Comments by "Mark Armage" (@markarmage3776) on "Should Government Bail Out Big Banks? | 5 Minute Video" video.

  1. If the bank does not exist, neither can the businesses. We put big banks into place because they handle big works. Getting a small bank to verify investment of billions, NO.
    1
  2.  @brandonsimpson1617  Not really, the banking here is not actually just banking, the institution of banking here is actually closer to governing wealth than banking in general. The close bond between banking and the wealth of the people has become so close, it's no longer traditional banking, you need to consider that.
    1
  3.  @brandonsimpson1617  Zero, I don't take any of the well fare, and the tax my parents paid before me and the tax I pay now has always been to cover for somebody else's services and not ours. So I might have contributed a negative number to the national debt. Harsh reality, huh?
    1
  4.  @brandonsimpson1617  Buddy, check your math, the social services programs, which are supposedly paid by payroll tax is the biggest sort of debt increase. The military cost 700 billions, an that's to protect the freedom of the entire world. Military in Japan, Europe was put in place after WW2 so that no other nation can have a solid military force, big enough to wage war again. So yeah, military is a necessity spending, 75 millions death in the last world war is more than enough of a reason to spend for military. And the number for social services? In 2018, the collected payroll tax is 1.2 trillion, but the actual spending for social services, which are supposed to be paid by the payroll tax, is actually 1.8 trillion. So yeah, we can see which programs increase the debt, it's probably the programs that cost more than what we have. And the feds started printing never added the debt, most of the national debt are in dollars, so if the feds want to print money, that would cause inflation on products but not on the debts, because the debts are still in dollars, we can print more dollars, and one dollar we print more is the same as one dollar we owe. The point is that after we print more money, prices will spike, we can cheat the game just like China, but we don't do that. Because we have more civility. And my tax dollars which went to well fare almost never went to a struggling family, in the most exceptional case, maybe a family that does well fare actually needs it. In most case, it went to people who are taking advantage of the system, you can see them protesting for free money on the street. 47% of the people pays no income tax, but still gets free services from the government. You're arguing that 47% of the people is struggling? That 47% of the working population, which is 100 millions people are struggling?Or is it they're taking advantage of the system? Their payroll tax doesn't pay their payroll cost at all. I just pointed out. So yeah, pal, you need to check the actual number, study the real theory and action behind it. You're way over your head currently, study more. The national debt is increased the most by social programs, look at the number, and the fed printing money causes inflation but it shall reduce the debt. For example, if the fed print 20 trillion dollars tomorrow, the inflation rate shall spike by 2000%, but all the debt would be paid because the debt is in dollars. So if the fed print money to pay for the debt, it will cause hyper-inflation but it will does nothing to increase the debt. Of course, we don't do that because it will cause hype-inflation and that is very bad. Study more, pal.
    1
  5.  @brandonsimpson1617  I'm pretty sure that 47% of the population is currently doing on welfare. It's in the numbers, if 47% of the people are not paying any tax besides payroll tax, and you can only do that if you have low earning jobs, it will be a certainty that they shall use social programs in the future. and it's also a certainty that program which they will use, will not be paid for by them, because the current program is that the people pay now to spend on later in their life. The current tax for welfare program now is coming from their pocket, but it's not enough, actual welfare spending is 1.8 trillion, tax collected for welfare is 1.2 trillion. Do the simple math, pal. In the future, this number will spike, due to how more and more people shall be using the programs. But the current rate is not enough to pay for the current number of users. So unless you're paying income tax, there is no chance that you can actually pay for what you will receive. Clear? It's not propaganda, it's fact, when you can not collect enough money to pay for what you spend, other people's money have to cover for you if you want to spend. And by law, somehow, welfare is a "must-spend", despite it shall never be paid for fully, it's justification for stealing. And the interest put on by the feds, explain how that add to the debt. Go ahead, the fed doesn't control the interest rates on treasury bills. And if the interest rates are too high for you to pay, you need to stop spending. How about starting with something you can never pay for? Welfare. 47%, pal, it's not propaganda, it's fact. What is your bubble? Everybody pays tax and we're in debt due to the military? Yeah, nice bubble, it's just not reality. Military spending is the essence of federal spending, they're one of the few things that the government is built to sustain. Even socialist countries spend on military. And every year, the number of money not collected through payroll tax but is paid into welfare, it's about another military for the US. So, no, the numbers are exceptionally clear. The welfare is a death trap, you shall never be able to collect what you will be force to pay out, and it shall increase indefinitely.
    1
  6.  @nickb6684  No, what I'm describing is common sense regulation. Total control vs reasonable regulation, totally different. There's no such thing as pure capitalism or pure socialism, multiple things if we leave it alone, it shall become disaster. The negligence in automatic rifles are one, it led to JFK. The negligence in regulating derivatives let to the 2008 crash. There are certain aspect in life that are so important, it requires regulation, not total control, but regulations.
    1
  7. No, it's not that simple, the basic fact that if the banks fail, the country fails, which will make it the country's problem to save the banks. Some industry are so important that it requires direct regulation, like energy and finance. If the military is owned by the government, why can't the banks be owned by government?
    1
  8. You can't pass a law to punish crime that wasn't there when somebody did an act. It's logically ridiculous, pal. What crime? Ask yourself, what crime? Just because you're angry doesn't mean you can punish people for no reason.
    1
  9. It's a bit more complicated than that. Because banking is not actually a business against competitors, when banking are in crisis, it's a player against the people themselves. If the people don't bail them out, it's obvious that people shall take a massive loss, and therefore it's decided that the people acting on their own best interest bail the banks out so that they can keep providing the services and paying back the bail out. They did pay it all back. And question. Do you have the guts to say that to a business owner who filed for bankruptcy due to financial instability created by not bailing out the banks? Money stop coming out from ATM, businesses cash flow shall be stopped. Thousands, maybe millions unemployed? It's more complicated than you think.
    1