we cannot afford these policies nor are they ever going to happen. the reality as i mentioned before when we increased the national debt and spending, the very families are the ones who get hurt. they end up crowding out national investment. republicans aren t getting better so they re not getting, it s like both sides have lost site of basic math. and that s up to republicans to articulate those points. i don t disagree with you, neal. how do you take care of the middle class? they re getting squeezed under obama. i think we re about to stop. we ve saved a lot of time. you should never do that. as a host i should never either. it s more fun in the democratic debate. thank you very, very much. i know i made a big deal of this but it s money in, money out.
contrary event apart from the fact that when you pour the money in, it leaves no trace. look what happened to the seminole piece of social legislation. the 1996 be a abolition of welfare as entitlement signed by president clinton. next six years liberals were screaming this is going to throw kids into the street. will cause dessubstitution a spike in poverty the poverty rate for black children declined from 41.5% since records have been kept. that s because when this is a lesson we learned in the 80 s and the 90 s when we saw the results of the war on poverty, when you pour money in, and you sort of reinforce the rotten and corrupt and obsolete structures, you are not only don t do any good, you
two years of college if it s community college you re saying community college now and the next step, regular college tell you this, young lady you can have the rich taxed at 100% and it wouldn t keep our social programs going for another five years. so where are you getting your money after that? i don t think so. if you invest in this there s no money! the more people who have jobs creative ways to spend more money. people have jobs, they can pay more taxes. it s under social programs and we re not in debt. we re looking at it from different perspectives here. i m looking at it from real math. money in, money out. i m looking at that the rich and poor alike are saddled with debt. and these kids are going to be saddled with it as well. i m one of these kids. and i can t even think about the other options you know why we can t think
free trade between the two countries, good. in the 1990s, briefly liberalized when on it s rocks. soon as the castro brothers got their money in, shut down. freezes assets, dictator hship d oh precision as usual. this is bailout of a corrupt regime. aren t you upset, john, no concessions given from the castro have a regime to us? no. give them credit. putting sanctions down elevated them needlessly, should have ignored them. were he works have been out by now. an excuse. open it up to them. last word from john. coming up, after the ball drops, our informers say two stocks will pop.
nothing to do with ukraine, but the administration says the imf reforms absolutely have to do that s right. with ukraine. that s right. are you able to explain that? yes. yes. so, what is being proposed is that we switch some money from one account that we have at the imf to another account to be able to help quickly a more general fund that we re giving money to to make sure that the quota for ukraine is increased. increasing the quota means we can help it more and we can help it more rapidly. if we don t, that means that our standing within the imf is compromised. of course, we still have a large voting share, but we become less and less credible. we made the commitment in 2010 to this reform so this was put in place, this fund, that we have money in, that we would like to shift money to, was for emergencies. it was for the 2009 crisis. so, don t you think it s about time that we shift it back? and this would have given us the