Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Ana Sayfaya Dön

Rory Sutherland made a quietly devastating observation about one of the biggest societal shifts of the last 50 years. He said the move to the double-income household started as an option but quickly became an obligation. The big winners? Governments (twice as many people to tax) and property owners...

newstart_2024's profile picture

Camus

454,413 subscribers

385,635 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce •via X (Twitter)

Haberler & PolitikaEğitim
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek

Benzer Videolar

"The creation of the double income household... went from being an option to an obligation." "The principal beneficiaries were government, who had twice as many people to tax." "The unit of the household, the family, lost 35 hours of discretionary leisure every week, with no commensurate increase in living standards, because the money got soaked up by property prices and by taxation."
1:06

"The creation of the double income household... went from being an option to an obligation." "The principal beneficiaries were government, who had twice as many people to tax." "The unit of the household, the family, lost 35 hours of discretionary leisure every week, with no commensurate increase in living standards, because the money got soaked up by property prices and by taxation."

illuminatibot

28,855 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

"The creation of the double income household... went from being an option to an obligation." "The principal beneficiaries were government, who had twice as many people to tax." "The unit of the household, the family, lost 35 hours of discretionary leisure every week, with no commensurate increase in living standards, because the money got soaked up by property prices and by taxation."
1:06

"The creation of the double income household... went from being an option to an obligation." "The principal beneficiaries were government, who had twice as many people to tax." "The unit of the household, the family, lost 35 hours of discretionary leisure every week, with no commensurate increase in living standards, because the money got soaked up by property prices and by taxation."

illuminatibot

230,102 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

Rory Sutherland drops a sharp observation about the double-income trap that a lot of people quietly feel but rarely say out loud. It started as a nice option: two salaries, more money, better life. But over time it became something else. House prices rose to absorb the extra income. Governments collected more tax. Homeowners got richer. And the typical double-income household? They gained a bit more stuff… but lost around 35 hours of discretionary time every week. What began as freedom quietly turned into an obligation. Now even high-earning single professionals (like hospital consultants) often struggle to afford a decent place to live on one income. Raising kids on a single salary — something that was possible for working-class families a generation ago — has become much harder. Sutherland’s point lands hard: what looked like progress for families ended up benefiting governments and existing homeowners far more than the people actually living it. It makes you wonder how many “lifestyle upgrades” in modern life are actually traps in disguise. Have you seen this shift in your own life or circle — where two incomes went from advantage to necessity?
1:39

Rory Sutherland drops a sharp observation about the double-income trap that a lot of people quietly feel but rarely say out loud. It started as a nice option: two salaries, more money, better life. But over time it became something else. House prices rose to absorb the extra income. Governments collected more tax. Homeowners got richer. And the typical double-income household? They gained a bit more stuff… but lost around 35 hours of discretionary time every week. What began as freedom quietly turned into an obligation. Now even high-earning single professionals (like hospital consultants) often struggle to afford a decent place to live on one income. Raising kids on a single salary — something that was possible for working-class families a generation ago — has become much harder. Sutherland’s point lands hard: what looked like progress for families ended up benefiting governments and existing homeowners far more than the people actually living it. It makes you wonder how many “lifestyle upgrades” in modern life are actually traps in disguise. Have you seen this shift in your own life or circle — where two incomes went from advantage to necessity?

Camus

79,396 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

What if the biggest “win” for families in the last 50 years was actually a trap? Rory Sutherland dropped this on Alex O’Connor’s podcast: The two-income household started as a nice option. Both partners work, more money comes in. Feels great at first. Then reality shifted. Governments got double the tax. Existing homeowners watched their property values soar. House prices rose to match two salaries. Suddenly one income wasn’t enough anymore — even for high-earning singles like consultant surgeons. Families traded ~35 hours of free time per week for only modest gains in lifestyle. What began as freedom quietly became an obligation. And it left single people and parents who want to raise their own kids at a real disadvantage. This one stings because we sold it as pure progress. Personally, it makes me question how many modern “upgrades” we’ve normalized without counting the real cost — especially lost time with family. What’s something you once thought was clear progress that now feels like it came with a heavier price than we admitted?
1:39

What if the biggest “win” for families in the last 50 years was actually a trap? Rory Sutherland dropped this on Alex O’Connor’s podcast: The two-income household started as a nice option. Both partners work, more money comes in. Feels great at first. Then reality shifted. Governments got double the tax. Existing homeowners watched their property values soar. House prices rose to match two salaries. Suddenly one income wasn’t enough anymore — even for high-earning singles like consultant surgeons. Families traded ~35 hours of free time per week for only modest gains in lifestyle. What began as freedom quietly became an obligation. And it left single people and parents who want to raise their own kids at a real disadvantage. This one stings because we sold it as pure progress. Personally, it makes me question how many modern “upgrades” we’ve normalized without counting the real cost — especially lost time with family. What’s something you once thought was clear progress that now feels like it came with a heavier price than we admitted?

Camus

320,831 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

6. Feminism Was a Scam to Double the Workforce 🔹 You were told it was about empowerment, but it was about economics. Doubling the workforce meant more labor, lower wages, and twice the tax revenue, while the cost of living quietly rose to match two incomes. 🔹 One income became impossible by design. Families fractured, kids were outsourced, and exhaustion became the norm. It wasn’t about equality — it was about control, disguised as progress.
1:20

6. Feminism Was a Scam to Double the Workforce 🔹 You were told it was about empowerment, but it was about economics. Doubling the workforce meant more labor, lower wages, and twice the tax revenue, while the cost of living quietly rose to match two incomes. 🔹 One income became impossible by design. Families fractured, kids were outsourced, and exhaustion became the norm. It wasn’t about equality — it was about control, disguised as progress.

MatrixMysteries

49,198 görüntüleme • 10 ay önce

5. Feminism Was a Scam to Double the Workforce 🔹 You were told it was about empowerment, but it was about economics. Doubling the workforce meant more labor, lower wages, and twice the tax revenue, while the cost of living quietly rose to match two incomes. 🔹 One income became impossible by design. Families fractured, kids were outsourced, and exhaustion became the norm. It wasn’t about equality — it was about control, disguised as progress.
1:20

5. Feminism Was a Scam to Double the Workforce 🔹 You were told it was about empowerment, but it was about economics. Doubling the workforce meant more labor, lower wages, and twice the tax revenue, while the cost of living quietly rose to match two incomes. 🔹 One income became impossible by design. Families fractured, kids were outsourced, and exhaustion became the norm. It wasn’t about equality — it was about control, disguised as progress.

MatrixMysteries

969,027 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

Less than half of Americans without a college degree want to legalize drugs, but more than sixty percent of those with a bachelor’s degree or higher are in favor. Drugs are often seen as a harmless pastime for the wealthy, but for the poor they’re more likely a path to deeper suffering. If you look at who’s most supportive of decriminalization or legalization, it’s clear—the higher up you go in income or education, the more support you see. And that makes sense. People who haven’t seen up close the squalor and destruction that come from hard drug use are more inclined to treat it as an abstract issue of personal choice. But the reality is that the damage falls hardest on poor and marginalized neighborhoods.
0:20

Less than half of Americans without a college degree want to legalize drugs, but more than sixty percent of those with a bachelor’s degree or higher are in favor. Drugs are often seen as a harmless pastime for the wealthy, but for the poor they’re more likely a path to deeper suffering. If you look at who’s most supportive of decriminalization or legalization, it’s clear—the higher up you go in income or education, the more support you see. And that makes sense. People who haven’t seen up close the squalor and destruction that come from hard drug use are more inclined to treat it as an abstract issue of personal choice. But the reality is that the damage falls hardest on poor and marginalized neighborhoods.

Rob Henderson

23,588 görüntüleme • 8 ay önce

President Trump just suggested replacing the federal income tax with tariffs, & if the American education system wasn’t hijacked more people would know that there was no federal income tax the first 137 years in America as a country. In fact under President James Monroe there was not only no federal income tax, but there were no internal taxes at all, no excise taxes, nothing, he got rid of all of them… & not only did he use tariffs to create a budget surplus, but he cut America’s debt in half, purchased Florida from Spain, and facilitated the creation of infrastructure that bolted the American economy into the future. The American people are beginning to remember what made America the greatest country in the history of the world.
1:31

President Trump just suggested replacing the federal income tax with tariffs, & if the American education system wasn’t hijacked more people would know that there was no federal income tax the first 137 years in America as a country. In fact under President James Monroe there was not only no federal income tax, but there were no internal taxes at all, no excise taxes, nothing, he got rid of all of them… & not only did he use tariffs to create a budget surplus, but he cut America’s debt in half, purchased Florida from Spain, and facilitated the creation of infrastructure that bolted the American economy into the future. The American people are beginning to remember what made America the greatest country in the history of the world.

Brett Pike

663,302 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

I don’t know; many people are stupid about this. Most mainstream sitcoms and dramas had a dramatic conceit that the people in them were living in a house, apartment, or whatever about one or two standard deviations of wealth higher than where they would actually be, in order to facilitate a decent drama. A thousand-square-foot rancher with two or three kids in the same room and two realistically burned-out working-class parents (rather than one comically burned out Al Bundy) is not a very good sitcom either to write or to film. I remember a few of the shows playing on this dramatic conceit later. “Sex and the City” famously has a big excuse for why Carrie is in an apartment way too big for her income, and “Friends” does something similar with Monica’s apartment. But for the most part, “The Simpsons” or “Married... with Children” expect you to understand that the house is somewhat extravagant, or at least enlarged and cleaned up for television. I mean, just look at it. The Simpsons’ house is not literally a McMansion, but it is clearly huge for a one-income working-class cartoon family, and about 10 or 20 years before that kind of oversized suburban house became a standard cultural image. Now that I think about it, even “The Simpsons” plays on this:
2:10

I don’t know; many people are stupid about this. Most mainstream sitcoms and dramas had a dramatic conceit that the people in them were living in a house, apartment, or whatever about one or two standard deviations of wealth higher than where they would actually be, in order to facilitate a decent drama. A thousand-square-foot rancher with two or three kids in the same room and two realistically burned-out working-class parents (rather than one comically burned out Al Bundy) is not a very good sitcom either to write or to film. I remember a few of the shows playing on this dramatic conceit later. “Sex and the City” famously has a big excuse for why Carrie is in an apartment way too big for her income, and “Friends” does something similar with Monica’s apartment. But for the most part, “The Simpsons” or “Married... with Children” expect you to understand that the house is somewhat extravagant, or at least enlarged and cleaned up for television. I mean, just look at it. The Simpsons’ house is not literally a McMansion, but it is clearly huge for a one-income working-class cartoon family, and about 10 or 20 years before that kind of oversized suburban house became a standard cultural image. Now that I think about it, even “The Simpsons” plays on this:

CTrefugees

123,821 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

SHOULD GOVERNMENT BE ALLOWED TO TAKE PRIVATE PROPERTY? “People are waking up to the fact that the asset seizure tax is an elimination of private property rights, that fundamentally what you're saying [is] that private property now becomes public property. Because as soon as you give the government the right to collect your post-tax assets through a legislative vote, you are basically saying that you no longer have private property — because at any point in the future the government can vote to say I'm going to take your private property — which is different than an income tax. [An income tax] is when you earn something that you didn't have before, and they take a percentage of your earnings (of your income). The statement now is after you've made your income (it's now your private property) — they can come and take it. And so that is a distinction that has never existed in the United States. And I will make the retort right now to property tax, because people always say to me: ‘what about property tax?’ A property tax is a service fee on a particular, specific asset. The money that is collected provides services for that asset to make it more valuable. So you get roads, infrastructure, policing, fire, schools… All the stuff that comes with property tax makes that property [more valuable]. And you have the option at any point you want to sell that property and stop paying that property tax. You have the option at any point to downgrade your property and get a cheaper property and pay [a lower tax]. And here's the other important point about property tax: it’s uniform. Uniform means that everyone pays the same percentage, the same property tax rate in a county. This asset seizure tax that's being proposed is a demographic tax — meaning that the state or the legislature defines a specific group of individuals (in this case, they're saying anyone with a net worth over a billion dollars) and then they can go and take assets from only that group. That is nonuniform taxation. It means that for the first time we're saying based on the demographics of a person meaning whatever you want to use to define that person (in this case their wealth) — you are going to be treated differently. And that is different than an income tax, because remember when you have graduated income tax rates (and you say high earners get taxed more) — what you're taxing is the earnings, not the individual. You're not looking through to the individual to determine whether or not they're wealthy. All you're doing is looking at the independent earnings amount that's coming in. And so a uniformity clause is supposed to protect people from being demographically discriminated against. And you may roll your hand and be like: ‘Oh, who cares about the billionaires? Eat the rich. That's great.’ But fundamentally, you're giving the government, the legislature, the ability to in the future take any demographic definition they want and go in and take any percentage they want of after-tax property from you. That is why this is so troubling.” david friedberg The All-In Podcast
2:35

SHOULD GOVERNMENT BE ALLOWED TO TAKE PRIVATE PROPERTY? “People are waking up to the fact that the asset seizure tax is an elimination of private property rights, that fundamentally what you're saying [is] that private property now becomes public property. Because as soon as you give the government the right to collect your post-tax assets through a legislative vote, you are basically saying that you no longer have private property — because at any point in the future the government can vote to say I'm going to take your private property — which is different than an income tax. [An income tax] is when you earn something that you didn't have before, and they take a percentage of your earnings (of your income). The statement now is after you've made your income (it's now your private property) — they can come and take it. And so that is a distinction that has never existed in the United States. And I will make the retort right now to property tax, because people always say to me: ‘what about property tax?’ A property tax is a service fee on a particular, specific asset. The money that is collected provides services for that asset to make it more valuable. So you get roads, infrastructure, policing, fire, schools… All the stuff that comes with property tax makes that property [more valuable]. And you have the option at any point you want to sell that property and stop paying that property tax. You have the option at any point to downgrade your property and get a cheaper property and pay [a lower tax]. And here's the other important point about property tax: it’s uniform. Uniform means that everyone pays the same percentage, the same property tax rate in a county. This asset seizure tax that's being proposed is a demographic tax — meaning that the state or the legislature defines a specific group of individuals (in this case, they're saying anyone with a net worth over a billion dollars) and then they can go and take assets from only that group. That is nonuniform taxation. It means that for the first time we're saying based on the demographics of a person meaning whatever you want to use to define that person (in this case their wealth) — you are going to be treated differently. And that is different than an income tax, because remember when you have graduated income tax rates (and you say high earners get taxed more) — what you're taxing is the earnings, not the individual. You're not looking through to the individual to determine whether or not they're wealthy. All you're doing is looking at the independent earnings amount that's coming in. And so a uniformity clause is supposed to protect people from being demographically discriminated against. And you may roll your hand and be like: ‘Oh, who cares about the billionaires? Eat the rich. That's great.’ But fundamentally, you're giving the government, the legislature, the ability to in the future take any demographic definition they want and go in and take any percentage they want of after-tax property from you. That is why this is so troubling.” david friedberg The All-In Podcast

Ron Pragides 

258,567 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

Angela Rayner, "It's an honour of my life to address this house as the first time as the Deputy Prime Minister" "We've been given a mandate by the British people to turn the page on 14 years of chaos and start a new chapter that they deserve" "I know first hand how government can change lives for the better.. I say that not as a politician but as someone whose own life was changed for the better by the previous Labour government.. And I am determined to do the same for others" Well said and good luck Angela Rayner 👏
13:20

Angela Rayner, "It's an honour of my life to address this house as the first time as the Deputy Prime Minister" "We've been given a mandate by the British people to turn the page on 14 years of chaos and start a new chapter that they deserve" "I know first hand how government can change lives for the better.. I say that not as a politician but as someone whose own life was changed for the better by the previous Labour government.. And I am determined to do the same for others" Well said and good luck Angela Rayner 👏

Farrukh

790,845 görüntüleme • 2 yıl önce

This study blew my mind. It found there’s ONE main key to earning a higher income. The study looked at kids from poorer families, and how they turned out as adults. Turns out, the number one indicator of their future income was not the socioeconomic status of their family. It was the socioeconomic status of the other people they’re around. This is called Economic Connectedness. What does that mean? Put bluntly, EC measures how many rich people and poor people are friends. When an area has higher economic connectedness, poor kids are more likely to make more money as adults. For example: • Minneapolis has an EC of 0.98. • Indianapolis’s is lower at 0.65. But… • Kids from low income families in Minneapolis reach the 43rd percentile of household income as adults. • Kids from the same background in Indianapolis only reach the 34th percentile. WHO you surround yourself with and WHERE you are has a huge impact on your monetary success. So we asked the question... Is it possible to be in the top 1% of earners without ever changing your environment? What do you think?
5:14

This study blew my mind. It found there’s ONE main key to earning a higher income. The study looked at kids from poorer families, and how they turned out as adults. Turns out, the number one indicator of their future income was not the socioeconomic status of their family. It was the socioeconomic status of the other people they’re around. This is called Economic Connectedness. What does that mean? Put bluntly, EC measures how many rich people and poor people are friends. When an area has higher economic connectedness, poor kids are more likely to make more money as adults. For example: • Minneapolis has an EC of 0.98. • Indianapolis’s is lower at 0.65. But… • Kids from low income families in Minneapolis reach the 43rd percentile of household income as adults. • Kids from the same background in Indianapolis only reach the 34th percentile. WHO you surround yourself with and WHERE you are has a huge impact on your monetary success. So we asked the question... Is it possible to be in the top 1% of earners without ever changing your environment? What do you think?

Codie Sanchez

509,782 görüntüleme • 2 yıl önce

I am not sure what to make of this, keen to know your thoughts: · There's an amendment to switch Withholding Tax on betting/gaming from having it pegged on winnings to having it pegged on withdrawals · The rate of Withholding Tax on this is also being revised from 20.0% to 5.0% · These changes are very consistent with what we saw being moved at the Committee of the Whole House stage Musings: · Now that this is being done via an amendment to the Income Tax Act, can a withdrawal by a punter be legally deemed to be an income? · It's important to look at this matter in reference to the historic Sep 2021 judgement on the famous Kitengela Bar Owners Association vs National Assembly & 2 others which threw out Minimum Tax as unconstitutional · The judgement read & in part that "The imposition of the said tax has the potential of not only subjecting the people to double taxation but also unfairly targeting people whose businesses, for whatever reason, are in loss making positions, to pay taxes from their capital rather than from their profits" · Emphasis here is on the fact that the court took issue with taxes being levied based on "capital rather than from profits" · So again the question begs, can a withdrawal from a betting/gaming wallet be deemed to be an income that should then be taxable?
0:34

I am not sure what to make of this, keen to know your thoughts: · There's an amendment to switch Withholding Tax on betting/gaming from having it pegged on winnings to having it pegged on withdrawals · The rate of Withholding Tax on this is also being revised from 20.0% to 5.0% · These changes are very consistent with what we saw being moved at the Committee of the Whole House stage Musings: · Now that this is being done via an amendment to the Income Tax Act, can a withdrawal by a punter be legally deemed to be an income? · It's important to look at this matter in reference to the historic Sep 2021 judgement on the famous Kitengela Bar Owners Association vs National Assembly & 2 others which threw out Minimum Tax as unconstitutional · The judgement read & in part that "The imposition of the said tax has the potential of not only subjecting the people to double taxation but also unfairly targeting people whose businesses, for whatever reason, are in loss making positions, to pay taxes from their capital rather than from their profits" · Emphasis here is on the fact that the court took issue with taxes being levied based on "capital rather than from profits" · So again the question begs, can a withdrawal from a betting/gaming wallet be deemed to be an income that should then be taxable?

Julians Amboko

14,934 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

NO INCOME TAXES: President Trump states that INCOME TAX will most likely be abolished for a great number of people due to the massive amount of money being brought in from TARIFFS. This is how the U.S. used to operate and why TARIFFS are a massive success to the country. Only a very small fraction of people used to pay income taxes. Specifically, around the years 1894 and the early 1900s to 1917, the federal income tax applied to less than 1% of the population. "I believe in the not-too-distant future you won't even have income tax to pay. Because the money [from tariffs] is so enormous." "Whether you get rid of it, or keep it around for fun, or have it really low, much lower than it is now. But you won't be paying income tax." – President Donald J. Trump
0:28

NO INCOME TAXES: President Trump states that INCOME TAX will most likely be abolished for a great number of people due to the massive amount of money being brought in from TARIFFS. This is how the U.S. used to operate and why TARIFFS are a massive success to the country. Only a very small fraction of people used to pay income taxes. Specifically, around the years 1894 and the early 1900s to 1917, the federal income tax applied to less than 1% of the population. "I believe in the not-too-distant future you won't even have income tax to pay. Because the money [from tariffs] is so enormous." "Whether you get rid of it, or keep it around for fun, or have it really low, much lower than it is now. But you won't be paying income tax." – President Donald J. Trump

The SCIF

27,822 görüntüleme • 7 ay önce

At the turn of the 20th century America used tariffs to rise and become the manufacturing center of the world. American oil, American steel, American automotive. The country was so rich that it shocked the world by raising $50 million without using bonds or debt to fight the Spanish American war. A tremendous amount of money at the time. Spain knew they were going to lose as soon as they saw that. In 1913 globalist forces manipulated America into the federal reserve act, and the 16th amendment, which brought in the federal income tax. The goal was to subvert American sovereignty and replace it with a form of corporate globalism. It worked, and by the time you were born, American manufacturing had been shipped across the world, American jobs had been shipped across the world, American sovereignty had been shipped across the world, but people are waking up, and we are going to take it all back.
1:26

At the turn of the 20th century America used tariffs to rise and become the manufacturing center of the world. American oil, American steel, American automotive. The country was so rich that it shocked the world by raising $50 million without using bonds or debt to fight the Spanish American war. A tremendous amount of money at the time. Spain knew they were going to lose as soon as they saw that. In 1913 globalist forces manipulated America into the federal reserve act, and the 16th amendment, which brought in the federal income tax. The goal was to subvert American sovereignty and replace it with a form of corporate globalism. It worked, and by the time you were born, American manufacturing had been shipped across the world, American jobs had been shipped across the world, American sovereignty had been shipped across the world, but people are waking up, and we are going to take it all back.

Brett Pike

20,737 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

I never wanted to be a politician and I still don’t. I’ve had two successful careers and have started a few small businesses. I’ve also worked for some big corporations. I was ready to retire and spend more time with my family – which I’ve done for the past 3 years. I think they’re ready for me to find something else to do. I’m tired of seeing the leaders of our country being influenced by the toxic divisions that are tearing apart our families and society. It’s time for me to step up and do my civic duty. To give back and try and change things for the better. If not me, who? If not now, when? It’s easy to look at the economy and realize that something has gone horribly wrong. Working people, the middle class, and small businesses have been losing ground over the past 20 years. The goose that lays the golden eggs for our country has been kicked around and squeezed to the point where laying more golden eggs is almost impossible. Consider that since 2000 the cost of food has risen more than double the rise in average household income. The cost of a home has risen 6 times and the amount of government spending 5 and a half times. The S&P 500 has gone up 9 times more than the rise in average household income. To everyone who works and is trying to do the right thing for their family, to everyone who is young and wonders why their lives are worse than their parents: you are not wrong. And yet, who have we allowed to have the most influence over our government? Big corporate executives and big union bosses. Big tech, big pharma, big media, big whatever – all trying to control big government in Washington DC. This needs to stop. Our government spends money on the wrong things and spends way too much. One thing the federal government should certainly be responsible for is the security of our borders. Instead, we see millions of people coming in without any accounting for who they are, what they intend to do, or what they’re bringing with them. And they’re being given access to all sorts of handouts at our expense. At a minimum, the federal government and the state governments should be working together to enforce existing laws and secure the border. Seeing our government at war with itself is unacceptable. For my whole life, in every place I’ve ever lived, I’ve seen people working to provide for their family. Values like self-sacrifice, faith, integrity, fidelity, and valor are simply part of who these people are. They do these things not because the government tells them to, but because they know the right things to do - moral obligations that are freely chosen, not mandated by a government. It doesn’t take a village to raise a child, it takes a family, and it takes families to make a village. The sad reality is that many children in our country are suffering. Years of ridiculing and demeaning old fashioned “family values” have taken a toll. Our society’s strength, fundamentally linked to the vitality of the family structure, has been eroded. I want to champion the traditional family as critical for a child’s development and success. The data proves this. However, my approach will be inclusive, recognizing all who step up to provide for their children. I’m not worried about the government being a safety net. I want the government to stop being an impediment. I’m ready to go to DC and see if I can help bring back sanity and civility to the public discourse on these issues and all the other issues that face our great nation. We need bold leaders for such a time as this.
1:15

I never wanted to be a politician and I still don’t. I’ve had two successful careers and have started a few small businesses. I’ve also worked for some big corporations. I was ready to retire and spend more time with my family – which I’ve done for the past 3 years. I think they’re ready for me to find something else to do. I’m tired of seeing the leaders of our country being influenced by the toxic divisions that are tearing apart our families and society. It’s time for me to step up and do my civic duty. To give back and try and change things for the better. If not me, who? If not now, when? It’s easy to look at the economy and realize that something has gone horribly wrong. Working people, the middle class, and small businesses have been losing ground over the past 20 years. The goose that lays the golden eggs for our country has been kicked around and squeezed to the point where laying more golden eggs is almost impossible. Consider that since 2000 the cost of food has risen more than double the rise in average household income. The cost of a home has risen 6 times and the amount of government spending 5 and a half times. The S&P 500 has gone up 9 times more than the rise in average household income. To everyone who works and is trying to do the right thing for their family, to everyone who is young and wonders why their lives are worse than their parents: you are not wrong. And yet, who have we allowed to have the most influence over our government? Big corporate executives and big union bosses. Big tech, big pharma, big media, big whatever – all trying to control big government in Washington DC. This needs to stop. Our government spends money on the wrong things and spends way too much. One thing the federal government should certainly be responsible for is the security of our borders. Instead, we see millions of people coming in without any accounting for who they are, what they intend to do, or what they’re bringing with them. And they’re being given access to all sorts of handouts at our expense. At a minimum, the federal government and the state governments should be working together to enforce existing laws and secure the border. Seeing our government at war with itself is unacceptable. For my whole life, in every place I’ve ever lived, I’ve seen people working to provide for their family. Values like self-sacrifice, faith, integrity, fidelity, and valor are simply part of who these people are. They do these things not because the government tells them to, but because they know the right things to do - moral obligations that are freely chosen, not mandated by a government. It doesn’t take a village to raise a child, it takes a family, and it takes families to make a village. The sad reality is that many children in our country are suffering. Years of ridiculing and demeaning old fashioned “family values” have taken a toll. Our society’s strength, fundamentally linked to the vitality of the family structure, has been eroded. I want to champion the traditional family as critical for a child’s development and success. The data proves this. However, my approach will be inclusive, recognizing all who step up to provide for their children. I’m not worried about the government being a safety net. I want the government to stop being an impediment. I’m ready to go to DC and see if I can help bring back sanity and civility to the public discourse on these issues and all the other issues that face our great nation. We need bold leaders for such a time as this.

Marty O'Donnell

16,062,621 görüntüleme • 2 yıl önce

A single janitor could raise a family of four on one income… until 1970. Then we doubled the workforce by pushing women and mothers into full-time jobs, right as gender studies exploded in universities. Rachel Wilson pointed out on Piers Morgan Uncensored: we traded a family economy for an individual one. Now most people need two full incomes just to get by. I’ve been thinking about how this one shift quietly rewired everything — time with kids, stress levels, what’s even possible for average families. This change has made family life more economically challenging for many households, with both parents often needing to work full time. This one made me reflect on the trade-offs involved. What economic or cultural change do you think most quietly reshaped family life?
0:36

A single janitor could raise a family of four on one income… until 1970. Then we doubled the workforce by pushing women and mothers into full-time jobs, right as gender studies exploded in universities. Rachel Wilson pointed out on Piers Morgan Uncensored: we traded a family economy for an individual one. Now most people need two full incomes just to get by. I’ve been thinking about how this one shift quietly rewired everything — time with kids, stress levels, what’s even possible for average families. This change has made family life more economically challenging for many households, with both parents often needing to work full time. This one made me reflect on the trade-offs involved. What economic or cultural change do you think most quietly reshaped family life?

Camus

16,695 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

Trump promises to abolish the Income Tax, which this economy professor says is going to put an average of $30,000 a year in the pockets of American families. #Agenda47 Here’s how: 1. The current income tax costs the American people $2.4 trillion a year. 2. Trump proposes to replace the income tax with tariffs: - 20% tariff on everybody except China - 60% tariff on China 3. The tariffs are expected to bring in about $900 billion a year. 4. This tariff system is predicted to: - Grow the American economy by 20% in the near term - Provide a $15,000 raise for the typical American family - Save the typical American family $18,000 in income tax - Result in a net additional income of about $30,000 for the typical American family 5. The economic growth under this system could potentially double, reaching 5% annual growth as the new normal. 6. Comparing to countries like Singapore, the U.S. could save around $2 trillion or more. 7. There is an expectation of strong Congressional support for this proposal due to the significant economic benefits and potential for voter approval. 8. The proposal includes action items for the President, economic team, trade team, finance team, and policy team to implement and analyze the impacts of the tariff system.
1:50

Trump promises to abolish the Income Tax, which this economy professor says is going to put an average of $30,000 a year in the pockets of American families. #Agenda47 Here’s how: 1. The current income tax costs the American people $2.4 trillion a year. 2. Trump proposes to replace the income tax with tariffs: - 20% tariff on everybody except China - 60% tariff on China 3. The tariffs are expected to bring in about $900 billion a year. 4. This tariff system is predicted to: - Grow the American economy by 20% in the near term - Provide a $15,000 raise for the typical American family - Save the typical American family $18,000 in income tax - Result in a net additional income of about $30,000 for the typical American family 5. The economic growth under this system could potentially double, reaching 5% annual growth as the new normal. 6. Comparing to countries like Singapore, the U.S. could save around $2 trillion or more. 7. There is an expectation of strong Congressional support for this proposal due to the significant economic benefits and potential for voter approval. 8. The proposal includes action items for the President, economic team, trade team, finance team, and policy team to implement and analyze the impacts of the tariff system.

Justin Deschamps (Just In Stillness)

447,310 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

There’s a new claim that “essentially, all that happened was Trump got tired, took control and forced it on Netanyahu, and this is basically the same deal that could have been reached a year earlier,” with the disturbing implication, that’s horrible to say, that IDF soldiers died in vain for a cause that had already been achieved. So, let’s revisit the plans that were laid out by both the current and former American administrations to see if they match up. For example, the Biden plan from June 1, 2024, which was met with considerable enthusiasm, and was even later acknowledged as Netanyahu’s plan. I want to highlight the difference. In the first phase, the IDF should have already pulled back to roughly its current position, and then it was just about releasing humanitarian hostages. As if not all of them are “humanitarian.” Then it transitioned to discussing the release of living hostages. In this phase, the IDF would withdraw from all of Gaza, until the last centimetre, while all the dead hostages remain in Gaza. It’s as different as day and night. Here, everyone is returning, including the dead, and the IDF is still in half of Gaza. This isn’t just about some desire to maintain an occupation or garrison force, but rather to ensure that Hamas disarms — something that didn’t happen in the Biden proposal. So now let’s move on to the Witkoff plan, much closer to us, much better for Israel, but still different. There was talk of releasing half of the dead hostages, but then a temporary ceasefire for two months of negotiations to end the war, and then the IDF would withdraw from more places than it is now, and there would be a guarantee that the war would not be renewed. Once again, we see that there was no connection between the IDF remaining on the ground and the promise that Hamas would disarm, especially while some of the hostages are still there. The greatness of this outline is this issue. I also want to say something general about the matter of responsibility. As ridiculous as it was on October 7 and afterwards to hear from Netanyahu’s supporters that the one who is to blame is the IDF chief of staff, the Shin Bet chief, the attorney general and the Military Advocate General, and that Netanyahu has no part in it — it’s as ridiculous as it is that now they’re saying, “Thank you Trump and thank you Nitzan Alon, and thank you to all of them and to the Qatari prime minister, and Netanyahu and Ron Dermer have nothing to do with it at all.” Indeed, Netanyahu had a very large part in the failure of October 7, and he also has a very large part together with Dermer in this deal. By the way, how does that connect to what Kushner said tonight in Egypt? He said that both the prime minister and Dermer made very big compromises and took risks to see the end of the war. I would like to make a suggestion. Once upon a time, when there was only one channel and people didn’t like the commentators, they said, “Watch the game without the commentary.” I say, let’s watch Trump and Netanyahu’s move without the commentary, because there are a lot of conversations, and this and that, and slander, and sometimes even quotes, but in practice there has never been a president and a prime minister who acted like this, and the results are evident from Iran, through the Golan Heights, through the embassy and now Gaza.
2:39

There’s a new claim that “essentially, all that happened was Trump got tired, took control and forced it on Netanyahu, and this is basically the same deal that could have been reached a year earlier,” with the disturbing implication, that’s horrible to say, that IDF soldiers died in vain for a cause that had already been achieved. So, let’s revisit the plans that were laid out by both the current and former American administrations to see if they match up. For example, the Biden plan from June 1, 2024, which was met with considerable enthusiasm, and was even later acknowledged as Netanyahu’s plan. I want to highlight the difference. In the first phase, the IDF should have already pulled back to roughly its current position, and then it was just about releasing humanitarian hostages. As if not all of them are “humanitarian.” Then it transitioned to discussing the release of living hostages. In this phase, the IDF would withdraw from all of Gaza, until the last centimetre, while all the dead hostages remain in Gaza. It’s as different as day and night. Here, everyone is returning, including the dead, and the IDF is still in half of Gaza. This isn’t just about some desire to maintain an occupation or garrison force, but rather to ensure that Hamas disarms — something that didn’t happen in the Biden proposal. So now let’s move on to the Witkoff plan, much closer to us, much better for Israel, but still different. There was talk of releasing half of the dead hostages, but then a temporary ceasefire for two months of negotiations to end the war, and then the IDF would withdraw from more places than it is now, and there would be a guarantee that the war would not be renewed. Once again, we see that there was no connection between the IDF remaining on the ground and the promise that Hamas would disarm, especially while some of the hostages are still there. The greatness of this outline is this issue. I also want to say something general about the matter of responsibility. As ridiculous as it was on October 7 and afterwards to hear from Netanyahu’s supporters that the one who is to blame is the IDF chief of staff, the Shin Bet chief, the attorney general and the Military Advocate General, and that Netanyahu has no part in it — it’s as ridiculous as it is that now they’re saying, “Thank you Trump and thank you Nitzan Alon, and thank you to all of them and to the Qatari prime minister, and Netanyahu and Ron Dermer have nothing to do with it at all.” Indeed, Netanyahu had a very large part in the failure of October 7, and he also has a very large part together with Dermer in this deal. By the way, how does that connect to what Kushner said tonight in Egypt? He said that both the prime minister and Dermer made very big compromises and took risks to see the end of the war. I would like to make a suggestion. Once upon a time, when there was only one channel and people didn’t like the commentators, they said, “Watch the game without the commentary.” I say, let’s watch Trump and Netanyahu’s move without the commentary, because there are a lot of conversations, and this and that, and slander, and sometimes even quotes, but in practice there has never been a president and a prime minister who acted like this, and the results are evident from Iran, through the Golan Heights, through the embassy and now Gaza.

Amit Segal

298,292 görüntüleme • 9 ay önce