The plot thickens. Frankly, I was wondering how Mel Gibson was allowed not only to participate, but to lead off after the horrible things he's become famous for lately.

Could this be early 2000s, like soon after 9/11 when "Homeland Security" was starting? I don't know of anything that Clinton did that would piss off actors (dems) so much they'd put something like this together. Surely it wasn't just educational?

Either way, I'm glad they did because I know for sure I'd never been exposed to the entire document before. Worth having heard. Nicely done, except for the bit about the Natives.>> ^shuac:

>> ^messenger:
@artician @charliem
"Either way, what struck me in hearing it this time is how much of it is a reaction to exactly the same behavior the US is showing today. Hilarious."
I'm guessing that's why this was done.
Not sure what Graham Greene was doing there. Was a Canadian the only native person they could find?

But I can tell by the faces that this was made in the 90s.

>> ^kymbos:

One of my favourite ever scenes in cinema.
Transcendent low-brow humour that Mel Brooks himself would be proud of.


Vote on it then?

One of my favourite ever scenes in cinema.

Transcendent low-brow humour that Mel Brooks himself would be proud of.

If Mel Gibson were a fragrance
http://tworogers.com/2010/09/tri-mel-gibson/

Tags for this video have been changed from 'bill maher, new rules' to 'bill maher, new rules, discovery, secret service, kony, mel gibson, pink slime' - edited by xxovercastxx

I like your answer.

It's interesting that the average tax rate paid by the companies in your study was almost exactly the 30% corporate tax rate in Australia.

The U.S. tax system would be progressive in a world where everybody draws a salary, which is their only income stream, and where anyone earning more than the national average refuses to take their allowable tax deductions. As this is not the situation people generally describe, I'll assume your system isn't quite as progressive as your answer, talking only about federal income tax, tried to imply.

Your point about the lower 50% of wage earners paying 5% of Income taxes also fails to prove that the system is progressive, due to wage disparity. Assume a regressive system where you pay 50% tax until your income reaches $100,000, then a rate of 5% applies. If you have a population of 100 people, 99 of whom earn 5 dollars per annum and one earns $1,000,000 per annum: $2.5 x 99 = $247.50, $50,000 x 1 = $50,000, the total tax is $50,247.50 and the bottom 50% in a regressive system have paid 0.25% of the total taxes.

Most western democracies have laws trying to prevent the corporate cronyism you point out as the real problem, with varying degrees of success. Super-pac's for instance would be illegal in most parts of the world.
>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

[...]

That's not what progressive means, in this context. A progressive tax system is one where you pay a (progressively) higher rate when you have more income. What you have is a regressive tax system.

Do you happen to know what percentage of U.S. companies actually pay tax at the stated high rate? How does that compare to other countries? I know that quite a few of your companies weasel their way out of paying any tax at all, but I don't know how many overall manage this.

The ancient Roman empire also had social welfare, of a sort, increased after 122 B.C. See http://www.roman-empire.net/society/society.html for an overview. Then, as now, it was expensive to run.

The comparison is actually quite fair, except that in ancient Rome it was expected that wealthy citizens would give back to society and the idea of unbounded avarice as a virtue would have been quite foreign to them... so in a sense it's back to front.
>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Not quite sure how comparing that to the US economy makes any sense. The US has the highest corporate tax rate on Planet Earth now. We have very high capital gains taxes (compared to global averages). Our income tax is so "Progressive" right now that the bottom 50% of taxpayers only pay 5% of the taxes. Over 75% of the Federal Government's 1.6 trillion dollar budget is dedicated to social programs for the poor.
Only way comparing it to the vid makes sense if if you contextualize it by stating that it is the GOVERNMENT that is deciding the screw the poor by the process of its own incredible incompetence, malfeasence, and mismanagement. Since only about 20 cents on the dollar comes 'out' of government versus what goes in, then yes - the U.S. Federal Government is entirely oriented around screwing the poor.
But of course, that's not what Prog-Lib-Dytes mean. To a leftist, the video means "tax breaks for the rich" ... (insert liberal talking point) et al.

Congratulations! Your video, Mel Brooks summed up our economic policy in three words, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 4 Badge!

Your video, Mel Brooks summed up our economic policy in three words, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Cool, is this a sequel to that Mel Gibson movie with the beaver? I was hoping they would make another one.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Work work work, Hellow Boys, I missed you, Mel Brooks, blazing saddle' to 'Work work work, Hellow Boys, I missed you, Mel Brooks, blazing saddles' - edited by Shepppard

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Work work work, Hellow Boys, I missed you, Mel Brooks' to 'Work work work, Hellow Boys, I missed you, Mel Brooks, blazing saddle' - edited by Shepppard

The story (roughly translated from http://bgame.web.fc2.com/pulirula/pulirula.html):

This is the mysterious country of Radish Land. In each village, guards watch over the Screws of Time, which keep time flowing smoothly. However, one day an evil person appeared who sought to capture time by stealing the Screws of Time. One by one he attacked the villages and stole the screws, stopping time in the villages he took them from. If unstopped, time will stop completely across the land! But Zak and Mel, using magic wands invented by their grandfather, embark on a quest to save Radish Land.

voiced by Mel Gibson

>> ^ryanbennitt:

Sigh, Braveheart without the heart...


Well, that can only be a good thing. I'll take Pixar over Mel Gibson any day. Braveheart is an awful movie.