True. However, I am not a betting man, but I'd wager that MORE people don't budget properly then DO.

Yeah, but they've known about the other lessons all year long!

I think he's right. People don't add up the $2 charges to a grand total. It isn't just these games, it's convenience stores, Starbucks, etc. People don't realize that the $2 Candy Bar after work costs them ~$500 a year or that the Starbucks in the morning costs them ~$150 a month.

Just came to post this.

Planning to teach a 1 hour lesson shouldn't take more than a few hours. A week is cutting it close, but there is still ample time to prep for the lesson.

Better way to put it is:

Republicans are concerned with the costs of food stamps; not so much about the costs of Farm Subsidies. Welfare for the poor? No. Corporate welfare? Yes.

Thank You you fucking son of a bitch

The US National Debt is held in T-Bonds (Treasury Bonds) as the video discusses. If we reduced Government spending to less then the Tax Revenue, then the Surplus each year could be used to purchase back the T-Bonds, thus lowering the National Debt. Or could be held to fund next years governmental spending so new T-Bonds would not need to be issued.

Could this be done over night? No. But over time (10, 15, 30 years)? sure.

Of course, this brings up a major issue - If 16 Trillion isn't being held in T-Bonds and is pushed back out into the Markets, suddenly the value of circulating dollars would drop. This would probably be a bigger problem then the National Debt.

What do you call assuming people who can't work are people who wont work? Retarded or Republican?

Also, How does paying for people who DO WORK, but don't make near enough to pay for health insurance factor in? That is what the ACA primarily takes care of - expanding Medicaid to cover the "working poor".

It isn't just for the top 1-5%. I am FAR from that and I had an amazing plan when I worked for an Engineering Firm.

I was just making the point that when you make an argument, you need to clarify and not use terms like "better" without saying for whom. Because then you end up arguing in circles.

Or it could work like Medicaid & Private insurance (Which is what it is!)

Just an FYI: The Federal Government cannot constitutionally provide Healthcare. They can provide money for the States to provide healthcare (this is Medicare and Medicaid). But they cannot provide it themselves.

Better for SOME individuals within that society - not all individuals.

Given the recent successes of Congress, yes.

That's exactly it. That's why people with money come to the the US from all over the world for their medical care. But, if you can't afford a good plan, then it's a horrible system for you.