All Episodes
Previous Next
May 12, 2015 - Louder with Crowder
13:24
Obama's Absurd "Poverty Summit" Remarks || Louder With Crowder
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Start being fathers.
Start being men.
Grow a backbone.
I'm going to judge you.
You need some harsh judgment here.
Because kids learn these things by what they see.
Not by what they see on your tax return, but by what they see in their household.
Namely, are you there?
Today everyone was going nuts because President Obama spoke on a panel at the Poverty Summit.
Poverty Summit?
It's always a summit.
Just go.
You pretty much have more than you'll ever be able to use and your family will ever be able to use.
Context here is important.
More than you'll ever be able to use or your family will ever be able to use in this context is $300,000.
That's what he's talking about.
Now listen, that's not nothing, right?
I mean, people should be really happy if you're blessed with $300,000.
$300,000 in the wrong neighborhood in Manhattan gets you an apartment that you can't fit into in a neighborhood in which you're ashamed to walk.
Go.
There's a fairness issue involved here.
And by the way, if we were able to close that loophole, I can now invest in early childhood education that will make a difference.
That's where the rubber hits the road.
That's, Arthur, where the question of compassion and I'm my brother's keeper comes into play.
Compassion and I'm my brother's keeper.
Can you talk to Joe Biden?
He gave, like, literally less than 1% of his own income to charity.
Leftists don't give to charities.
There's a great book.
Who really cares?
They don't.
You're talking about compassion, brother's keeper.
What's compassionate?
About spending somebody else's money.
Go.
And if we can't ask from society's lottery winners to just make that modest investment, This is the most important one.
Society's lottery winners.
Now, leftists have accused conservatives when they say Barack Obama's a closet socialist or Marxist.
And I agree, that language can be inflammatory.
But if he was hiding in the closet, he just sashayed on out in his socialist robe.
By calling the successful people in the country society's lottery winners?
Really?
Now, by the way, just for those of you just tuning in, he's not talking about actual lottery winners.
Because those people tend to invest very poorly and don't tend to employ a lot of people.
Statistically, it's poor people who play the lottery who don't tend to make very sound investments or business decisions.
He's talking about wealthy people who run businesses and likely employ you.
It didn't take hard work.
It didn't take sacrifice.
It didn't take risk.
You just won the lottery!
Zuckerberg, come on down.
Let's tell him what he won at Plinko.
Secondly, he said something.
What was the second thing that he said?
Let's play it.
To just make that modest investment.
Okay, that was it.
Just pay their modest amount.
Half.
Even John Lovitz, a self-identified Democrat.
That was a big story.
I pay half.
This whole thing that the rich don't pay their fair share is bulls**t.
I pay half.
You're paying half!
I'm just saying maybe we can go up to, like, taxing like ordinary income, which means that they might have to pay, you know, a true rate of around 23%, 25%.
I don't know where he's getting this number.
I don't know where he's getting the marginal tax rates.
2015, in the highest bracket, 39%.
That's if you're making, I think, $413,000.
We'll bring it up on the screen.
He wants it to be...
Well, he wanted it to be $250,000.
Now he's saying $300,000.
The marginal federal tax rates...
The federal tax rates are...
39%.
I mean, I don't...
Is he maybe talking about capital gains?
Kind of when people said Romney didn't pay enough.
For those of you who don't understand capital gains taxes, you've already been taxed on that money.
And then you've invested that money.
It's a second tax.
I mean, I don't know.
Because even if you go watch the whole video, we'll have it at ladderwithcrader.com, within context, it's still nonsensical.
People don't like being poor.
And it's time consuming.
It's stressful.
It's hard.
And so, over time, families frayed.
Men who could not get jobs left.
Mothers who are single are not able to read as much to their kids.
So all that was happening 40 years ago to African Americans.
I don't know why I felt that mothers can't read to their kids.
It's important to read to your kids.
Okay, listen.
This is a perfect example of leftism versus conservatism.
You look at the great society.
You look at Lyndon Johnson.
You look at welfare laws.
You look at black American families.
Barack Obama, President Obama, knows this all too well, has a problem with fatherless households.
Whereas at one time in this country, they had the strongest marriage rates.
They had strong families.
And he looks at the problem and says, we gotta give them more stuff.
We gotta take stuff from the rich.
We have to give people more stuff.
And that'll solve the problem of fathers not being accountable.
Regardless of community.
Regardless of race.
Instead of saying, let's look at this from a personal responsibility angle and try and get men to be husbands.
Try and teach men to be fathers.
Instead of holding the man accountable, the government needs to give them, if the government just gave them more stuff, if they just took from the people who have more money than you could ever spend in your lifetime at $300,000.
I don't even know what the median home price is in a place like California.
It's probably more than that in California.
If we could just take from the people who would never be able to spend that much money ever in their life and give it to these families, then the men wouldn't walk out.
It's that kind of backwards thinking that they use to justify taking money from you to give it to someone who chose to walk out on their family.
I am all for values.
I am all for character.
But I also know that that character and the values that our kids have that allow them to succeed and delayed gratification and discipline and hard work, that all those things in part are shaped by what they see.
What is more exemplary of what children see than a fatherless household?
Notice he always says, I'm all for values and I'm all for character and integrity.
Let's get that out of the way, but...
And somehow it comes back to taking your cash.
How about, hey, I'm all for values.
I'm all for integrity.
So fathers, start being fathers.
Start being men.
Grow a backbone.
I'm going to judge you.
You need some harsh judgment here.
Because kids learn these things by what they see.
Not by what they see on your tax return, but by what they see in their household.
Namely, are you there?
Some of those kids, they're not going to get help at home.
They're not going to get enough help at home.
And the question then becomes, are we committed to helping them instead?
Okay, let me make this crystal clear.
I don't believe for a second that the federal government is committed to helping these children as much as a loving mother and father would be.
And if I did, I believe for even less of a second Whatever the smallest nanosecond is that can be measured, unlike those sound machines that are used to measure dolphins on the crazy discovery channel, which is awesome.
There's a sound coming from the middle of the ocean.
We don't even know where it comes from yet.
Whatever they use for that, whatever the shortest nanosecond is that you could possibly measure, I believe for less than that, that the government is remotely capable...
Of providing that care for those children.
Go.
Part of getting a good education was getting soft skills, not just reading, writing, arithmetic, but cooperation and teamwork and so on.
And part of that was that everybody in the country got free access to extracurricular activities, band and football and music and so on.
But beginning about 20 years ago, the view developed, which is really, really deeply evil, that that's just a frill.
That's evil?
ISIS is burning Christians alive.
Some kid not being able to play his spit valve in an oboe.
That's what gets your goat?
That's evil!
Okay.
By the way, no one's saying that these programs can't or shouldn't be provided to kids.
The state can do that.
The states have the right to do that.
That way, if they're providing crappy programs and they're evil in Texas, you can go to Nevada where they provide those programs.
No one's saying that there shouldn't be public schools.
Libertarians aren't saying there shouldn't be public schools.
They're saying that states...
Would know more appropriately how to allocate those funds in their local communities than the federal government.
We've spent more on education.
By the way, these bumper stickers that really...
You know, by the day the Air Force has to host a big sale to buy their bombers.
And education gets every dime it needs to be a best day in America.
You see those bumper stickers?
Education spending in this country outpaces the military.
It does.
Overall educational spending.
Now, it's not just on the national level because a huge portion of that comes from states and comes from local municipal governments.
No one's saying that you should do away with states having the right to create public schools.
And so we disinvested and we said, if you want to take part in football here or you want to take part in music, you've got to pay for it.
Okay, here's the myth.
Poor people can't pay for it.
I can go down to the local YMCA. Learn judo, guitar, basketball, and underwater basket weaving for $49.95.
There are people who are willing to provide those services.
And guess what?
Particularly if there's a huge and growing market, thank you President Obama, of poor people.
If that becomes a bigger sector of the population...
And it seems like it's going that way.
There will be more than enough businesses looking to serve them, if the state and municipal governments haven't covered that already.
Go.
And of course, what that means is that poor people can't pay for it.
It's a big deal.
$1,600 on average for two kids in a family?
Well, $1,600 to play football or, you know, play in the band or a French club or whatever.
It's not a big deal if your income is $200,000, but if your income is $16,000, who in their right mind is going to be paying 10% of their family income?
So...
Pause that.
Okay.
So listen, this is going to get too long.
This is where we'll end it.
Notice the numbers he just used.
He could have said, when talking about the wealthy, talking about the unfair gap, he could have said $10 million.
He could have said $750,000.
He said $200,000.
That's what he chose.
The context here is talking about the highest marginal tax rates and where they should come in and who can afford, which lottery winner can afford to pay a moderately higher amount.
That's the context here.
And that's where we were ultimately taken.
Because remember, this administration wanted to raise taxes.
They wanted to lower the highest tax bracket to $250,000.
Okay?
We're sending the Bush tax cuts.
So...
The dog is growling.
Sorry.
So, this is where we end up.
The takeaway here is if you make $200,000 a year, you are one of society's lottery winners who can afford to pay more than a moderate amount.
What's a moderate amount?
You can afford to pay more than half.
This video, subscribe by clicking my face.
And if you hated it, well, join the club and you're going to hate this next video right next to me.
▲
Export Selection