem, and neither came in such large amounts that they have to be "disposed of" rather than letting them naturally run their course.

    4.55 billion years ago forests were able to grow naturally and organically, plants over-took the landscape and weren`t constantly being cut down to make more living space. The animals lived among them, as nature intended. The number of plants and animals naturally balanced itself so the CO2 to O2 rate was favorable to both parties.
  59. Profile photo of NottaSpy
    NottaSpy Male 40-49
    881 posts
    October 14, 2011 at 10:47 am
    MeGrendel, thank you for showing us how someone, such as yourself, can be manipulated by propaganda that has come straight out of think tanks rather than from facts derived from actual observation.
  60. Profile photo of Altaru
    Altaru Male 18-29
    3483 posts
    October 14, 2011 at 10:50 am
    The point is, over the course of the past 4.55 Billion years, nature was running it`s course as it always has. Slow, steady, and perfectly balanced as only nature can achieve.

    Over the course of the past around 100 years, nature has been royally f*cked with.

    Even IF it isn`t caused by human beings, a climate change would STILL be disastrous for us if we aren`t prepared for it.

    And even you admit that the climate is changing and will continue to change. Naturally, if not artificially.
  61. Profile photo of Altaru
    Altaru Male 18-29
    3483 posts
    October 14, 2011 at 10:56 am
    The biggest lie is that this little turd has a clue.
    Ah, so THIS is rhetorical eloquence, is it Ollie?

    I see that I`ve been doing it wrong all along.

    Thanks for the lesson, I think I`ll practice a little:

    You`re a retarded pig, and deserve to die in a fire pit.

    Am I doing it right?
  62. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10732 posts
    October 14, 2011 at 11:04 am
    @NottaSpy

    Hypocrisy much?
  63. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    6174 posts
    October 14, 2011 at 11:20 am
    Cajun247-"@NattaSpy...Hypocrisy much?"

    Don`t bother, Cajun. He`ll never recognize it.

    For NottaSpy.
    Observed Facts:
    1) Politicians lie, cheat and steal, and demonstrate they are only interested in self-power and money, and will not act in the best interest of individuals, companies or the economy. (i.e. Keynesian has the same problem as Communism and socialism. All look great on paper, but fail miserably in the real world).

    2) On evolution, scientific facts.

    3) Climate Change, observed scientfic facts, and observed scientific maleficence and observed exactly WHO it is that`s pushing the AGW political movement & scare. (hint: `We Know What Is Best For You`). Clue: Obama`s Global Warming Czar, Carol Browner, was listed as one of 14 leaders of a socialist group’s Commission for a Sustainable World Society, which calls for “global governance”.
  64. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10732 posts
    October 14, 2011 at 11:43 am
    Point 1 additional:

    This is on top of the fact that they can take money by force why governments like communism won`t work.
  65. Profile photo of Altaru
    Altaru Male 18-29
    3483 posts
    October 14, 2011 at 11:46 am
    Sustainable World Society, which calls for “global governance”.
    Your point? A problem that affects the entire globe needs to be handled on a global scale. Maybe not by a particular government agency or whatever, but it is a problem and it does need handled.

    Regardless of what you think about the AGW scientists and politicians, I would think it`s common sense that if you change the natural state of things in a negative manner, the outcome will be negative.

    Take the Amazon, for example. There`s piranhas in the rivers, we all know that. Yet life survives, even thrives, because of the natural and balanced cycles.

    However, what do you think would happen if we took out half the non-piranha wildlife, then dumped in ten million more piranhas?

    Regardless of what the politicians say, you don`t need a degree to see what humanity is doing and what the outcome will be if we don`t change.
  66. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10732 posts
    October 14, 2011 at 11:59 am
    However, what do you think would happen if we took out half the non-piranha wildlife, then dumped in ten million more piranhas?

    Bad example, a mathematician and biologist would say such a system is statically stable. If you don`t know what that means imagine a marble in a bowl.

    Predator-prey model, Google it!
  67. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    October 14, 2011 at 12:03 pm
    Reich was one of Clinton`s cabinet weasels and helped piece together the bad housing loan policies that allowed bankers to hand out loans to those who couldn`t afford it and then use those mortgages like poker chips. It wouldn`t be wise to trust him with the contents of s child`s piggy bank, let alone his economic advise.
  68. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10732 posts
    October 14, 2011 at 12:03 pm
    Did I say "statically"?

    I`m confusing aeronautical with ecological terms. The system is stable like a marble in a bowl.
  69. Profile photo of AntEconomist
    AntEconomist Male 40-49
    349 posts
    October 14, 2011 at 12:22 pm
    Perhaps it`s not fair to fight cartoons with actual data, but if you`d like to see these topics addressed in light of some actual data, see a set of videos here.
  70. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    6174 posts
    October 14, 2011 at 12:35 pm
    Altaru-"Your point?"

    My point is that the Commision for a Sustainable World Society is run by Socialist International. YOU may not have a problem with that. But I do.
  71. Profile photo of Altaru
    Altaru Male 18-29
    3483 posts
    October 14, 2011 at 12:42 pm
    Bad example, a mathematician and biologist would say such a system is statically stable. If you don`t know what that means imagine a marble in a bowl.

    Predator-prey model, Google it!
    I`m familiar with the model, and it works...

    When it`s allowed to naturally balance itself.

    But, like you said, it was a bad example. The more relevant example would be to continue introducing more piranha and taking more wildlife out constantly, increasing the number of piranha put in and the number of animals taken out every time.

    Because it`s not like we stopped after doing it one time.
  72. Profile photo of Hybrovi
    Hybrovi Male 18-29
    79 posts
    October 14, 2011 at 12:47 pm
    Nice ad hominem CrakrJak. If you`re going to criticize the points being made in the video, criticize the points being made in the video, NOT the person making them.
  73. Profile photo of Fatninja01
    Fatninja01 Male 30-39
    25420 posts
    October 14, 2011 at 12:54 pm
    wow facts!
  74. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10732 posts
    October 14, 2011 at 1:02 pm
    Fair point Altaru, but unlike MeGrendel I do think AGW is a recognizable problem how much is the biggest question on every climatologists` mind though. I do, however, agree with him that government is not the best solution.
  75. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10732 posts
    October 14, 2011 at 1:03 pm
    Hell government could make things even worse by unintentionally curbing efficiency with good intentions.
  76. Profile photo of scheckydamon
    scheckydamon Male 60-69
    708 posts
    October 14, 2011 at 1:55 pm
    Sorry Fatninja01 but the definition of facts is that they are provable. Reich has never spoke facts or truth. This is one more left leaning wash of facts. Read and research things and don`t parrot the talking points of the uninformed. Everything in this video has been proven wrong. Gee and by the OMB which is a government mouth piece.
  77. Profile photo of randomxnp
    randomxnp Male 30-39
    1293 posts
    October 14, 2011 at 2:00 pm
    This guy talks out of his arse. Typical leftie, he talks about the immediate effects, and ignores the unintended consequences. That simply destroys his entire hypothesis.
  78. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    October 14, 2011 at 2:06 pm
    Hybrovi: Listening to something without considering the source is like clicking on that e-mail that says, "Free Money" in your inbox.
  79. Profile photo of AngryAsian
    AngryAsian Male 13-17
    122 posts
    October 14, 2011 at 2:06 pm
    the counter at the top right was truly unnecessary
  80. Profile photo of Altaru
    Altaru Male 18-29
    3483 posts
    October 14, 2011 at 2:06 pm
    I do, however, agree with him that government is not the best solution.
    I`m not debating that, though.

    I don`t know a good solution, otherwise I would be yelling it from the rooftops and busting my ass to get the message out.

    But it`s pretty hard to believe there are people out there than can honestly just disregard all evidence of humanity`s effect on the environment. Even the common sense factors.

    For 4.55 BILLION years the planet was able to balance itself out consistently. It will continue, but last time something this damaging happened to the planet, albeit within a much quicker time-frame (although by comparison with the natural time-frame this is relatively fast), the bulk of the flora and fauna of the planet died off in one cataclysmic boom.

    I don`t know about MeGrendel, but I don`t like the idea of that happening to humanity, not yet at least.
  81. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10732 posts
    October 14, 2011 at 2:17 pm
    @Crakrjak

    That`s a bad example as you don`t know who sent the mail.
  82. Profile photo of PirateWillis
    PirateWillis Male 18-29
    143 posts
    October 14, 2011 at 2:37 pm
    People forget that the tax cuts went to everyone, yes it had a bigger impact on the rich, but that doesn`t mean it didn`t help everyone. People believe this kind of stuff because it`s easy to understand, but the facts of the economy aren`t easy to understand because you need all the facts. You can`t cover these topics in 2.5 minutes, but you can when you leave out information and distort facts to quick, easy declarations. People need to hear both arguments and make a decision instead succumbing to generalities and invalid syllogisms.
  83. Profile photo of uatme
    uatme Male 18-29
    1074 posts
    October 14, 2011 at 2:51 pm
    How did this spawn an environmental debate?
  84. Profile photo of Thdot
    Thdot Male 30-39
    658 posts
    October 14, 2011 at 4:45 pm
    This guy looks horrible in a spread collar.
  85. Profile photo of MattyP
    MattyP Male 18-29
    197 posts
    October 14, 2011 at 6:11 pm
    A bit of a democratic idealist, and probably an oversimplification/generalization, but still thought provoking. Take it with a grain of salt. I wish all politics was this much fun to watch.
  86. Profile photo of FartSmeller
    FartSmeller Male 50-59
    33 posts
    October 14, 2011 at 7:26 pm
    What a FN idiot. Of course fewer than 2% of small business owners are in the top tax bracket. Just define a small business owner that way.

    The rest of it is similarly idiotic.
  87. Profile photo of ruthless1990
    ruthless1990 Female 18-29
    3001 posts
    October 14, 2011 at 7:34 pm
    "does he speak the truth?"
    in a word, yes.
  88. Profile photo of I-IS-BORED
    I-IS-BORED Male 18-29
    2419 posts
    October 14, 2011 at 7:41 pm
    @MattyP
    actually a lot of it is supported historically and statistically, there`s even data relating general happiness to tax rates on the rich in countries
  89. Profile photo of chec13
    chec13 Male 18-29
    1 post
    October 14, 2011 at 8:55 pm
    This guy is so smart. Kind of wonder why nothing he said was right is actually working right now. After all, the system he says works, is pretty much the one we are using now.
  90. Profile photo of Baalthazaq
    Baalthazaq Male 18-29
    4548 posts
    October 14, 2011 at 10:04 pm
    "This guy is so smart. Kind of wonder why nothing he said was right is actually working right now. After all, the system he says works, is pretty much the one we are using now."

    He pretty much argued for a change in every point he made. A change that is not currently occurring. If you think you`re running America AGAINST trickle down theory right now, you need to explain why the rich pay the lowest taxes they`ve paid in decades.

    Corporations pay the lowest percentage of overall taxes they`ve paid in decades.

    The highest tax bracket pays the lowest they`ve paid in years.

    Under the OBAMA admin, we`ve done nothing but cut taxes on them. Not raise. Bush tax cuts extended, Obama tax cuts implemented.

    "The system we`re currently using" is not the one he described at all.
  91. Profile photo of Baalthazaq
    Baalthazaq Male 18-29
    4548 posts
    October 14, 2011 at 10:29 pm
    Lets have a look at "The system we`re using now" shall we?

    Here`s the top- marginal tax rate vs employment:


    Taxes down. Unemployment up. You`re pretending taxes are currently up and not working.

    Same again for corporate taxes:


    Finally, the idea that "if only corporate profits can be stimulated, we`d have jobs" is not true, they literally have never been richer:


    So about this "system we`re trying now"... I like his idea better.
  92. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    October 15, 2011 at 12:24 am
    Baal: It`s not so much about corporate tax rates now, it`s about heavy-handed and over burdensome regulations that act like taxation. Regulatory costs meet or exceed corporate taxes in most industries now.

    The Gov`t raided Gibson guitar recently over legally obtained fret board blanks, they`ve prevented Boeing from opening a new airplane plant in South Carolina, Mile High Cab in Colorado is being prevented from operating taxis by a public utility commission.

    And this over regulation is often has multiple layers to deal with like local public commissions that recommends to a board, that then recommends to a state licensing authority, each layer taking 3-4 months of waiting minimum.

    It`s so ridiculous they are fining kids with lemonade stands if they don`t have a license that costs $500.
  93. Profile photo of missPWNAGE
    missPWNAGE Female 18-29
    298 posts
    October 15, 2011 at 12:57 am
    He speaks the truth.
  94. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3489 posts
    October 15, 2011 at 3:34 am
    Said this in another post but the Laffer Curve works, here is some proof.
  95. Profile photo of QualityJay
    QualityJay Male 18-29
    303 posts
    October 18, 2011 at 1:22 pm
    You spelled "Truths" wrong.

Leave a Reply