marijuana | Law | Economy | Investing | Marketing | Entrepreneurship | Economic Policy | Globalization | Emerging Markets

Obamanomics: Is Obama Bankrupting America?

More videos from this partner:


  • Info
  • Bio
  • Chapters
  • Preview
  • Download
  • Zoom In
There are 17 comments on this program

Please or register to post a comment.
Previous FORAtv comments:
shaolin Avatar
Posted: 04.14.10, 12:47 PM
There is a way between socialism and libertarianism, it's extending democracy to the economic realm, it's a simple but potent measure because face it, big companies are as corrupted as big government. It would be truly a free market. Of course this wouldn't solve the ecological problem, so you'd still need some kind op paternalistic system to save the ecosystem, but on a global scale.
bapyou Avatar
Posted: 04.14.10, 10:14 AM
Is Obama bankrupting America? You right-wing idiots never seem to sniff your own dirty underwear do you? 1. Saint Reagan and George W. Bush out spent every President before them. U.S. national debt SOARED with Reagan's giveaways to the rich and his borrowing to fund his military fantasies. Bush knocked the debt out of the park with HIS borrowing from the Chinese funding goddamned stupid useless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. What's up conswervatives? Is it that you just don't like it when the national debt is kicked up by someone with a D after their name? Huh? Is that it? Obama is doing anything you right-wing whores haven't done for decades. I hope he does bankrupt this worthless country. It would teach the American people what Republican right-wing policy is all about : BIG spending ... except when it comes to spending for any program that would actually benefit the the American people as a whole. You people are complete whores. There is no other word for you. Whores. W-H-O-R-R-E-S. Suck on it.
thesparitan Avatar
Posted: 02.26.10, 11:29 PM
Quote: Originally Posted by tsmith33 I consider myself to be liberal, but I found myself agreeing with almost all of the views the speakers expressed in the video. The title is a bit misleading because there is no mention of "bankrupting," and as the speakers repeatedly pointed out: the problems of having special interest corporate lobbying and deal making with government are pervasive with either prominent American party in power. One speaker specifically pointed out that the ad hominem within the title is not productive. Near the end, there was actually a thoughtful, constructive discussion on implementing health care reform, most specifically a single payer health care system. Criticism seemed to fall heavily and equally on both sides of the aisle. 'Conservative'(in the Pro-Republican sense of the word) snipes were minimal. The themes of the discourse were that: 1. Legislators being lobbied is a major problem because it leads to deals with legislation that benefit the lobbying organizations. 2. Big business loves government programs because they can often negotiate a highly beneficial deals, and many types of regulation are anti-competitive to smaller business. It's a shame that the title is so sensationalist in a way that endears it to 'teabaggers' while making 'old punk rockers' like me automatically file under tenuously-scientific quasi-religious dreck. I was genuinely surprised at how much I enjoyed this video. i agree and i am a socialist. i wish all discussion could be like this one. i also dont agree with the cato people on anything but i very much enjoyed this debate. they are right and most liberals agree with them, corporations have to much power lets work together on this issue and we will all win in the end. i feel like giving a hug now.
Mark Sullivan Avatar
Mark Sullivan
Posted: 02.13.10, 12:15 AM
Every "global problem" begins somewhere and should be solved there. Government MUST be constrained. No person or group of persons is capable of managing more than a few necessary functions for a state. The political class and their cohortsd in the intelligentsia will never accept this. They have the view, "We can save the world if you will just let us!" Every new law chips away at our liberty, whether we get a perceived or tangible "benefit" at our neighbor's expense. Edmund Burke said, "The purpose of the state is to govern those incapable of governing themselves." So simple. So beautiful. The question is, do we have the courage, character and desire to remain free, or will we happily continue to trade in our liberty for largess from our neighbors' hard work?
Interesting Avatar
Posted: 02.11.10, 11:57 PM
Where does Warren Buffet get his ready cash? His insurance company Geico. To quote "Insurance companies are the piggie banks of the elite". I don't think they have anything to do with health. I think this is just another smoke screen.
Brian Gonzalez Avatar
Brian Gonzalez
Posted: 01.26.10, 03:27 PM
A hammer in search of a nail.
ReX0r Avatar
Posted: 01.25.10, 08:08 PM
These comments seem to apply to (any!) government. Not big government. Should there be ANY government? Is scale the problem? What about global problems? Furthermore, it seems to be applicable to just about all forms of governments including all sorts of political groupings (people who identify themselves as part of an entity with interests). Do we put limits on them? And who or what is 'we'?
phiscal Avatar
Posted: 01.24.10, 04:46 PM
Business corporations, of course, are not the only special interest groups corrupting both politics and the marketplace. Unions are at the fore. K-12 ed is an enormous funnel of economic rents in addition to its infringement on parental and student liberty. Throw in the UAW, the professional unions (ABA, AMA) and we've got a deck that stacked against individuals as taxpayers, consumers, workers and, of course, voters.
Mark Sullivan Avatar
Mark Sullivan
Posted: 01.21.10, 09:05 PM
Olivier, Good comments and not at all awkward. Our Constitution in the United States was designed to protect the rights of individual CITIZENS only, not for corporations or businesses. It spells out the boundaries for action and influence of the three equal branches of our government in the lives of American citizens. "Corporation" is simply a word - a fiction - used to describe a group of people who pool their money to fund an enterprise as well as the people it hires to manage the enterprise, to protect and grow the assets invested and to earn profits or achieve other goals if the corporation is not for profit. If the Government decides to intervene in the market, shouldn't the owners of the corporation have someone to represent their interests and assets? For example, if I am a shareholder of Starbucks and the Federal Government is proposing a large tax on coffee beans or is considering a regulation purely to confiscate a portion of Starbucks profits to be given to others, I want to be certain that someone is representing my interests as owner of the company so that my investment is protected. This is not corrupt, it is prudent. If the governmemt stayed out of the operation of my corporation, I have no need to lobby them. If they choose to legislate advantages to my competitor unjustly for political or other reasons, I MUST defend my investment. I also agree that the real crux of many issues is glossed over through political correctness or effort to be courteous. The result is, the great issues are never tackled, much less solved. We get incremental, inneffective, expensive actions that never solve propblems and infringe on both individual liberty as well as the free operation of the market.
OlivierP Avatar
Posted: 01.21.10, 07:46 PM
Hello, To be honest, I'm not for any party as I don't really see one better than other in matter of corruption or leading business and that everywhere in the world. Furthermore, I thought interesting one speech by one in the audience that "both lobbying and corporation have disminished both the legislative and executive branch of power" that it's a big problem for any governemnts that somehow America will have to fight. Now, in my opinion government play to often the wrong role and not its role, I think perhaps wrongly but that government should be in the role of thid party between citizens and business domestically and internationaly. Not favorising one or another, but only using its three branches to gives freedom and responsabilities to both citizens and businesses, as well as insuring that both respect their responsabilities. Hence, government should pass laws to insure that, and execute them, yet these laws should be transparant and not in favor one or another. Government other forms of interventions should be rare and only when its necessary. For that also citizens need to be enpower, and given debate or discusion about matter, as the professor of Harvad mentioned, discusion are too polite in USA, I'm for fight and insults, respect in essential to insure freedom sure, but developing more criticism about issues to seek better solutions. Lastly I remember one show also in by prefessor Stiglitz and Naomi Kleim "The 3 trillon of dollar war", if I recall well, that the best for them to empower citizen was by more accountability of government to its citizens. I think that in combination of more debate and responsabilities might leed to something better. Anyway, it's only awkward thoughts.