Fun facts about the rwandan genocide Videos

+JKJUNIOR95 Honey Trap. She can't satisfy Bill/Murica/You.

+David Williams bologna. You have no evidence 

+David Williams bologna. You have no evidence 

Union participation rate in Mexico is twice the number they have in the United States. Mexico spends a higher percentage of GDP on government spending than the United States. So by your calculations they should be better of than the United States. 

+David Williams name 10 labor unions in Mexico go ahead I'll wait. Mexicans never join Unions. They always say that "brag" "I can do your job for half of what your boss pays you"  said no union member ever.  

+David Williams your making shit up now. The Apollo program cost billions. Where do YOU think this computer you're using came from? Where do you think satellites came from? You think an "individual" invested in this technology? No. Computers came from NASA. Your computer is the result of big government. 

Mexico has more people working for Unions and a lower standard of living. So no guess again. 

+MrBanausos You logic is flawed NASA budget was at most 3% of the total budget. So to claim that was the driver of the economy was false. 

+David Williams capitalism has never done anything for the poor. The middle class only exist because of Unions and Big Government. The app business wouldn't even exist without net neutrality 

+David Williams no it didn't. Before Teddy Roosevelt's square deal and the Keatings Owens act Andrew Carnegie would make his employees work 60 hours a week in a steel mill. Then when the workers rightfully unionized and went on strike Carnegie hired mercenaries to kill them. The 19th century  Stunk 

Capitalism increased the wages of the average worker 150 years before keynes came around.

+David Williams no it wasn't. You think NASA was cheap? You're historically wrong by all definitions 

+David Williams the video is only 14 minutes long. Watch it you big baby

+MrBanausos Government spending as percentage of GDP was higher in in the 1930's 1940'. It was 18% in the post war period 1950's and it higher today. 

+David Williams watch the video stupid

+David WilliamsKeynes > Rand 

+MrBanausos If it protects jobs we had higher tariffs in the 1930's than we do today and by 30% to 50% and we had higher unemployment at 20% You make these claims and PROVIDE ZERO EVIDENCE OF IT. 

+David Williams what spending was cut? After world war II was the space race and the arms race? You're an idiot

+MrBanausos Roosevelt did not have that kind of wage increase they went from $20 to to $600 a month. FDR didn't have that kind of increase in standard of living in 30 years. 8 years into office FDR had 20% unemployment and you're holding that as an example?All of the levitt towns happened AFTER HE DIED. AFTER the cut government spending by 2/3. After he pushed the free trade deals. After they pushed the right to work legislation. 

+David Williams tariffs do not block trade YOU GODDAMN IDIOT! Tariffs protect local products that keep Jobs in America 

+David Williams We discussed this already. The tax rate for the wealthy was 90% and tariffs were only reduced not eliminated. Do you have  Alzheimer's too you selfish piece of shit?   

+David Williams that is absolutely nothing. Those people work 60 hours a week and THEY'RE STILL POOR. 4,140 a year isn't spit. 13,785 a year can't even provide for 1 person unless they live in an abandoned building and they only buy food. Those wages are a joke. It only took the Roosevelt administration 12 years to make the middle class boom from Levit town to San Diego. What you conservatives have to "offer" is absolute garbage. I'd rather live in Communism than live in Ayn Rand capitalism. I'll take a communal apartment instead of a Brazilian favela any day.   

+MrBanausos You're logic is screwed up. Cuba is poor because no one will trade with them. The US was rich because we didn't trade with anyone in the 1950's. There is a massive contradiction there. 

Between 1978 and 2007, the per capita income of rural residents increased from 133.6 yuan ($19.6) to 4140.4 yuan ($606.2), with an average annual growth of 7.1 percent. The per capita income of urban residents rose from 343.4 yuan ($50.3) to 13,785.8 yuan ($2018.4), an average annual growth of 7.2%.

keynesian economics was repealed after the great depression. The Kenysian polciies of the National Relief act the Smoot hawley tariff act and the busines taxes were repealed after the Depression. All of these policies changed and the standard of living of the American consumer changed as well. Gone were the Kenysian policies of the 1930's. You realize that Keynesian economists controlled India and had zero success. China's income is growing at 8% per year since 1978. 

+David Williams what is a family supposed to live on with 40 yuan a day? 30 years of unfettered capitalism and there is still no middle class. 30 years of "free" market capitalism and wages only went up by 32 dollars which is freaking nothing. It only took Keynesian Economics 12 years to end the great depression. 

I don't understand your logic you're saying that wages rose from 8 to 40 yuan a day and then your complaining that it's a bad thing? You're making no sense. 

+David WilliamsChina 30 years of Ayn Rand capitalism and wages went from 8 yuan a day to 40 yuanAmerica gave Keynesian Economics 12 years when they elected FDR and workers went from saving money for a week to buy bologna and 1 donut during the great depression to being able to provide for a whole family of 5 with 1 job. 

+David Williams Cuba is poor because they couldn't sell exports to anybody. Also all Cuba exports is sugar, rum and cigars. A tariff is not an embargo. Tariffs protect manufactured goods from being out competed by third world products made by slaves. Anytime you conservatives say poverty has declined is bull spit. Your party says poverty has declined in China. Wrong poor people in China went from making 8 yaun a day to 40 yuan a day. What is a family supposed live on with 40 yaun a day? Those people are still poor even though they work 40 - 60 hours a week. Poverty has not declined by any definition.  

+MrBanausos Poverty has declined in Mexico. Northern Mexican states are richer than southern Mexican states because of trade from NAFTA. If tariffs = lower poverty than Cuba should be the richest instead of the poorest. They are cut off from the global economy. Embargoes are just High tariffs by another name 

+David Williams it removed a lot of tariffs and a disproportionate number of the tariffs removed were the tariffs that protected the poor 

+MrBanausos NAFTA didn't remove all tariffs. The North American Free Trade association was trade with North America. 

+David Williams Mexico doesn't have any tariffs. Ever heard of NAFTA? More Jobs? Sure because hundreds of kids are going to college because of the overflow of jobs. They are going to college because there are 0 jobs for unskilled labor in America except fast food restaurants and wal mart and those "jobs" pay nothing and the working conditions are terrible.There are cases where even Harvard business majors can't even get a job as a bank teller. There are no jobs in America and the living standard in America is garbage. The only way you can live in a neighborhood that isn't full of crime is if you go into debt and the security isn't a guarantee because real estate companies can sell or rent property to violent felons and there are hundreds of cases involving black mold, sink holes or asbestos and sometimes all 3. That's just the tip of the problem with living in America. The wages are so low that some people have to go into debt just to pay the bills. Also people get into debt that is impossible to pay off just to get healthcare. The conservatives of YOUR GENERATION turned america into a 3rd world spit hole 

+MrBanausos Mexico has fewer jobs and higher tariffs. America has more jobs and a higher standard of living. You're logic doesn't line up with reality. 

+David Williams free trade doesn't have to mean no tariffs for all products. Most of the tariffs that kept jobs in America are gone because of degenerative filth like you 

+David Williams I support tariffs on Chinese solar panels. Selfish piles of shit like you won't hire anybody unless we work 60 hours a week and make 8 dollars a day 

+David WilliamsAmerica has had free trade and the result was failure The GOP under Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush abandoned the protectionist ideology, and came out against quotas and in favor of the GATT/WTO policy of minimal economic barriers to global trade. Free trade with Canada came about as a result of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement of 1987, which led in 1994 to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). It was based on Reagan's plan to enlarge the scope of the market for American firms to include Canada and Mexico. President Bill Clinton, with strong Republican support in 1993, pushed NAFTA through Congress over the vehement objection of labor unions.[59][60]Likewise, in 2000 Clinton worked with Republicans to give China entry into WTO and "most favored nation" trading status (i.e., the same low tariffs promised to any other WTO member). NAFTA and WTO advocates promoted an optimistic vision of the future, with prosperity to be based on intellectuals skills and managerial know-how more than on routine hand labor. They promised that free trade meant lower prices for consumers. Opposition to liberalized trade came increasingly from labor unions, who argued that this system also meant lower wages and fewer jobs for American workers who could not compete against wages of less than a dollar an hour. The shrinking size and diminished political clout of these unions repeatedly left them on the losing side.[61]Despite overall decreases in international tariffs, some tariffs have been more resistant to change. For example, due partially to tariff pressure from the European Common Agricultural Policy, US agricultural subsidies have seen little decrease over the past few decades, even in the face of recent pressure from the WTO during the latest Doha talks.[62]Southern states[edit]Historically, slave-holding states had little perceived need for mechanization because of the low cost of manual labor. They supplied raw cotton to Britain, which supported free trade.

Then we have never had free trade in the US. There are a lot of tariffs on a lot of things. Like putting tariffs on solar panels. //www.nytimes.com/2014/12/17/business/energy-environment/-us-imposes-steep-tariffs-on-chinese-solar-panels.html

+David Williams free trade means no tariffs you moron

+MrBanausos You're logic is messed up. You said that there was no free trade and in the same idea you say that Johnson raised taxes on German trucks? You're not even consistent on your own ideology. 

+David Williams No he didn't people in the 80's were buying Honda's and Ferrari's like hotcakes. There was no free trade in the 50's. Heck in the 60's Johnson raised import tariffs on German trucks because Germany raised tariffs on American poultry. There were tariffs then you simpleton. 

+MrBanausos SO now you're changing your tune? You said minutes a go that said the 1950's there was no free trade. Reagan restricted auto imports. 

+David Williams It reduced tariffs. Not get rid of tariffs completely like what Reagan did. Did you flunk English class when you were a kid? 

Read a book. It reduced tariffs between the US and Europe and between European countries. //www.loc.gov/exhibits/marshall/marsh-exhibition.html

+David Williams The marshal plan was handing loans and grants to Europe to recover from world war II. Import tariffs were alive and well up until Reagan ruined everything. 

+MrBanausos No free trade? You have got to be kidding me. We traded with Europe and the General agreement on Tariffs and Trade GATT. The marshall plan was all about free trade. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Agreement_on_Tariffs_and_Trade

+David Williams read table H-1 you crazy old fool. AYN RAND IS WRONG AND YOU ARE SELFISH PILE OF FECES 

+MrBanausos You're clearly not reading it https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/110th-congress-2007-2008/reports/12-11-historicaltaxrates.pdf

+David Williams There was no free trade in the America during the 50's. Free trade didn't even happen until the 80's and it just so happens that job opportunities are shrinking because of "free" trade. During the 50's the government was creating NASA, Nuclear testing and the Pentagon for christ sake. They did not cut spending in fact they always adjusted minimum wage to inflation. You have never read a history book in your life. You are an old lunatic with dementia 

+David Williams//abcnews.go.com/Politics/eisenhower-obama-wealthy-americans-mitt-romney-pay-taxes/story?id=15387862  What does that say old man. Eisenhower 92% income tax rate for people that made over $400,000 a year.  

The tax rate was 94% during the depression and the middle class didn't do so well. During the post war period they cut government spending by 2/3. Engaged free trade, JFK cut taxes by 21% in 1963 and the middle class expanded. By all economic measures Reagan economic policies were better off than 1979. 

+David Williams I have never agreed with you on anything. Do you have dementia? Low tax rate equals low revenue. Table H-1 Table H-1 Table H-1. Read it

+David Williams the debt is tripping because the GOP is continuing the war on terrorism and of course the war is being paid by debt. I already showed you the link old man.  

+MrBanausos Exactly high rates equal low revenue. So you can't just raise taxes and the expect to have higher revenue. The United States has had lower tax rates and high tax revenues. Like I have said the Rich pay 70% of tax revenue. https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/110th-congress-2007-2008/reports/12-11-historicaltaxrates.pdf

+David Williams the rich in mexico don't pay squat. There isn't even laws against employers stealing paychecks in Mexico 

The corporate tax rate has not been increased since 1993. Where are you getting your information. It's totally wrong. 

+David Williams the largest middle class growth was in the 1940's and 1950's when the rich paid 90% income tax. It's no coincidence that when that rate dropped by more than 50% the middle class has been shrinking ever since 

Do you have a problem with reading comprehension? I have said revenue has increased. REVENUE REVENUE REVENUE. THAT IS IT. Obama has raised taxes did the budget deficit decline? NO it tripled. 

+David Williams you have a problem with facts. You won't even look at table H-1. The numbers do not lie. 

+David Williams ignore table H1 all you want. When Bush cut taxes for the wealthy the deficit grew. When he increased corporate income taxes the deficit shrunk. Bush did not cut taxes for everyone. Bush was a despot and a traitor 

The US has traditionally had the lowest taxes and the largest middle class. Mexico has had higher taxes confiscation of property and they are poorer. Don't you think there is a correlation. 

+David Williams what part of history don't you get. Before the Athenian revolution of 561 BC the Greek aristocracy paid no taxes while the poor and skilled middle class took the burden. Before the French revolution the french aristocracy paid no taxes. Those periods were the poorest times in that era. When the wealthy french paid taxes during Napoleon the result was a rise in the French nation. When Peisistratos confiscated lands from the aristocracy and taxed them so he could use their wealth as business grants the Athenian economy grew 

Bush Cut taxes everyone and the Rich paid more according to the Congressional Budget office. Do you have a problem with Facts? https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/110th-congress-2007-2008/reports/12-11-historicaltaxrates.pdf

I have shown that lower rates equal higher revenues. France and Greece show that higher rates equal lower revenues. France had a 70% and it lost revenue because of it. So it repealed the high taxes. //www.bbc.com/news/business-27602312

+David Williams Bush was "elected" in 2000The article is from 03 and the first sentence is and quote "President Bush signed into law today the third tax cut in three years". Even NY times admits that Bush made cutting taxes for the wealthy his first priority 

Just google 2003 bush tax cuts. They happened. here is the New York Times talking about the Bush tax cuts in 2003. For crying out loud the Bush Tax cuts happened in 2003 not 2001. //www.nytimes.com/2003/05/29/us/bush-signs-tax-cut-bill-dismissing-all-criticism.html

+David Williams The domain name only applies if you use it to commit fraud or copyright/patent infringement. Since you are doing neither but keeping a webpage in a file you can what you please   

Do you think that I own the Domain https://www.gpo.gov/?  That was what it was hosted on. 

+David Williams ps you're too old to say "LOL" do what all old people do by dying you freaking parasite 

+David Williams Know you're clueless. You think decreasing taxes will make a surplus and despite the history of France and Greece you think the rich paying zero taxes while the middle class and poor bear the tax burden will benefit them. You probably edited that webpage with developer tools since you insulted my intelligence by showing me something you clearly coded on notepad. 

+MrBanausos LOL If you don't know what the Government printing office is you're clueless. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_and_Growth_Tax_Relief_Reconciliation_Act_of_2003

+David Williams bull. You made that. 

it's the Government Printing office. 

+David Williams what the hell is this? The government files are pristine. This looks like a file you made with XHTML5 and notepad 

The tax cuts happened in 2003 not 2001. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-108publ27/html/PLAW-108publ27.htm

+David Williams the rich paid more taxes during OBAMA. During Bush and Reagan the tax rate for the rich decreased while the tax rate for the poor and middle class stagnated 

IT WAS AN ACROSS THE BOARD TAX CUT. THE POOR PAID LESS TAXES AFTER THE TAX CUT AND AS I HAVE ALREADY SHOWN THE RICH PAID MORE. 

+David Williams Bush made cutting taxes for the wealthy his first priority. You are wrong 

+David Williams show me

+MrBanausos The tax cut occurred in 2003. So to blame the 2001 loss in revenue for the tax cuts that happened two years later MAKES NO SENSE. 

+David Williams now you're just denying  evidence that I showed you prior. Get it through your skull you old fool. Ayn Rand was wrong

Bush didn't raise the Corporate tax rate. The Corporate tax rate has not been raised since 1993. 

+David Williams the tables reviews the total revenue. As in tax collections as a whole. Between 01 - 04 there was a decline in revenue. When Bush increased corporate income tax revenue increased but only barely. Tax deduction = deficit. There is no if ands or buts about it. 

+MrBanausos But that would have been recorded under Corporate Tax receipts NOT individual tax receipts. We decreased the individual rates and saw a increase in revenue paid and we increased the corporate tax rate and we saw an decrease in corporate taxes paid. 

+David Williams Most of the corporate rich in america own corporations. Moron  

We are talking about individual tax rates NOT Corporate tax rates. 

+David Williams Bush increased corporate income tax after 04. Simpleton 

According to the CBO the two years after the Bush Tax cuts 2004 and 2005 the share of tax revenue by the 1% increased from 25% of federal tax revenue to 27% of federal tax revenue. They lowered the rate and they paid more because of it.  https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/110th-congress-2007-2008/reports/12-11-historicaltaxrates.pdf

+MrBanausos No you said that the rich don't pay taxes because of the swiss cheese of the current tax code. The evidence I showed you disproves that. 

+David Williams this data you presented is from the early and mid 2010's When Obama is/was president. During Reagan the rich didn't pay zilch 

+christian garcia Well if there was a mandate to cut Social Security spending by 40% then the government would have to evaluate on what should stay and what should go. ObviouslyGovernment HousingFood StampsSocial Security retirementdisability insuranceFAFSAFederal Social workerssubsidized tickets for public transportation Medicaid free school meals head start planned parenthood public libraries with WiFi and computers These Government services are a necessity. but bailouts to companies that don't hire blue collard unskilled labor agricultural subsidies TANFThese services have to go. 

Again the rich pay the most taxes according to the CBO Households in the top quintile (including the top percentile) paid 68.8 percent of all federal taxes, households in the middle quintile paid 9.1 percent, and those in the bottom quintile paid 0.4 percent. taxes. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/44604

I am all what you said.. But I think the cuts on ss can be made somewhere else. Ss needs more efficient for people so we can take better care our old people and the disabled.

+christian garcia Yes and this is my idea. cut military spending by 40%. Cut social security spending by 40%. America can only engage in war if all diplomatic and espionage attempts were exhausted and NATO will militarily support us. Annihilate overseas infantry bases completely. Annihilate TANF completely. Put all of that former federal expenditure into NASA so NASA can invent new and better technology. Private companies have the right to buy and sell NASA Technology that isn't necessary for space exploration. Those companies pay high taxes and the surplus makes a comeback 

+David Williams dam guys can we switch it to how can we fix out deficit.

+David Williams You only read that little sentence on the top of the page did you? I read more than 1 page of the EU document you submitted. Go ahead and read it. It's there. I'm not reading your link I'm pretty sure the EU website has more credibility than any phony organization that is obviously propped up by big oil. What is it you have against renewable and alternative energy anyway? Is it because liberals support it? Do you have your head so far up your own anus that you're going to ignore a great idea because of ideological bias? 

+MrBanausos Where are you getting your information? I just gave you information from the European Union website and you're saying something that is completely different. So here is what you do. Google Nuclear energy in the UKThe UK has 16 reactors generating about 18% of its electricity and most of these are to be retired by 2023.//www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-T-Z/United-Kingdom/

+David Williams in fact France, Germany, UK, Spain and Sweden produce more than 80% of the nuclear energy. So it's actually 5 countries providing more than a quarter of energy to an entire continent

+David Williams they even stated that the nuclear heat produced in 2013 was the energy equivalent of 223,009 thousand tonnes of oil

+David Williams has it ever occurred to you that Europe is a large continent? They recently acquired Poland and the Baltic States along with Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania. That is a huge area. Poland is larger than France while Romania is twice the size of Belgium. The fact that even with most of the uranium being spent is still able to provide energy from Iceland to Ukraine is nothing short of miracle. Imagine how much Energy America would have if there were 5 nuclear reactors for every state in America.

+MrBanausos I just did...

Great topics a narrator

The exit box is a click away if you are not satisfied.

Alcohol is definitely worse than cannabis.  Those who over engage in food, we call that greed.  Again, it is important to keep ones' mind clear of drugs that influence the mind.  Thank you for your comments.  

Thanks and more to come.