I'm extremely grateful that cc isn't biased, strictly facts stated in an entertaining fashion. I love all their episodes my only con is how fast they talk! I'm sure most appreciate it but a gal like me needs a few more seconds in between to absorb it all. Either way, absolutely appreciate yall!
It's so sad. The great depression was prolonged and deepened by government action. A vastly harsher depression happened in 1921 and was all but forgotten specifically because the government did NOTHING. And it ended in less than a year. And because they did make it worse, the started a social policy that's been eating away at the US for over 80 years now. Starting social wars like the "war on poverty" and "the war on drugs" they've never won. And which has only become worse.
I thought of this earlier and I think this is a decent way to think about it (from a realist [I think form IR jargon] standpoint): Is the economic cost of people without access to health care / education / trains / etc more taxing on the economy than a levied tax to provide access to all? A typical example: would it cost more to provide health care to all people and have mostly relatively healthy people or have people pay for it themselves and deal with being around sick people who cannot afford care? Or would having students graduate without debt and having more people be able to go through college/university to get higher-paying jobs (presuming there are fundamentally enough) be better than having students and their family foot a large bill to "get a substantial career"? At least these questions should be asked by all, and these ignore any moral or ethical reason to have such programmes (which are also important questions). Hope this contributes ^_^ please have an amazing weekend and life! DFTBA!
Please do more videos about Social Policy! I have been studying it in depth and there is a lot more that could be touched on. Specifically more about social policy/welfare state in other countries compared to the US (eg switzerland, Uk, Australia) could be good as it links about what was said about cultural attitudes towards tax and receiving welfare.
Because philosophy written by a man present at the time of the New Deal is most assuredly propaganda. Ohh that's right, it's because he's against what you like: the state.
I love having worked 3 close to minimum wage jobs, where they all stole from me, or caused me harm, or found loopholes or other shady means to not give me what I had earned and worked for. I was very conservative and used to think the minimum wage should be abolished and had faith that people were generally good. OH boy was I wrong when I had to start working enough to support myself. Particularly the people where I live.
As a Norwegian, I find it kind-of funny how poorly the US government takes care of its people. If I don't work and DON'T haven't worked enough to get unemployment money, I'll get about 1000 dollars per month (dependent on rent pricing and local price levels), tax free, just to stay alive, and there exists an enormous amount of different funding you can apply for rather easily from a single welfare organization. I once applied for and received somewhere about 400 dollars to buy new clothes for instance. That said, the government expects you to try and find a job while you get this cash, and they expect you to prove that you do this. But I just think about how difficult it must be to be an American down on your luck. Currently I'm also taking a Bachelor in Programming at one of Norway's most prestigious universities, and it's completely free.
Amici Nybråten Because we Americans know that not government or your parents or even God should take care of you. The best and only person that should take care of you is you.
Marlon Moncrieffe Sounds sh*tty. Like a mother Sea Turtle with a huge shell (Economy and/or bank) dropping her kids one a beach (the business world) where the babies are encouraged that they can survive (become rich) if they put their all into it (the slot machine that is our economic class system) only to contend with sharks that take their lives (decrease income equality) because they were smaller defenceless animals with small shells (smaller incomes). Meanwhile, the shark (the spoiled priveleged rich kids/businessmen) can get away with it because they claimed they thought they were a Seal (a poor, drug-ridden, lazy, socialist, hub of blubber who wants to mooch of our fish (our welfare)). For these Sharks belive that despite the defenseless of the Seals (the poor), that they will one day each enough fish to grow claws and destroy them (which is just an illusion of their greed)).
Starving to death, or dying when there's medical treatment seems like the least we can do to help fellow citizens. Give them food. Give them medical care. Eating and living aren't *LUXURIES*. WTF? We have people, *PEOPLE* ... with so much money it couldn't be spent in a hundred life times. And the American's of the 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s didn't think asking them to pay taxes was an insult.
+Beorn Borg this is probably the argument that most contributed to my relative support for a single-payer system (that is hopefully run efficiently). I've come to, after having both parents go through cancer, find the idea that making people choose "between providing treatment or keeping their house/being able to eat healthily" is a choice we shouldn't have to make.
+Beorn Borg Because dumb ass liberals didn't support globalism back then. Now, because of "multiculturalism", we have a problem where taxing the rich (those who make up the majority of our taxes) will cause them to flee to tax havens, like Switzerland, Barbados, the Cayman Islands, Monaco, and India. Keeping a closed culture made it harder for corporations to skip paying taxes because it trapped them in America. Now they can flee, and if they're gone, we'll be getting less taxes than before. I'd rather just go with Trump's tax plans now.
It was interesting to hear an American point of view, since I'm doing my social policy MA in a postsocialist country. I wish you have mentioned that the States is the "prototype" of the liberal welfare state and that there are other types as well. (look up Esping-Andersen). Also, social security does not only stand for the US pay as you go pension scheme and medicare. In European countries, social security provides some sort of safety for a variety of risks and not just for old age (loosing your job, some sort of universal health care etc). Anyway it kind of fascinates me how a country with such high GDP rate can be so indifferent towards the poor in the policy making. But probably because I'm not libertarian. :)
Please ignore the people below arguing against welfare and how the welfare state is evil and detrimental to everyone even though they haven't a clue about those living under welfare have to deal with.
+ForrestSCS "as if you're forced into it." Some people are. Or do you consider letting your family starve a viable option? I always wonder how those against helping the poor feel about helping the rich. I also am curious if you've traveled internationally to places with no assistance programs.
***** Demand creates jobs. We're talking about the government's role. You didn't really address giving assistance to the rich. The goal of assistance isn't to erase poverty, it's to keep those in poverty from starving to death. To keep beggars off the street. To help children who had no choice in their situation. The private sector can't be counted on to do these things.
***** The things you listed are necessities by their nature. You need shelter, education, transportation and the ability to communicate. You really can't do without shelter, you need education to get out of poverty, you need transportation to get to your job, and you inevitably need the ability to communicate so you can be informed of job interviews and he ability to talk to your boss.
***** The need for housing doesn't legitimize taking residence in another person's home. What should be done though is to help that person get a home of their own through a collective effort.
thank u sir it was very beneficial episode, especially the subtitles was there helps a lot to understand because my language is Arabic .very appreciated your efforts .best regards from Iraq
The intent of social programs is noble, but they often fail to account for human nature. It's great to provide a helping hand, and that does help individuals in tough times, but they are often difficult to monitor and regulate. This opens the door for a few to take advantage, which takes benefits from those that really need them the most. Additionally the government is often itself inefficient and full of red tape. This is why social programs are better executed at the local level, especially by private or religious organizations that operate on a more individual level often using volunteers that are serving to fulfill a greater cause. These local level organizations can also support individuals in ways that government can't, such as in matters that involve spiritual and emotional needs. The government better serves those that need support by channeling tax dollars through local level organizations, and by providing greater incentives to individuals & businesses to support charity.
I'm a foreigner. Fascinated by American politics... did Clinton really minimize assistance to the lower classes? How much of the same is expected from the new Clinton?
Social Security does not redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor, it redistributes wealth from the poor to the middle class. Middle and upper class live longer so they cash more payments.
+EvilTribble1 well it should be, but in USA the rich keep they money and control the government for keep more they money and power so middle and poor class go poorer and poorer.
You do a great job and this crash course was quite interesting. Now, bringing in some comparative perspective (instead of just focusing on "Americans") would enrich the views of many viewers (and particularly US viewers). Why do the Scandinavian have such solid welfare states? What are the pros and cons? Is it true that welfare policies disincentivize job-seeking? (the evidence in the literature discredits that myth, regardless of what the average American think or thought in the 1990s), etc. Other than that, great job!
If only education worked like that. What really happens is the government subsidizes education and costs skyrocket. Universities, looking to be more competitive, build massive food courts and gym complexes. Then the students get degrees in Twilight or some other useless degree. Those students, unable to get real jobs, go to law school or graduate school and get deeper in debt. But, even if the system does work and you get a useful degree, the market is so saturated that all you get offered are unpaid internships. That need five years experience. Thus an entire generation votes for a socialist who had enough sense to rebrand.
+FortuitusVideo Can't go into debt with federal loans for degrees beyond a bachelor's degree. But I agree, if the assumption is that higher education leads t higher pay, I don't see it. I wouldn't pay a phone salesman extra money for writing me a comparative essay on apple and samsung products.
What's weird for me in the American mindset is that if you say something like: "Maybe poor people are humans too, and we might should not abandon them" , someone will jump at your throat and call you a communist, like if they actually knew what that meant.
+1234kalmar cmon now. That isn't the "American" mindset!! The American public agrees on some type of welfare state. It is sickening to see what the republicans have done to our country though. The fact that people abroad think this, is a disgrace. In the most recent debate, Donald Trump was attacked for saying that no one should die in the streets...
statistic420 Hmm, yeah, it's really sad. It goes so far that in Hungary, when something politically stupid and company benefiting happens, it is described as a "Very american move from the govenrment"
Social Policy in debate: Donald Trump gets attacked by republicans for not wanting people to die on the street. **Look around* * "wtf anyone else watching this?"
Ludwig van Beethoven I think he'd even have a chance as a third party candidate, I think your right. The two party system is just another corrupt symptom of our government.
Man, we really should talk about how much the government should be involved in education. Eh... I think it should make some system that allow schools to compete to be better at teaching and finding better things to teach about, so they solve the problem themselves and get something in turn. How that sounds? It should take different approaches when in school, high school or college though.
You raise a valid point. The American system is currently pretty good at producing exceptional successes. However the cost of that is the system is also pretty good at producing exceptional failures. The judgement call on better is very subjective. Turns out most people support the type of system they grew up with. On the whole I do think American style freedom is overrated. But if you want the freedom to fail, you are welcome to it.
Social policies definitely have to do with socialism. Not with communism on the other hand. Socialism within the borders of capitalism is an objectively good thing, it helps those who aren't strong on their own and always stimulates the entire economy. Everybody is better of in a socialist world.
Anyone who wants to increase the popularity of social programs, my recommendation is to make them actually work at least reasonably well. A rich country should provide basic safety nets for the poor, and to make sure people aren't starving to death in the streets or dying of easily curable diseases because they can't afford antibiotics. But that said, a lot of social programs go off the rails of logic and offer incentivize people to make bad choices. And penalize people for trying to get out of social programs. The tiered system most programs use means if your a recipient of these programs, earning more money from work could negatively affect your cash flow. Because if you go up a bracket, or get moved out of the bracket you lose assistance situation depending that loss of income can easily be far more loss then the increased income your making. And at the same time you create a bad incentive for people who don't qualify for programs because they earn to much money. If they drop their income to get medicaid assistance for example. The net benefit to them is immense. As it will greatly save on medical expenses so anyone within a few thousand dollars of receiving assistance has a motivation to earn less money, rather then the often slow and painful work needed to make more money. Programs should work on a sliding scale, so people always have an incentive to be more productive and earn more money. And programs should be more carefully thought out not to drive up prices. If it wasn't for my neighbors getting housing assistance my rent would be a lot lower.
I don't agree with the social policy of education. People should get a job first and then get a relevant education to play a bigger role in the business. That way you KNOW your education is relevant. It doesn't make sense people get an education without specific idea of who they're going to work or what kind of business they're going to start. Of course they have idea of where they want to work, but without experience in the workplace it's all speculation.
Since getting an education is so expensive I think your idea is a good one ... it could still allow for some Liberal art classes to get a well rounded out education.
Does Social Security actually redistribute from rich to poor, though? By taking from young people, who have less money, and giving to old people, who have more money, the payment structure could be described as regressive when taking into account generational transfers, rather than simply looking at how payments are distributed to current recipients. The payroll tax itself is regressive, because it caps. Benefits, by contrast, are higher for those who pay in more, up to the point where the cap on taxes creates and indirect cap on benefits.
Well for the self employed it is 15.3 % So just figure that employer share into your tax as wages not paid to you. Doesn't really matter whose pocket it is coming out of, it was all going to you first.
Does Crashcourse run a speech rate test when they're looking for presenters, and the fastest one gets the job? Thank God UA-cam's video speed button :) Just kidding, amazing content as usual.
Velvetta sausage cheese dips should be given through your bootstrap. NO fancy government redistribution! Also this video is nine minutes, not twelve minutes. I cannot take these lies, Craig!
Here is a thought. If you can't afford to have kids, don't have them. Then as a person who decided that I couldn't afford to have kids, I wouldn't be paying to subsidise those of you who had kids even though you couldn't afford them. I'm also tired of having a disproportionate chunk of the education budget (where I live) given to private schools. I think we need to catch those that fall through the cracks, we need to reduce the cracks and we need to give incentive to people to get off their lazy asses and earn a living where they are perfectly able to do so but choose not to. Oh and tax the bloody corporations and the mega rich at levels that aren't laughable.
+Chris K so while cutting schools budgets and taxing the rich, what do you think we should do with those spare billions of dollars lying around in an increasingly uneducated society?
I didn't recommend cutting funding to schools, just cutting funding to private schools so extra is available to public schools. If you want private education, pay for it yourself. Extra billions (from the ultra rich and corporations) could go to job creating public works like fixing Flints water supply. While I'm dreaming, lets repeal legislation that gives corporations the protections of being "people", amend the constitution to allow the gov to print money instead of buying it (with interest) from the FED, end the FED, kick the central banks out. Forgive international debt. Stop invading countries willy nilly, decimate the defense budget, regulate finance, prohibit banks gambling with peoples savings, break up the mainstream media into more than 6 corporations and repeal all post 911 imposed presidential powers. Geeze, I could go on but you get the idea. Fix stuff.
josh mcgee Yeah, he's got some good ideas. The problem is that the system is broke. While corporations can treat money like it's free speech, only candidates that tow the corporate line are going to get corporate money. In elections, whomever has the biggest pile of money generally wins. I'm guessing Bernie isn't getting a cent from big business.
Chris K you hit the nail on the head. You're not really following the election I take it? His biggest asset in this election is that he doesn't has a super pac and is only accepting contributions from the people. He continually breaks record on this, with currently approx 4 million individual donations. He's not being held accountable by any big business, only his ethics (which have been consistent for 40+ years, marching with Martin Luther King, for gay rights, raising minimum wage etc)
In my opinion, Crash Course is one of the most useful channels on UA-cam. I think it is what brought value to this platform tbh.
I DID IT! I got through the 49 episodes in 2 days and before any of you ask it wasn't to study for a test. It was just for my own entertainment
well here i am the night before my ap exam haha
lemon boy How’d you do?
I'm extremely grateful that cc isn't biased, strictly facts stated in an entertaining fashion. I love all their episodes my only con is how fast they talk! I'm sure most appreciate it but a gal like me needs a few more seconds in between to absorb it all. Either way, absolutely appreciate yall!
Only has 12 minutes.
Gets the video done in 9.
That's efficiency.
Thanks Craig! I just passed my American Government CLEP test! I only studied for 3 weeks and ended up with an extra $900 in my pocket (well- sort of)!
It's so sad. The great depression was prolonged and deepened by government action. A vastly harsher depression happened in 1921 and was all but forgotten specifically because the government did NOTHING. And it ended in less than a year.
And because they did make it worse, the started a social policy that's been eating away at the US for over 80 years now. Starting social wars like the "war on poverty" and "the war on drugs" they've never won. And which has only become worse.
Don't hate, appreciate.
+David Hu Hey, what did you do to Marky Marx?
1:55 the dog is showing to the other dogs how to stand up
I thought of this earlier and I think this is a decent way to think about it (from a realist [I think form IR jargon] standpoint):
Is the economic cost of people without access to health care / education / trains / etc more taxing on the economy than a levied tax to provide access to all? A typical example: would it cost more to provide health care to all people and have mostly relatively healthy people or have people pay for it themselves and deal with being around sick people who cannot afford care? Or would having students graduate without debt and having more people be able to go through college/university to get higher-paying jobs (presuming there are fundamentally enough) be better than having students and their family foot a large bill to "get a substantial career"?
At least these questions should be asked by all, and these ignore any moral or ethical reason to have such programmes (which are also important questions).
Hope this contributes ^_^ please have an amazing weekend and life! DFTBA!
Please do more videos about Social Policy! I have been studying it in depth and there is a lot more that could be touched on. Specifically more about social policy/welfare state in other countries compared to the US (eg switzerland, Uk, Australia) could be good as it links about what was said about cultural attitudes towards tax and receiving welfare.
yes me too!!!! I'm studying this but I need a rough picture so i can reorient what I know.
Bernie Sanders when he was a young man: 2:53
BC or AD?
I think the fact the fact that both parties were working toward ending social programs shows that there is only one party, the corporate party.
I have a social policy exam and i didn't even know what social policy was till this moment RIP my existence
Aren't social polices the thing you get when your empire has accumulated enough culture?
+Daniel Harris Always rush liberty and get a great prophet
+Daniel Harris why accumulate when you can appropriate? ;)
+Daniel Harris Yes, and America and a lot of other civs in the world today have accumulated said culture already to unlock them.
+Adam Weishaupt Wait.. I didn't know you could GET a great prophet that way. Huh!
+Adam Weishaupt I always go for great engineer, production is always useful
What? People can be poor without it being their fault and without being lazy? Impossible! /s
+SchiferlED This is utter bullshit. Go read Albert Jay Nock's book Our Enemy, The State.
mises.org/library/our-enemy-state-0
I'll stick with logic and realism over propaganda, thanks though.
Because philosophy written by a man present at the time of the New Deal is most assuredly propaganda. Ohh that's right, it's because he's against what you like: the state.
Try Mises, Rothbard, Stirner, Spooner, Tucker, Proudhon, etc on for size if you think Nock doesn't have logic or reason backing him up.
yep your the only one to blaim for your shitty life.
Thanks for the continued education, Crash Course! I enjoy having you s a host :)
I love having worked 3 close to minimum wage jobs, where they all stole from me, or caused me harm, or found loopholes or other shady means to not give me what I had earned and worked for. I was very conservative and used to think the minimum wage should be abolished and had faith that people were generally good. OH boy was I wrong when I had to start working enough to support myself. Particularly the people where I live.
As a Norwegian, I find it kind-of funny how poorly the US government takes care of its people.
If I don't work and DON'T haven't worked enough to get unemployment money, I'll get about 1000 dollars per month (dependent on rent pricing and local price levels), tax free, just to stay alive, and there exists an enormous amount of different funding you can apply for rather easily from a single welfare organization.
I once applied for and received somewhere about 400 dollars to buy new clothes for instance. That said, the government expects you to try and find a job while you get this cash, and they expect you to prove that you do this. But I just think about how difficult it must be to be an American down on your luck. Currently I'm also taking a Bachelor in Programming at one of Norway's most prestigious universities, and it's completely free.
Amici Nybråten
Because we Americans know that not government or your parents or even God should take care of you.
The best and only person that should take care of you is you.
Marlon Moncrieffe Sounds sh*tty. Like a mother Sea Turtle with a huge shell (Economy and/or bank) dropping her kids one a beach (the business world) where the babies are encouraged that they can survive (become rich) if they put their all into it (the slot machine that is our economic class system) only to contend with sharks that take their lives (decrease income equality) because they were smaller defenceless animals with small shells (smaller incomes). Meanwhile, the shark (the spoiled priveleged rich kids/businessmen) can get away with it because they claimed they thought they were a Seal (a poor, drug-ridden, lazy, socialist, hub of blubber who wants to mooch of our fish (our welfare)). For these Sharks belive that despite the defenseless of the Seals (the poor), that they will one day each enough fish to grow claws and destroy them (which is just an illusion of their greed)).
Starving to death, or dying when there's medical treatment seems like the least we can do to help fellow citizens. Give them food. Give them medical care. Eating and living aren't *LUXURIES*. WTF? We have people, *PEOPLE* ... with so much money it couldn't be spent in a hundred life times. And the American's of the 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s didn't think asking them to pay taxes was an insult.
+Beorn Borg this is probably the argument that most contributed to my relative support for a single-payer system (that is hopefully run efficiently). I've come to, after having both parents go through cancer, find the idea that making people choose "between providing treatment or keeping their house/being able to eat healthily" is a choice we shouldn't have to make.
+Beorn Borg Because dumb ass liberals didn't support globalism back then. Now, because of "multiculturalism", we have a problem where taxing the rich (those who make up the majority of our taxes) will cause them to flee to tax havens, like Switzerland, Barbados, the Cayman Islands, Monaco, and India.
Keeping a closed culture made it harder for corporations to skip paying taxes because it trapped them in America. Now they can flee, and if they're gone, we'll be getting less taxes than before. I'd rather just go with Trump's tax plans now.
+Beorn Borg Who gives a fuck about what other people have.
it's easy to advocate an idea of giving to the poor when you yourself is not giving up your own property to the cause.
Lamprey Milt Do you know what US citizens paid in the 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s even with loopholes?
This video came just in time for test on Monday.
It was interesting to hear an American point of view, since I'm doing my social policy MA in a postsocialist country. I wish you have mentioned that the States is the "prototype" of the liberal welfare state and that there are other types as well. (look up Esping-Andersen). Also, social security does not only stand for the US pay as you go pension scheme and medicare. In European countries, social security provides some sort of safety for a variety of risks and not just for old age (loosing your job, some sort of universal health care etc). Anyway it kind of fascinates me how a country with such high GDP rate can be so indifferent towards the poor in the policy making. But probably because I'm not libertarian. :)
Please ignore the people below arguing against welfare and how the welfare state is evil and detrimental to everyone even though they haven't a clue about those living under welfare have to deal with.
+ForrestSCS "Poor people should just stop being poor! It's so simple"
You're an idiot.
+ForrestSCS "as if you're forced into it."
Some people are. Or do you consider letting your family starve a viable option?
I always wonder how those against helping the poor feel about helping the rich. I also am curious if you've traveled internationally to places with no assistance programs.
***** Demand creates jobs.
We're talking about the government's role. You didn't really address giving assistance to the rich.
The goal of assistance isn't to erase poverty, it's to keep those in poverty from starving to death. To keep beggars off the street. To help children who had no choice in their situation. The private sector can't be counted on to do these things.
***** The things you listed are necessities by their nature. You need shelter, education, transportation and the ability to communicate. You really can't do without shelter, you need education to get out of poverty, you need transportation to get to your job, and you inevitably need the ability to communicate so you can be informed of job interviews and he ability to talk to your boss.
***** The need for housing doesn't legitimize taking residence in another person's home. What should be done though is to help that person get a home of their own through a collective effort.
thank u sir it was very beneficial episode, especially the subtitles was there helps a lot
to understand because my language is Arabic .very appreciated your efforts .best regards from Iraq
The intent of social programs is noble, but they often fail to account for human nature. It's great to provide a helping hand, and that does help individuals in tough times, but they are often difficult to monitor and regulate. This opens the door for a few to take advantage, which takes benefits from those that really need them the most. Additionally the government is often itself inefficient and full of red tape. This is why social programs are better executed at the local level, especially by private or religious organizations that operate on a more individual level often using volunteers that are serving to fulfill a greater cause. These local level organizations can also support individuals in ways that government can't, such as in matters that involve spiritual and emotional needs. The government better serves those that need support by channeling tax dollars through local level organizations, and by providing greater incentives to individuals & businesses to support charity.
I direct everyone to read this great comment
I was a child during the Clinton administration; it's interesting now to look back on that with some knowledge of what was actually going on
that poor eagle.
I don't get it!! What's wrong with cheese dip?? Now I'm hungry for nachos! 😋
Why does this not have over a million views? Americans should really know the difference.
Really enjoy this Crash Course on US G&P, and was wondering if a World Government or international relations like series could be in the future?
can you do a video about the 2016 elections & their parties, etc?
Thank you 🙏🏽 Currently in Ap gov
Absolutely love the Legend of Zelda reference at 6:20 ✌
I've never seen Craig so uncomfortable as when recalling an event involving a particular cheese dip...
Fun fact:you can't pull yourself up by your bootstraps. It was meant as a metaphor to mean you can't do it alone.
I'm a foreigner. Fascinated by American politics... did Clinton really minimize assistance to the lower classes?
How much of the same is expected from the new Clinton?
Hillary's more to the left as the general political system has shifted more to the left, but she can not be trusted to enact on these sort of things
I love social programs, look at the nordic countries, they're the best!
I wish they'd produced this series after the election
Awesome! Very informative and at the same time funny which made me pay attention!
Craig has really grown on me.
You should get that seen to!
Thank you!!
Social Security does not redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor, it redistributes wealth from the poor to the middle class. Middle and upper class live longer so they cash more payments.
+EvilTribble1 well it should be, but in USA the rich keep they money and control the government for keep more they money and power so middle and poor class go poorer and poorer.
I know this would be really hard to do but I would looove CrashCourse Art History or something going in that direction.
You do a great job and this crash course was quite interesting. Now, bringing in some comparative perspective (instead of just focusing on "Americans") would enrich the views of many viewers (and particularly US viewers). Why do the Scandinavian have such solid welfare states? What are the pros and cons? Is it true that welfare policies disincentivize job-seeking? (the evidence in the literature discredits that myth, regardless of what the average American think or thought in the 1990s), etc. Other than that, great job!
If only education worked like that. What really happens is the government subsidizes education and costs skyrocket. Universities, looking to be more competitive, build massive food courts and gym complexes. Then the students get degrees in Twilight or some other useless degree. Those students, unable to get real jobs, go to law school or graduate school and get deeper in debt. But, even if the system does work and you get a useful degree, the market is so saturated that all you get offered are unpaid internships. That need five years experience. Thus an entire generation votes for a socialist who had enough sense to rebrand.
+FortuitusVideo Can't go into debt with federal loans for degrees beyond a bachelor's degree. But I agree, if the assumption is that higher education leads t higher pay, I don't see it. I wouldn't pay a phone salesman extra money for writing me a comparative essay on apple and samsung products.
What's weird for me in the American mindset is that if you say something like: "Maybe poor people are humans too, and we might should not abandon them" , someone will jump at your throat and call you a communist, like if they actually knew what that meant.
+1234kalmar cmon now. That isn't the "American" mindset!! The American public agrees on some type of welfare state. It is sickening to see what the republicans have done to our country though. The fact that people abroad think this, is a disgrace. In the most recent debate, Donald Trump was attacked for saying that no one should die in the streets...
statistic420 Hmm, yeah, it's really sad. It goes so far that in Hungary, when something politically stupid and company benefiting happens, it is described as a "Very american move from the govenrment"
hahah so fucked. I preferred not to tell people I was American while abroad. Had a good time in Budapest :P
statistic420 The capital is really nice indeed, I live there 4 days a week. The rest of the country... Yeah...
should talk about social security and welfare more
Social Policy in debate:
Donald Trump gets attacked by republicans for not wanting people to die on the street. **Look around* * "wtf anyone else watching this?"
+statistic420 Republicans care more about the Constitution than they do human lives.
+SJP Americans care more about the constitution than their children.
quite frankly, I'm surprised that you didn't get kraft (and it's delicious sausage cheese dip) to sponsor this episode.
Whoa! CrashCourse is affiliated with PBS now (or was when this video was made)? Congrats and great job, you guys!!!
I still don't understand how people think regressive taxes are okay. Pls discuss here:
regressive taxes are not okay. and we don't have it in the USA. the top 20% of earners already pay about 85% of ALL income tax.
0:09
Good, Craig, good, good. *I know i can't do that.*
youre really helping me study for this AP Gov exam tmrw. Bless you
*looks down and expects political comments - finds counting people
I AM MARKY MARX AND I SAY "DON'T HATE, APPRECIATE."
Feel The Bern!!!!!!
He's not gonna win the democratic primary
+Zach Rice He is going to win the presidency.
+Zach Rice
He doesn't need to, he already had a huge influence in the voters between 18-34 aka. future of this country
Ludwig van Beethoven I think he'd even have a chance as a third party candidate, I think your right. The two party system is just another corrupt symptom of our government.
HIGH ENERGY!!!
Great stuff! Very even-handed :)
thumbs up !
Argue. Argue argue argue. ARGUE, argue. Argue argue...
i just have a question, when will you be releasing your first physics video?
Just to make sure, is public policy and social policy the same thing
Man, we really should talk about how much the government should be involved in education. Eh... I think it should make some system that allow schools to compete to be better at teaching and finding better things to teach about, so they solve the problem themselves and get something in turn. How that sounds? It should take different approaches when in school, high school or college though.
PLEASE SOMEONE HELP.! he says that the new deal made medicare, FDR, but I thought it was Lyndon B. Johnson with the Great Society. WHO DID IT?
Thanks Crowley, now go back to running Hell.
This was neat
i love your videos can you please make social work 🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏 tutorials please 🥺
DON'T HATE APPRECIATE
I don't think anybody hates appreciate. Most people have no feelings towards verbs ...
Glad I don't live in America. I'm more then happy to pay for a solid safety net.
Imperial America ahh can we say "willing and aggressive American Exceptionalism"?
You raise a valid point. The American system is currently pretty good at producing exceptional successes. However the cost of that is the system is also pretty good at producing exceptional failures.
The judgement call on better is very subjective. Turns out most people support the type of system they grew up with. On the whole I do think American style freedom is overrated. But if you want the freedom to fail, you are welcome to it.
than*
Social policies definitely have to do with socialism. Not with communism on the other hand. Socialism within the borders of capitalism is an objectively good thing, it helps those who aren't strong on their own and always stimulates the entire economy. Everybody is better of in a socialist world.
Anyone who wants to increase the popularity of social programs, my recommendation is to make them actually work at least reasonably well.
A rich country should provide basic safety nets for the poor, and to make sure people aren't starving to death in the streets or dying of easily curable diseases because they can't afford antibiotics.
But that said, a lot of social programs go off the rails of logic and offer incentivize people to make bad choices. And penalize people for trying to get out of social programs.
The tiered system most programs use means if your a recipient of these programs, earning more money from work could negatively affect your cash flow. Because if you go up a bracket, or get moved out of the bracket you lose assistance situation depending that loss of income can easily be far more loss then the increased income your making.
And at the same time you create a bad incentive for people who don't qualify for programs because they earn to much money. If they drop their income to get medicaid assistance for example. The net benefit to them is immense. As it will greatly save on medical expenses so anyone within a few thousand dollars of receiving assistance has a motivation to earn less money, rather then the often slow and painful work needed to make more money.
Programs should work on a sliding scale, so people always have an incentive to be more productive and earn more money. And programs should be more carefully thought out not to drive up prices. If it wasn't for my neighbors getting housing assistance my rent would be a lot lower.
#FeeltheBern
1:15 WHY. WHY SO MANY POTS? ARE YOU NOT POOR? WHAT ARE YOU COOKING?
So if student loans can be privatized does that mean I can go to school and then claim bankruptcy right after I get out and be debt free?
I don't agree with the social policy of education. People should get a job first and then get a relevant education to play a bigger role in the business. That way you KNOW your education is relevant. It doesn't make sense people get an education without specific idea of who they're going to work or what kind of business they're going to start. Of course they have idea of where they want to work, but without experience in the workplace it's all speculation.
Since getting an education is so expensive I think your idea is a good one ... it could still allow for some Liberal art classes to get a well rounded out education.
Tax breaks for corporations is also a redistribution of wealth...
Wheezy is cool!
Very educational !😁😁 Thank you
Love the Zelda reference!
4:03 IT'S ANDRE MEADOWS FROM CRASH COURSE GAMES A MONTH AND A HALF BEFORE THE SERIES
What if you just want to live in solitude with no one else and with no government?
buy a boat, sail somewhere
its that or you wander into a Canadian forest
raise the cap
What about equity
Does Social Security actually redistribute from rich to poor, though? By taking from young people, who have less money, and giving to old people, who have more money, the payment structure could be described as regressive when taking into account generational transfers, rather than simply looking at how payments are distributed to current recipients.
The payroll tax itself is regressive, because it caps. Benefits, by contrast, are higher for those who pay in more, up to the point where the cap on taxes creates and indirect cap on benefits.
I think break classes should have a snarky intro then play the CC theme.
Well for the self employed it is 15.3 % So just figure that employer share into your tax as wages not paid to you. Doesn't really matter whose pocket it is coming out of, it was all going to you first.
What's my policy to get here early?
+Sami S literally mention anything other than how early you are... you had on job - and you failed.
what are your sources? where can I find them?
is AFDC comparable to CCTB in Canada?
Hey CrashCourse, just wondering, which one of your hosts are Republican and which are Democratic
Is it weird that I watch this for fun?? XD
Can you guys do CC Geography with the host of Geographynow as the host?
8th!!! My record!!!
+Benjamin W 28th like!!! Yay!!! My record!!!
+Benjamin W LOL commenting without watching
I have that shirt!
Does Crashcourse run a speech rate test when they're looking for presenters, and the fastest one gets the job? Thank God UA-cam's video speed button :) Just kidding, amazing content as usual.
Velvetta sausage cheese dips should be given through your bootstrap. NO fancy government redistribution! Also this video is nine minutes, not twelve minutes. I cannot take these lies, Craig!
Here is a thought. If you can't afford to have kids, don't have them. Then as a person who decided that I couldn't afford to have kids, I wouldn't be paying to subsidise those of you who had kids even though you couldn't afford them. I'm also tired of having a disproportionate chunk of the education budget (where I live) given to private schools. I think we need to catch those that fall through the cracks, we need to reduce the cracks and we need to give incentive to people to get off their lazy asses and earn a living where they are perfectly able to do so but choose not to. Oh and tax the bloody corporations and the mega rich at levels that aren't laughable.
+Chris K so while cutting schools budgets and taxing the rich, what do you think we should do with those spare billions of dollars lying around in an increasingly uneducated society?
I didn't recommend cutting funding to schools, just cutting funding to private schools so extra is available to public schools. If you want private education, pay for it yourself.
Extra billions (from the ultra rich and corporations) could go to job creating public works like fixing Flints water supply.
While I'm dreaming, lets repeal legislation that gives corporations the protections of being "people", amend the constitution to allow the gov to print money instead of buying it (with interest) from the FED, end the FED, kick the central banks out. Forgive international debt. Stop invading countries willy nilly, decimate the defense budget, regulate finance, prohibit banks gambling with peoples savings, break up the mainstream media into more than 6 corporations and repeal all post 911 imposed presidential powers. Geeze, I could go on but you get the idea. Fix stuff.
Chris K sounds good! Looks in many ways like Bernie's plans
josh mcgee
Yeah, he's got some good ideas. The problem is that the system is broke. While corporations can treat money like it's free speech, only candidates that tow the corporate line are going to get corporate money. In elections, whomever has the biggest pile of money generally wins. I'm guessing Bernie isn't getting a cent from big business.
Chris K you hit the nail on the head. You're not really following the election I take it? His biggest asset in this election is that he doesn't has a super pac and is only accepting contributions from the people. He continually breaks record on this, with currently approx 4 million individual donations. He's not being held accountable by any big business, only his ethics (which have been consistent for 40+ years, marching with Martin Luther King, for gay rights, raising minimum wage etc)
Have we seen Stan yet?
(I used to be subbed, but somehow ytube unsubscribed and I've just subbed mid last year)
Search up Crash Course Intellectual Property Series.
5:25 -- Craig, we love you but that example was a simile.
John is so much better, where is he?
This episode was a lot funnier.
#MakeDonaldDrumpfAgain