the billionaire Koch Brothers are the current example of Free-Market Fundamentalism, but they also represent the end of this Democratic-Republic. When in history have elites ever been Democratic?
@Salvysahagun ... lpretty stingy compared to the Koch Brothers, I mean, most of the stuff he helps fund get most of their funding from elsewhere, and Soros does not fund nearly as many of them, or spend nearly as much money.
@Salvysahagun Is that all you have got?Moveon don't even get the majority of their funding from Soros,and are not controlled by him the way the puppetmasters at Koch Industries control their stable of lobbyists and special interest groups and think tanks and so forth.Soros is an opportunist.He will buy whatever he thinks is undervalued, but a protest march on a military contractor whose contracts were unaffected by the protest march,that's not going to affect profitability one iota
Me and my church pray Wednesday nights for the death of the Koch brothers. You probably think poorly of our church, but otherwise, we are very very loving. These guys represent the beast
In other words, two Libertarians know they can't get a bunch of Libertarians into office so pick a party, Republican and fund it and get them into office and shift the traditional Republican platform to become libertarian policies.
The history of the Koch's is even more telling. Their grandmom was "the Bitch of Buchenwald". Buchenwald being the concentration camp that her husband operated, she collected the skin of dead inmates, particularly tattoos. Super sane family there, not.
@danielvincentkelley The Koch's had to lay off a few people because of the recession yes, so what? They still employ 50,000 people...that's not good enough for you? And it is not the Koch's job to employ people anyway. Their job is to make profitt, as with any buisness.
@calimar Yeh, you're right calimar, f@#k people, profit's are more fun. Suck's being a person ay? it being that the billionaires are coveting profits. I don't know if you read those articles, but they allege that the Koch's haven't been hit by the "recession" in the least, that people are still wiping their asses, that they made $11,000,000,000 more than their earnings in the years prior, all the while subjecting people to dangerous work conditions by frantic chaos, as much work but less workers
@ladybird1124 Then they'll leave, and then you'll be taxing the kind-of-rich, then the upper middle class, than the middle class, and pretty soon all that's left is poor people.
Im cool with Social Security going away now rather than waiting till 2017 according to my Social Security Statement. No shit. It said it will be bankrupt, so why wait?
Why not expose all the lobbying and giving that cuts both ways. It seams that MSNBC has mastered the art of pitting us against eachother when both Dems and Reps end up doing the same thing.
So if the Kochs have payed MILLIONS upon MILLIONS for the libertarian/republican cause, why does everyone assume it is for their personal benefit? I'm sure they wouldn't even be paying that much in taxes under a democrat.
The bottom line: They don't want the entire country to go to the shitter (like union run Detroit).
This demagoguery by Cenk is unbearable. His high school age audience needs to stop listening to him and pick up a few economics books.
...Kock brothers = coke brothers = cocaine sniffing crackhead Republican Elephants... hehehe... the Snuffie Elephants that can NOT say no... and they say YES to drugs... HA?! ...hehehe...
He calls libertarianism an "extremist ideology". It's like if one person thinks 2 + 2 = 4, another 100, and another 500. Let's not be an extremist here...
Also, the fact that two politically active people happen to be rich isn't an argument for anything.
Not one prominent politician –‘runs under their party banner ...’- yet both Pauls and a lot of tea-baggers seem to –‘repeat a lot’- of their -'specious rhetoric'-.
-
Ayn - Rand Paul :
.... business over customers, if black .... is OK !
Defended BP to attack Obama !
Coal mining over environment and miners !
Ignoring the corporate immunity in the man-slaughters ... in both incidents.
Please, somebody who wants to worships a police state which funds arms to Israel, Saudi Arabia and I don't know what hellhole and calls that "small government" clearly has something wrong in his brain.
The society should help disadvantaged like handicapped, pensioners and sick people in all ways possible, else move to Somalia.
Society should not help slaughter other human beings.
Society with an elected, trusted and representative state operating for and through it's people.
¨People who never work and are born into a billionare family should help, that's the right thing to do everywhere but in the filthy U.S. You really despice democracy, do you? Who talks about raping people, it's a complete absurd comparison.
If the alternatives are between starving people and "stealing", it's "stealing".
@underbjorn what's wrong with being born into a rich family? If you make alot of money in your life, it makes no difference to anyone else wether you consume it all yourself or give some to others like family members.
No it is not an absurd comparison. You want to give the majority the power to violate the rights of the minorities. To be consistent you have to hold that principle true in all circumstances.
If I grow a garden and you don't, then you come over and steal half my crops because...
I have the right to steal half your crops if I am cloxse to die by starvation, yes. The state is here to enforce that I don't need to steal but enforce laws that makes peacful means through redistribution, which is not stealing.
The only such major extremist mentality where redistribution is stealing is to be found in the U.S.
I am against minorities? If you mean economic minorities, then yes. I value such life higher than your pathetic "rights" to fraud money.
@underbjorn so I do the labor and grow the crops, and I have to split the reward with you because you didn't? Even if you were given an exact same plot of land and seeds and had the exact same abilities, by choosing not to do any work, you are automatically entitled to some arbitrary portion of the product of other people's labor?
You do realize how fucking stupid that comparison is. The whole point of socialism is that the one who does the labour shall get the rewards. If somebody works his arse off at a factory and gets worthless salary that can't feed his family, then it's obvious his reward isn't enough.
Products should be priced after the effort put into it, not by what some director charges.
@underbjorn So you would say "prices should be determined according to effort."
So in this case, someone who sweats their ass off collecting aluminium cans should be paid more than someone who will soon be inventing driverless cars. Innovation needs to be rewarded! This is why socialism is so stagnating!
The one who collects aluminium cans should anyhow not be forced to starve or die on the street just because the employer is arbitrary in choosing who to employ.
@underbjorn it's called the labor theory of value. I didn't think even most socialists supported such economic nonsense anymore. You can spend a week of hard work making a pack of gum, I'm not going to pay more than a dollar for it. The value of everything is relative to supply and demand, that is a simple fact. Labor is not magically exempt from this. The basic premise of property rights is that scarce resources should be distributed as fairly as possible, and from there people can do what...
Supply and demand should govern but not above all morals and principles.
"The basic premise of property rights is that scarce resources should be distributed as fairly as possible"
Interesting, distributed as fairly as possible you say? You think inheriting a corporate empire controlling the income for livelihoods of hundreds of thousands is distributed fairly? Pressing down salaries, removing employment security and working conditions for third world employees is great, no?
@underbjorn What morals and principles? That some people should arbitrarily get more for doing less? By your logic, the guy that digs ditches and fills them back in should be paid as much as someone who has a much easier office job, but actually does something productive. If we ran a system like that, everyone would just do the simplest most unproductive but labor intensive thing they could think of.
I know you think of bankers like doing something "productive" and the rest, all...what do you call it, blue-collar? Are just doing unnecessary shit.
You think the economy could be solely based on bankers, huh? Nobody standing for actual, real production?
The people who assembles a car doesn't own it but it's not the directors that works on it. People filling ditches is once again a stupid American's pathetic example.
@underbjorn labor is no different from any other scarce resource. The best way to allocate it is with supply and demand. If you perverse that in any way by changing the prices arbitrarily so it no longer accurately reflects the supply and demand, the results are going to be equally perverse.
Yea I know, it's really perverse here in Europe, Muslim savages chopping off people's heads blah blah whatever you Americans think. The labour market is and will always be slow-adapting, even with a ban on unions there would always be a time where companies want a particular sort of educated people, say engineers, and there aren't that many. Then demand shifts again to something else, educating people doesn't go in one day.
@underbjorn how slow a specific market is to adapt to change is irrelevant. Whatever factors that make it so hard to determine supply and demand in the first place are not going to be solved better by bureaucrats several times removed from an election process that doesn't represent anyone fairly to begin with.
Irrelevant? Your discarding of core issues is disturbing, it's key, idiot. How do you know that, your usual American-mentality "waah communists!" that makes you afraid of bureaucrats?
The last "several times removed from an election process that doesn't represent anyone fairly to begin with" I don't understand what it's supposed to mean at all, you mean that elections where aren't representative?
...they like with them. If you take a worthless plot of land that no one wants and turn it into something with large value (like an extremely productive farm for example) then no one else has any legitimate claim to it. It doesn't matter how much or how little work you put into it, it's worth what others value it as being worth to them, and if they pay you for it the money is YOURS.
You do realize there are no such thing as a plot of land that is "worthless", -_- So you say that if you take a random plot of land, then it's yours? And you say you're against stealing? xD Wtf, xD
No, if you put effort into something, regardless of what some whining capitalist tells, you have a right to get paid sufficient for it. Noone should be forced to starve because you want a few to be ultra wealthy.
@underbjorn there's no such thing as a "worthless" plot of land? There is lots of unclaimed and unused property in the world. Aquiring ownership over a part of nature is called homesteading. The first person to use a resource gets it. Prior to a homesteader, a resource is not scarce, anyone that desires it can do the same. It can only become scarce after the homesteader finds value in it. If multiple people try to homestead it at the same time, then they have to split it evenly.
Haha yea where, at the bottom of the ocean? Antarctica? All natural resources are the posession of the whiole people of the country in which jurisdiction it lies until market or otherwise it has been redistributed.
@underbjorn since there is no premise for that claim I can't dispute it. All NR's are property of the people? No, anyone that wants to use an unclaimed resource is welcome to, and if no one does, it's hardly their property after-the-fact when someone does make use of it.
On a free market, bankers wouldn't be able to print money out of thin air, and so their role in the economy would be very different then it is now.
1. Unclaimed resources? Youv talk about this all the time as if your fantasy world coincided with reality, there are no such things. All land belongs to someone, what do you need to claim land according to you? A flag? A chartered trading company?
2. Bankers create money out of thin air? Bwahah, yea in America where private entrepreneurs control the money supply and not the elected government, I understand your concern.
@underbjorn 1. WTF are you talking about? Homesteading is not terribly complicated.
2. Name a single country that doesn't use fiat currency.
No, most politicians are elected by 10-20% of an uninformed population that rarely agrees with them on the issues anyways, they just select the most preffered canidate of the 2 selected for them.
1. Homesteading? You are talking about unclaimed resources, that is if you walk out in the woods and say "hey this area isn't used, I'll use it and then own it". Now I don't disagree with you, I think as long as you productively use a piece of land (in a sustainable way) you should be able to do so. But there are no unclaimed land in this world.
2. That wasn't the discussed topic but the control of private interests in a representative democracy.
The US empire is collapsing, there is no doubt about that, but the rest of the world is going to go with it. Turning it into a socialist hell hole at the last minute would only make it worse.
Northern Europe is some thousand times better than the U.S Empire, yes. Socialist hellhole?
You are just another amongst a whole lot stupid Americans, like the village fool of the globalized world. First you could learn what socialism is and then why Scandinavia is a "hellhole" and how we would make it worse.
We don't invade random countries, take their oil, reinforce brutal dictators who slaughter their own people, spit on poor while your billionaires get extra millions etc.
Innocent for what? Here we have an American who calls Sweden a country going to war against "innocent people" without further elaboration when your country has supported slaughtering of innocents abroad than most others in the last century.
But well, I have this feeling your "innocent" are the ultra ultra-rich. Like they care if they get a million more or less.
@underbjorn obviously they do, besides, do you really expect me to believe only the super rich pay taxes, even in Sweden? Any country that worked like that would just have everyone that started earning over a specified amount move unless they really liked the country, the tax rate was low enough, or they had no choice.
Everybody pay taxes, we are not like America where only the poor pay fat taxes relative to their income.
"obviously they do"
Sadly they are in a minority, I'd rather see a transfer of abundant millions from billionares to poor than see the poor starve like you greedy creeps.
What do you mean "prove it", that's an ideological stance where I think every man born (Or woman for that matter) has a value above money in which his or her life is worth something in itself, not worth in dollars.
Therefore, if I have f.e a sick, dying child with no means to survive without assistance and a fat, greedy 60-year old white bank director with a couple of billions, I'd not hestitate for one second to redistribute.
@underbjorn So you are saying the irresponsible parents are not the guilty party? Rather the business man or anyone else for that matter, should be punished for their sucess for arbitrary and unrelated reasons outside their control?
"Irresponsible parents"? This is why most people find you lot so disgusting, how is it irresponsible to be born into a poor family with parents that just as well could be slaving their arses off every day to feed their children.
Irresponsible is it to not aid your fellow human being.
Their success might just as well be the result of a greedy, corrupt system such as the American. Only those greedy people see this as punishment, the parents aren't exactly well off idiot.
@underbjorn immagine a hypothetical society of beings that could reproduce instantly at will with no costs associated (directly.) Immagine this society follows your system of morality and the actual burden of raising and providing for each new child is unloaded on to the entire population rather then the individual, or at least as long as they can't do it themselves. The flaw in this system should be obvious. Just one person can be a dick and bring down everyone into abject poverty.
Are you actually saying that if a multibillionaire lost a couple of millions to feed sick children, that is equal to "bring down everyone into abject poverty."? Seriously, you got some issues.
If we have a country where 90% of all resources, capital and assets are owned by 1%, with a stunning gini coefficient and pretty good GDP/capita but disastrous HDI you would tell poor parents to support their children better with whatever they already got? Are they "a dick" then?
@underbjorn if you socialize the cost of reproduction, it is inevitable you will have to socialize reproduction itself. Limit the number of kids people can have, not hold them responsible for child abuse, etc. Also, stop this "tax the rich" nonsense. Whether rich people rightfully own their wealth or not is a seperate issue, and if they really don't, then the worst thing you could do is give arbitrary amounts of it to people that over-reproduce.
You are a fucking clown, you would rather forbid people to have children than assisting them?
"Tax the rich nonsense"? Hahah, xD Sadly I don't want to go back to a feudal society.
You might see everything that is against a feudal society as a separate issue but if somebody is borne a billionaire and the law says x% of his income should be redistributed, it's not "arbitrary".
The worst thign that can happen is that the billionaire loses some millions which is perfectly fair.
@underbjorn false dichotomy. Sure I would help children on a voluntary basis, I certainly wouldn't shoot anyone for not helping them which is what you are essentially advocating, and the last thing I would do is put them in the care of some power hungry politician or bureaucrat. I also blame the parents for putting the kid in that situation because if they were good parents the kid wouldn't be in that situation in the first place.
Property is either righfully owned by a person or it isn't...
...If it isn't than you give it to who does own it. You're system of property rights IS completely arbitrary and inconsistent. Your only premise seems to be that whatever the powers that be decide is right, is automatically right.
You thinks people don't have a right to live but you think people have some birthright to material possessions by force. Then why can't the government take it by force if corporations can?
The government represent a people, the corporation represent elitist, corrupt wealthy who has no other interest than redistribution of wealth in the opposite direction from the government, from the people to themselves.
"you can have a democracy with property rights, so long as everyone consents. The problem is you forcing it onto those that don't."
So you are saying that if 1 person choose not to consent, it is impossible to have a democracy with property rights? What does that make the United States, the most oppressive non-demcoracy ever just because 1 person might not agree with the government.
As always, you put words in my mouth, I am against warfare as I am against capital punishment. Those are American and imperialist traits.
I would never put children in the care of some power-hungry, corrupt corporation who'd just use them as cheap labour. How can you blame parents for being poor? Like it's their fault if every job is controlled by corporation X and that corporation gives them slave salaries, idiot.
@underbjorn I'm not blaming them for being poor, but if your poor and can't afford food, then you have no right to have a kid that will be forced into starvation. Alternatively, they also don't have a right to have kids and force the burden of them off to other people. That would be like me buying a car and making you pay for it.
Most absurd comparison ever heard, who are you to decide who has the right to have children and not? Fucking idiot, they most probably dont have sexual education either, what do you expect, ofc they have a right to have children.
You can have a perfectly healthy population as long as you prioritate people over money, the problem is you are forcing people into it who don't consent.
@underbjorn I don't consent to pay your bills esspecially if you are paying for a dozen kids. You are trying to make child birth something sacred so that you can ignore any economic costs associated with it, then you admit it has economic costs and want to force it onto other people. Why can't I just buy 12 cars and make the state and my neighbors pay for them? How is there any difference?
Because you don't NEED 12 cars. What a clown you are.
Unless you are going to provide free sexual education, put cameras into their bedrooms or forcibly sterilize them, how are you going to hinder them from having children?
...
Why should people be forced to pay for policing your property, forced to pay taxes for your wars, in your non-logic, society should be removed as a whole.
Humans are sacred according to me, money is to you.
Good point - I'm perfectly fine paying the cost of protecting my own property and I never suggested otherwise.
Oh, so when discussing economics you somehow automatically win by wrongly asserting the other person considers something other than your unrelated and vaguely defined premise as "sacred". Now you are really starting to sound like a creationist.
@underbjorn it's necessary to maximize economic utility in a society. If people do truly make decisions generally in their own best-interest, than letting them make those decisions for themselves and no one else is the optimal way to do it.
Because the individual is irrational and economic utility does not take ecological and social sustainability into account, and demand shadow acreages in the third world being their waste bin and pool of underpriced resources, believing giving a few mega corporations the power of an elected government is not the optimal way to do it.
@underbjorn not as irrational as the state nor the aggregate irrationality of the majority plus their self interest. Even if a few people do make stupid decisions, which is going to happen under any system as long as human beings still do make decisions, I'd much rather have them as the responsible party than me or anyone else.
WTF the rest of your comment is about is beyond me. Go regurgitate propaganda somewhere else.
"WTF the rest of your comment is about is beyond me. Go regurgitate propaganda somewhere else."
Just because you are uneducated doesn't mean it's "propaganda", but yes it is beyond you. In academics, in sociology, social anthropology ad international relations studies, sustainability is a core theme.
If you don't know what social sustainability or shadow acreages is, look it up instead of staying uneducated American.
The state is only irrational in a capitalist sense.
@underbjorn no, you just listed random shit I don't give a crap about, but if it's so relevant I adress it, fine. I'll start with the first one; "ecological sustainability". The government is the greatest polluter and on top of that it shifts the burden of responsibility of pollution away from the responsible parties, creating a tragedy of the commons that privatizes the advantages of polluting but collectivizes the losses.
"Social sustainability". Completely irrelevant to economics and the...
...government should not be involved in social issues anyways or regulate the culture, isn't that what liberals supposedly believe in anyways? Why don't we just adopt a state religion? Religion is a proven way to create "social sustainability" and can have a strong influence on almost every area of life. It can be completely made up, it doesn't matter...
...Relations with other countries has nothing to do with the optimal economic policy for a country. Besides, allowing voluntary trade with other countries is going to be more beneficial to them then cutting it off. In fact cutting of that trade is usually used as a punishment for countries we don't like.
Good that you acknowledge that feeding people made-up bullshit creates social sustainability, because individuals are stupid they believe anything if they are not enough educated.
Government should be involved in social issues to preserve peace by f.e defusing ethnic and religious conflicts.
...
Trade with others should exist, America punishes countries to the left and right all the time, it's a known circus, that was never in question.
The government in the U.S is the biggest polluter because there are certain politicians who refuse to withdraw from oil and coal which are produced by commercials, but I didn't think you'd know that. In the rest of the world, especially the third world, commercial corporations are the #1 illegal polluter, dumping waste straight into fresh water and nature etc to minimize costs.
But yes, the U.S has failed ecological laws, tho not California, quite admirable on that issue really
California has shown that not all Americans are plain-stupid zealots but can think constructively as well.
Bangladesh is an excellent example, as Nigeria and Congo-Kinshasa, of what happens with no effective government regulation of commercial waste-dumping, recklessly killing tens of thousands through disease and deadbornes.
@underbjorn WTF!? How is that an example of a free market? Sure, no magical regulations, but no property rights either.
So much for constructive, the cost of living is higher, they are in deep debt, and businesses are fleeing. Also it's not run by a world-wide central government, so clearly whatever they are doing is wrong and doesn't work.
"if companies are dumping waste and it's affecting other people, that is a violation of property rights."
How can it be a violation if we say, the corrupt government gave the ownership of nearby land to company X, like Shell in the Niger delta for example.
I don't know about the last one, liberals and evil, I am not an American so i don't use religious terms like evil and I am a social democrat, not liberal.
@underbjorn because I am not you nor the governments property, and if you do something to poison me, then it would be no different than if you did something to burn my house down. Property rights are not subjective to what some corrupt government decides.
So you say property rights are above the subject of law, like God? Now might I ask you where you got that from, myself i say that the right to own property is a human right, for in fact, it is mentioned in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It still is subject to the sovereignity of nations.
Do realize that the acting party of most environmental pollution since the demise of the Eastern bloc are multinationals, not individual states.
Damn that's taking it beoynd the extremest of extremes. So what about the air, as it passes through my body, does it become my property then? Can I charge others for breathing it?
Murder is above the subject of law, haha, why have laws then if they are useless. So if I kill you, I don't break the law, I only violate your divine "property rights". Guess God alone can punish me then.
@underbjorn claiming I own my body is extreme?!? Fuck, you are further gone than I thought. Than again, you think everyone and everything is property of some self-appointed ruling class, so what did I expect?
I never said the word "divine" once, nor have I ever invoked a religous deity to defend any of my claims. Your tearing down a straw man.
@underbjorn almost everyone accepts that murder, let alone the broader subject of morality, is "above" the law. Clearly there are many examples in history where governments have done things that are wrong, and made things illegal that weren't. If you think government is magically the ultimate source of morality, how is that different from how the religous view their gods?
No government is established with the consent of all it's subjects, the founders are always self-appointed.
Uh-uh, now you are just ranting. Everything is defined by law, national law is up to the sovereignity of the government, the sovereignity and not to mention legitmiacy of the government according to the philosphy I follow very much be questioned in a wide range of cases.
When you talk of right and wrong, that is a question of faith and moral, not of law. I have never said government is the ultimate source of anything.
Rather than get mad at the Koch brothers, why don't you get mad at the people responsible for putting those politicians in office... the American people.
typical ..left wing hypocrisy...no mention of soros and his money !!!! lefties???...nooooo..and god knows..the unions never buy politicians..lol cenk you shill....truth is their all crooks..left/ right...term limits my friends, and a flat tax with no exemptions,so simple!
Say now to the Koch (k). I hate Kochheads, they tend tend to smell. I agree to SAADUK92, they should move their fat white asses to Somalia to see how far they get.
With the amount of money flowing around Washing from lobby's and government unions that buy and influence politicians for political favors and subsidy money, even the title is a joke.
perhaps ( no offense i really love the show u are brilliant truly) u should consider bringing in some people for debate that you dont already agree with :) you are so intelligent, why not use it taking down republicans and the big bad coorporations...
America (and here in Canada also) loves to brag how free & brave they are, but when their freedom is threatened....most seem to have given into the fact that they have no power to change things. Well, until the majority of Americans wake up & DEMAND change COLLECTIVELY, things will only get worse. These politicians have average folks on the Left & Right fighting each other, rather then the real threat. Its sad to see.
@donnyforte2 : ah, so many idiots on TYT videos (as usual).
Nope, the tp mvt was started by Ron Paul supporters during last prez election cycle. Much of what you libtards now hear from the mainstream now are largely sanitized / manipulated version by lib/demo operatives.
@tooltalk Ah, so many libertarian goofballs spamming the TYT videos (as usual).
Americans for Prosperity made the movement mobile. And that's where billionaire libertarian David Koch came in handy. He has money all over the place.
@donnyforte2 Andjust how much money did the Public union spend on promoting the liberal judge in Wisconsin so that they could try and overturn a law that was legally passed limiting colective bargaining. Just how much money are they going to put in to try and recall 19 legally elected officials? And how much money are they going to force the state and ultimately, it's citizens taxpayers, to cough up to defend themselves? Yea, it's all about the children and only The Koch Brothers are doing this.
@mickeysears hell yeah mickey, i cant believe those liberal thugs threatening the LEGALLY ELECTED scott walker the greatest man to ever live. fuck the evil unions
@mickeysears Irony. Walker's putting the burden on working families and not taxing corporations or the wealthy. Short term, there wasn't a budget problem until he gave tax breaks to corporations. It was also nice of him to give no bid contracts to the Koch brothers. Unions agreed to Walker's cuts, but not future bargaining rights. This will hurt both private and public sectors and the state. There isn't even an estate tax in Wisconsin anymore. The super rich get richer-- the majority get poorer.
@donnyforte2 No this won't hurt both public and private sectors and the state. It will hurt the unions leadership. It will take away some of the power they wield over state politicians clamoring for campaign contributions. If you can't see that it's immoral that politicians decide the contracts of pubic union workers with tax payer money. And those same politicains then recieve contributions from those unions. And you think that doesn't hurt the state and the rest (85%) of it's citizens?
@mickeysears "some of the power they wield over state politicians clamoring for campaign contributions"
You realize 7 out of the top 10 campaign donors are right ring, yes? There's a reason why they want to target public unions- it's their only small competition. Money won here.
"And you think that doesn't hurt the state and the rest (85%) of it's citizens?"
Again, they agreed to Walker's cuts. They're taking a hit... when are the super wealthy and corporations gonna take a hit, hm?
@donnyforte2 And when the rich and corporations "take their hit" as you say, and when they move out of the state because they don't really have to take a hit, just where is the employment going to come from? The Small business owner wouldn't be able to afford the tax burden after you gotten rid of the rich. Just look at New York. Didn't governor Patterson admit that very thing because of the millionairs tax. And didn't governor Cuomo get rid of that tax because the rich were moving?
@donnyforte2 And the final sad fact you fail to consider is that a higher tax rate doesn't mean more revenue. It just pushes the money under ground. Small business owners start to do more cash business. Corproations get more tax subsidy to not move from the state and have layers of lawyers to show no income to pay no tax. The poor have no tax burden so again the only people you hurt are the people working and receive a regular paycheck. Your beloved middle class. thay end up with the burden.
@donnyforte2 By the way, If you try to tax the rich more than other states the corporations and rich will just move. What your don't see is that when that happens, the state will eventually have to make up that difference on the backs of the people that couldn't afford to move because they now have more expensive contracts. And since it would be immoral to tax the poor, it will fall on the middle class. The same poeple you say not taxing the rich hurts. Do you even see your folly?
@donnyforte2 : it's just amazing how ignorant you libtard lemmings are.
Honey, unlike most libtards' monolithic mvt created by their power elite, then often dressed up as grassroot, the tp mvt is a true local, decentralized, grassroot mvt - all without elite leadership with high-ideal or grand vision. Likewise, Paul himself never tried to claim credit for starting the mvt, much less take control of the mvt - emphasizing that the mvt belongs to the folks at the bottom, not at the top.
@tooltalk "it's just amazing how ignorant you libtard lemmings are"
It's amazing you think I give a shit about how the Tea Party started and not what it is and what it promotes today. It's not like the alternative was any better.
@donnyforte2 : exactly. That's what modern liberalism is and has steadily declined since its peak in the sixties and won't survve the impending economi crisis this decade. Many have abandoned the ship and tried to appear as conservative (neoconservatives) or pro free market (neolIberals) to stay relevant, but their time is also running out.
@donnyforte2 : Even Chomsky, of all people, has come out against the libtards' swindlers/propagandists effort to defame the mvt, born out of their tribal instinct for their political survival.
the billionaire Koch Brothers are the current example of Free-Market Fundamentalism, but they also represent the end of this Democratic-Republic. When in history have elites ever been Democratic?
Oishi08 3 months ago
PAID FOR BY GEORGE SOROS
Salvysahagun 4 months ago
@Salvysahagun ... lpretty stingy compared to the Koch Brothers, I mean, most of the stuff he helps fund get most of their funding from elsewhere, and Soros does not fund nearly as many of them, or spend nearly as much money.
dangerouslytalented 2 months ago
@dangerouslytalented
You don't recall the March on Haliburton back in 2006?
It was organized by Moveon.org which is George Soro's political subsidary
After the political cult deflated the stock Soros' fund bought out the stock then after the protest was done the it went back up.
Why do liberals hate the Koch Bros who provide a REAL industry but love professional wall street speculator George Soros??
Salvysahagun 2 months ago
@Salvysahagun Is that all you have got?Moveon don't even get the majority of their funding from Soros,and are not controlled by him the way the puppetmasters at Koch Industries control their stable of lobbyists and special interest groups and think tanks and so forth.Soros is an opportunist.He will buy whatever he thinks is undervalued, but a protest march on a military contractor whose contracts were unaffected by the protest march,that's not going to affect profitability one iota
dangerouslytalented 2 months ago
Me and my church pray Wednesday nights for the death of the Koch brothers. You probably think poorly of our church, but otherwise, we are very very loving. These guys represent the beast
acchokiefan 5 months ago
KOCH BROTHERS BUY AMERICA BY BUYING POLITICIANS !!!
kn9ioutom 5 months ago in playlist kn9ioutom's Favorited Videos
PERRY HAS SOLD HIS SOUL TO KOCH BROTHERS !!!
kn9ioutom 5 months ago in playlist kn9ioutom's Favorited Videos
What do the owners of this country want? They want it all.
They want your social security too, and they will get it.
776281 5 months ago
Koch Brothers are attempting to control Congress but the People will have the last word!!
cecile0716 5 months ago
I've heard of people buying coke. Now, Koch's buying people. Sad.
EzrinJem2 5 months ago
In other words, two Libertarians know they can't get a bunch of Libertarians into office so pick a party, Republican and fund it and get them into office and shift the traditional Republican platform to become libertarian policies.
Foreshadow44 5 months ago
GOP CONTROL SUPREME COURT ! GOP CONTROL CONGRESS ! GOP HAVE FILIBUSTER IN SENATE ! AMERICAN ECONOMY IS CHECKMATED !!!
kn9ioutom 6 months ago
GOP RICH DO NOT WANT TO PAY FOR THEIR IRAQ OIL WAR ???
kn9ioutom 7 months ago
KOCH MONEY BUYS GOP ! AMERICA FOR SALE ???
kn9ioutom 7 months ago
NEVER STEAL ANYTHING SMALL ! LIKE A SENATE SEAT ! STEAL STATES INSTEAD !
kn9ioutom 7 months ago
The Koch's even bought the ACLU AND PBS.
The history of the Koch's is even more telling. Their grandmom was "the Bitch of Buchenwald". Buchenwald being the concentration camp that her husband operated, she collected the skin of dead inmates, particularly tattoos. Super sane family there, not.
danielvincentkelley 8 months ago
@danielvincentkelley The Koch bros create jobs for 50,000 people. Thats a lot more than Obama has done.
calimar28 7 months ago
@calimar28
As Tea Party Koch Brothers Earned An Extra $11 Billion In Recent Years, They Laid Off Thousands
dirtandseedsDOTTcom/the-koch-brothers-fund-the-tea-party-make-billions-lay-of-workers/
Koch HQ layoffs preceded by cuts at company's subsidiaries
bizjournalsDOTTcom/wichita/stories/2009/01/19/story3..html
I think Obama and the Koch brothers should share a jail cell until their treason prosecution comes through.
danielvincentkelley 7 months ago
@danielvincentkelley The Koch's had to lay off a few people because of the recession yes, so what? They still employ 50,000 people...that's not good enough for you? And it is not the Koch's job to employ people anyway. Their job is to make profitt, as with any buisness.
calimar28 7 months ago
@calimar Yeh, you're right calimar, f@#k people, profit's are more fun. Suck's being a person ay? it being that the billionaires are coveting profits. I don't know if you read those articles, but they allege that the Koch's haven't been hit by the "recession" in the least, that people are still wiping their asses, that they made $11,000,000,000 more than their earnings in the years prior, all the while subjecting people to dangerous work conditions by frantic chaos, as much work but less workers
danielvincentkelley 7 months ago
.........For Big Sausage Pizza??.
Tmetrvlr 8 months ago
Lie they do with Sausage & Wieners????????. And flagrantly wiggle them around like that one reporter did at the Oktoberfest celebration????????????.
Tmetrvlr 9 months ago
This is a budget and Revolt will happen, Republicians will lose. Tax the rich.
ladybird1124 9 months ago
@ladybird1124 Then they'll leave, and then you'll be taxing the kind-of-rich, then the upper middle class, than the middle class, and pretty soon all that's left is poor people.
Houshalter 9 months ago
@Houshalter ---
Which ofc is your hypothesis which is built on what, thin air.
If they leave you impose restrictions on moving property across the border, it's that simple.
They have no divine right to own property.
underbjorn 9 months ago
@underbjorn that's the exact same method Hitler used to keep Jews from leaving before the holocaust. God you are evil.
Houshalter 9 months ago
I always suspected that republicans were hooked on Koch.
princechiv1 10 months ago
More like the Cock Brother's!
MaryL208 10 months ago
Im cool with Social Security going away now rather than waiting till 2017 according to my Social Security Statement. No shit. It said it will be bankrupt, so why wait?
PlatypuSPawn 10 months ago
Why not expose all the lobbying and giving that cuts both ways. It seams that MSNBC has mastered the art of pitting us against eachother when both Dems and Reps end up doing the same thing.
btbblack 10 months ago
Come on Cenk...this isn't news.
ooMONKEYoo 10 months ago
Down with Koch!!
dovespin1 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
So if the Kochs have payed MILLIONS upon MILLIONS for the libertarian/republican cause, why does everyone assume it is for their personal benefit? I'm sure they wouldn't even be paying that much in taxes under a democrat.
The bottom line: They don't want the entire country to go to the shitter (like union run Detroit).
This demagoguery by Cenk is unbearable. His high school age audience needs to stop listening to him and pick up a few economics books.
SSGurgs 10 months ago
...Kock brothers = coke brothers = cocaine sniffing crackhead Republican Elephants... hehehe... the Snuffie Elephants that can NOT say no... and they say YES to drugs... HA?! ...hehehe...
marktsheppard 10 months ago
Koch Industries – Federally subsidized [subsidiaries]
-
Matador Cattle Company
Georgia-Pacific Paper
Ethanol
Federally mandated Eminent Domain for their pipelines
-
Observer [dot] com/2010/daily-transom/how-libertarian-koch-bros-benefit-corporate-welfare
21tikcah 10 months ago 3
Comment removed
Houshalter 10 months ago
So I guess The Tea Party is a Gas Roots movement? :)
:P
Joxman2k 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
He calls libertarianism an "extremist ideology". It's like if one person thinks 2 + 2 = 4, another 100, and another 500. Let's not be an extremist here...
Also, the fact that two politically active people happen to be rich isn't an argument for anything.
Houshalter 10 months ago
Houshalter –‘..."extremist ideology"....’-
-
Not one prominent politician –‘runs under their party banner ...’- yet both Pauls and a lot of tea-baggers seem to –‘repeat a lot’- of their -'specious rhetoric'-.
-
Ayn - Rand Paul :
.... business over customers, if black .... is OK !
Defended BP to attack Obama !
Coal mining over environment and miners !
Ignoring the corporate immunity in the man-slaughters ... in both incidents.
Cont
ellipsis4321 10 months ago 4
...
More lenient on drug, sexual issues, and abortion [usually], that Con.’s – BUT, Same as traditional whores for the Robber Barons
... if you incorporate – you can fuck everybody. ....
–‘extremely’- different rhetoric
... seems to be no moral or philosophic common ground.
-
Liberty and justice for all – except the corp. gets more !
Cont
blevr1234 10 months ago 5
...
Slightly liberal Conservative - con-men would seem more accurate ....
...
Extreme :
berserk, bigoted, bitten, chauvinist, delirious, deranged, doctrinaire, dogmatist, enthusiast, fanatic, fiend, foaming at the mouth, insane, intemperate, intolerant, irrational, maniac, monomaniac, narrow-minded, nutty, obsessed, overboard, opinionated, persecutor, puritan, racist, segregationist, sexist, stickler, wild, zealot
blevr1234 10 months ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
@ellipsis4321 Your comments are incoherent.
Houshalter 10 months ago
@Houshalter ---
Please, somebody who wants to worships a police state which funds arms to Israel, Saudi Arabia and I don't know what hellhole and calls that "small government" clearly has something wrong in his brain.
The society should help disadvantaged like handicapped, pensioners and sick people in all ways possible, else move to Somalia.
Society should not help slaughter other human beings.
Society with an elected, trusted and representative state operating for and through it's people.
underbjorn 10 months ago
@underbjorn The society should NOT steal people's property, else move to North Korea.
So it's ok if two people vote to rape the third?
Houshalter 10 months ago
@Houshalter ---
¨People who never work and are born into a billionare family should help, that's the right thing to do everywhere but in the filthy U.S. You really despice democracy, do you? Who talks about raping people, it's a complete absurd comparison.
If the alternatives are between starving people and "stealing", it's "stealing".
underbjorn 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@underbjorn what's wrong with being born into a rich family? If you make alot of money in your life, it makes no difference to anyone else wether you consume it all yourself or give some to others like family members.
No it is not an absurd comparison. You want to give the majority the power to violate the rights of the minorities. To be consistent you have to hold that principle true in all circumstances.
If I grow a garden and you don't, then you come over and steal half my crops because...
Houshalter 10 months ago
@Houshalter ---
I have the right to steal half your crops if I am cloxse to die by starvation, yes. The state is here to enforce that I don't need to steal but enforce laws that makes peacful means through redistribution, which is not stealing.
The only such major extremist mentality where redistribution is stealing is to be found in the U.S.
I am against minorities? If you mean economic minorities, then yes. I value such life higher than your pathetic "rights" to fraud money.
underbjorn 10 months ago
@underbjorn so I do the labor and grow the crops, and I have to split the reward with you because you didn't? Even if you were given an exact same plot of land and seeds and had the exact same abilities, by choosing not to do any work, you are automatically entitled to some arbitrary portion of the product of other people's labor?
Houshalter 10 months ago
@Houshalter ---
You do realize how fucking stupid that comparison is. The whole point of socialism is that the one who does the labour shall get the rewards. If somebody works his arse off at a factory and gets worthless salary that can't feed his family, then it's obvious his reward isn't enough.
Products should be priced after the effort put into it, not by what some director charges.
underbjorn 10 months ago
@underbjorn So you would say "prices should be determined according to effort."
So in this case, someone who sweats their ass off collecting aluminium cans should be paid more than someone who will soon be inventing driverless cars. Innovation needs to be rewarded! This is why socialism is so stagnating!
SSGurgs 10 months ago
@SSGurgs ---
The one who collects aluminium cans should anyhow not be forced to starve or die on the street just because the employer is arbitrary in choosing who to employ.
underbjorn 10 months ago
@underbjorn it's called the labor theory of value. I didn't think even most socialists supported such economic nonsense anymore. You can spend a week of hard work making a pack of gum, I'm not going to pay more than a dollar for it. The value of everything is relative to supply and demand, that is a simple fact. Labor is not magically exempt from this. The basic premise of property rights is that scarce resources should be distributed as fairly as possible, and from there people can do what...
Houshalter 10 months ago
@Houshalter ---
Supply and demand should govern but not above all morals and principles.
"The basic premise of property rights is that scarce resources should be distributed as fairly as possible"
Interesting, distributed as fairly as possible you say? You think inheriting a corporate empire controlling the income for livelihoods of hundreds of thousands is distributed fairly? Pressing down salaries, removing employment security and working conditions for third world employees is great, no?
underbjorn 10 months ago
@underbjorn What morals and principles? That some people should arbitrarily get more for doing less? By your logic, the guy that digs ditches and fills them back in should be paid as much as someone who has a much easier office job, but actually does something productive. If we ran a system like that, everyone would just do the simplest most unproductive but labor intensive thing they could think of.
Houshalter 10 months ago
@Houshalter ---
I know you think of bankers like doing something "productive" and the rest, all...what do you call it, blue-collar? Are just doing unnecessary shit.
You think the economy could be solely based on bankers, huh? Nobody standing for actual, real production?
The people who assembles a car doesn't own it but it's not the directors that works on it. People filling ditches is once again a stupid American's pathetic example.
underbjorn 10 months ago
@underbjorn labor is no different from any other scarce resource. The best way to allocate it is with supply and demand. If you perverse that in any way by changing the prices arbitrarily so it no longer accurately reflects the supply and demand, the results are going to be equally perverse.
Houshalter 10 months ago
@Houshalter ---
Yea I know, it's really perverse here in Europe, Muslim savages chopping off people's heads blah blah whatever you Americans think. The labour market is and will always be slow-adapting, even with a ban on unions there would always be a time where companies want a particular sort of educated people, say engineers, and there aren't that many. Then demand shifts again to something else, educating people doesn't go in one day.
It takes years.
underbjorn 10 months ago
@underbjorn how slow a specific market is to adapt to change is irrelevant. Whatever factors that make it so hard to determine supply and demand in the first place are not going to be solved better by bureaucrats several times removed from an election process that doesn't represent anyone fairly to begin with.
Houshalter 10 months ago
@Houshalter ---
Irrelevant? Your discarding of core issues is disturbing, it's key, idiot. How do you know that, your usual American-mentality "waah communists!" that makes you afraid of bureaucrats?
The last "several times removed from an election process that doesn't represent anyone fairly to begin with" I don't understand what it's supposed to mean at all, you mean that elections where aren't representative?
underbjorn 10 months ago
...they like with them. If you take a worthless plot of land that no one wants and turn it into something with large value (like an extremely productive farm for example) then no one else has any legitimate claim to it. It doesn't matter how much or how little work you put into it, it's worth what others value it as being worth to them, and if they pay you for it the money is YOURS.
Houshalter 10 months ago
@Houshalter ---
You do realize there are no such thing as a plot of land that is "worthless", -_- So you say that if you take a random plot of land, then it's yours? And you say you're against stealing? xD Wtf, xD
No, if you put effort into something, regardless of what some whining capitalist tells, you have a right to get paid sufficient for it. Noone should be forced to starve because you want a few to be ultra wealthy.
underbjorn 10 months ago
@underbjorn there's no such thing as a "worthless" plot of land? There is lots of unclaimed and unused property in the world. Aquiring ownership over a part of nature is called homesteading. The first person to use a resource gets it. Prior to a homesteader, a resource is not scarce, anyone that desires it can do the same. It can only become scarce after the homesteader finds value in it. If multiple people try to homestead it at the same time, then they have to split it evenly.
Houshalter 10 months ago
@Houshalter ---
Haha yea where, at the bottom of the ocean? Antarctica? All natural resources are the posession of the whiole people of the country in which jurisdiction it lies until market or otherwise it has been redistributed.
underbjorn 10 months ago
@underbjorn since there is no premise for that claim I can't dispute it. All NR's are property of the people? No, anyone that wants to use an unclaimed resource is welcome to, and if no one does, it's hardly their property after-the-fact when someone does make use of it.
On a free market, bankers wouldn't be able to print money out of thin air, and so their role in the economy would be very different then it is now.
Houshalter 10 months ago
@Houshalter ---
1. Unclaimed resources? Youv talk about this all the time as if your fantasy world coincided with reality, there are no such things. All land belongs to someone, what do you need to claim land according to you? A flag? A chartered trading company?
2. Bankers create money out of thin air? Bwahah, yea in America where private entrepreneurs control the money supply and not the elected government, I understand your concern.
underbjorn 10 months ago
@underbjorn 1. WTF are you talking about? Homesteading is not terribly complicated.
2. Name a single country that doesn't use fiat currency.
No, most politicians are elected by 10-20% of an uninformed population that rarely agrees with them on the issues anyways, they just select the most preffered canidate of the 2 selected for them.
Yes, it is irrelevant, get over it.
Houshalter 10 months ago
@Houshalter ---
1. Homesteading? You are talking about unclaimed resources, that is if you walk out in the woods and say "hey this area isn't used, I'll use it and then own it". Now I don't disagree with you, I think as long as you productively use a piece of land (in a sustainable way) you should be able to do so. But there are no unclaimed land in this world.
2. That wasn't the discussed topic but the control of private interests in a representative democracy.
3. Yes in the U.S maybe.
underbjorn 10 months ago
@underbjorn like Europe is any better.
The US empire is collapsing, there is no doubt about that, but the rest of the world is going to go with it. Turning it into a socialist hell hole at the last minute would only make it worse.
Houshalter 10 months ago
@Houshalter ---
Northern Europe is some thousand times better than the U.S Empire, yes. Socialist hellhole?
You are just another amongst a whole lot stupid Americans, like the village fool of the globalized world. First you could learn what socialism is and then why Scandinavia is a "hellhole" and how we would make it worse.
We don't invade random countries, take their oil, reinforce brutal dictators who slaughter their own people, spit on poor while your billionaires get extra millions etc.
underbjorn 10 months ago
@underbjorn because you were to busy fighting a war at home against innocent people.
Houshalter 10 months ago
@Houshalter ---
Innocent for what? Here we have an American who calls Sweden a country going to war against "innocent people" without further elaboration when your country has supported slaughtering of innocents abroad than most others in the last century.
But well, I have this feeling your "innocent" are the ultra ultra-rich. Like they care if they get a million more or less.
underbjorn 10 months ago
@underbjorn obviously they do, besides, do you really expect me to believe only the super rich pay taxes, even in Sweden? Any country that worked like that would just have everyone that started earning over a specified amount move unless they really liked the country, the tax rate was low enough, or they had no choice.
Houshalter 10 months ago
@Houshalter ---
Everybody pay taxes, we are not like America where only the poor pay fat taxes relative to their income.
"obviously they do"
Sadly they are in a minority, I'd rather see a transfer of abundant millions from billionares to poor than see the poor starve like you greedy creeps.
underbjorn 10 months ago
@underbjorn as if your mear existence automatically entitles you to the products of others' labor.
Houshalter 10 months ago
*mere
Houshalter 10 months ago
@Houshalter ---
Yes that is my view.
underbjorn 10 months ago
@underbjorn prove it.
Houshalter 10 months ago
@Houshalter ---
What do you mean "prove it", that's an ideological stance where I think every man born (Or woman for that matter) has a value above money in which his or her life is worth something in itself, not worth in dollars.
Therefore, if I have f.e a sick, dying child with no means to survive without assistance and a fat, greedy 60-year old white bank director with a couple of billions, I'd not hestitate for one second to redistribute.
underbjorn 10 months ago
@underbjorn So you are saying the irresponsible parents are not the guilty party? Rather the business man or anyone else for that matter, should be punished for their sucess for arbitrary and unrelated reasons outside their control?
Houshalter 10 months ago
@Houshalter ---
"Irresponsible parents"? This is why most people find you lot so disgusting, how is it irresponsible to be born into a poor family with parents that just as well could be slaving their arses off every day to feed their children.
Irresponsible is it to not aid your fellow human being.
Their success might just as well be the result of a greedy, corrupt system such as the American. Only those greedy people see this as punishment, the parents aren't exactly well off idiot.
underbjorn 10 months ago
@underbjorn immagine a hypothetical society of beings that could reproduce instantly at will with no costs associated (directly.) Immagine this society follows your system of morality and the actual burden of raising and providing for each new child is unloaded on to the entire population rather then the individual, or at least as long as they can't do it themselves. The flaw in this system should be obvious. Just one person can be a dick and bring down everyone into abject poverty.
Houshalter 10 months ago
@Houshalter ---
Are you actually saying that if a multibillionaire lost a couple of millions to feed sick children, that is equal to "bring down everyone into abject poverty."? Seriously, you got some issues.
If we have a country where 90% of all resources, capital and assets are owned by 1%, with a stunning gini coefficient and pretty good GDP/capita but disastrous HDI you would tell poor parents to support their children better with whatever they already got? Are they "a dick" then?
underbjorn 10 months ago
@underbjorn if you socialize the cost of reproduction, it is inevitable you will have to socialize reproduction itself. Limit the number of kids people can have, not hold them responsible for child abuse, etc. Also, stop this "tax the rich" nonsense. Whether rich people rightfully own their wealth or not is a seperate issue, and if they really don't, then the worst thing you could do is give arbitrary amounts of it to people that over-reproduce.
Houshalter 10 months ago
@Houshalter ---
You are a fucking clown, you would rather forbid people to have children than assisting them?
"Tax the rich nonsense"? Hahah, xD Sadly I don't want to go back to a feudal society.
You might see everything that is against a feudal society as a separate issue but if somebody is borne a billionaire and the law says x% of his income should be redistributed, it's not "arbitrary".
The worst thign that can happen is that the billionaire loses some millions which is perfectly fair.
underbjorn 10 months ago
@underbjorn false dichotomy. Sure I would help children on a voluntary basis, I certainly wouldn't shoot anyone for not helping them which is what you are essentially advocating, and the last thing I would do is put them in the care of some power hungry politician or bureaucrat. I also blame the parents for putting the kid in that situation because if they were good parents the kid wouldn't be in that situation in the first place.
Property is either righfully owned by a person or it isn't...
Houshalter 9 months ago
...If it isn't than you give it to who does own it. You're system of property rights IS completely arbitrary and inconsistent. Your only premise seems to be that whatever the powers that be decide is right, is automatically right.
Houshalter 9 months ago
@Houshalter ---
You thinks people don't have a right to live but you think people have some birthright to material possessions by force. Then why can't the government take it by force if corporations can?
The government represent a people, the corporation represent elitist, corrupt wealthy who has no other interest than redistribution of wealth in the opposite direction from the government, from the people to themselves.
A democratic government works the other way.
underbjorn 9 months ago
@underbjorn you can have a democracy with property rights, so long as everyone consents. The problem is you forcing it onto those that don't.
Houshalter 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Houshalter ---
"you can have a democracy with property rights, so long as everyone consents. The problem is you forcing it onto those that don't."
So you are saying that if 1 person choose not to consent, it is impossible to have a democracy with property rights? What does that make the United States, the most oppressive non-demcoracy ever just because 1 person might not agree with the government.
underbjorn 9 months ago
@Houshalter ---
As always, you put words in my mouth, I am against warfare as I am against capital punishment. Those are American and imperialist traits.
I would never put children in the care of some power-hungry, corrupt corporation who'd just use them as cheap labour. How can you blame parents for being poor? Like it's their fault if every job is controlled by corporation X and that corporation gives them slave salaries, idiot.
underbjorn 9 months ago
@underbjorn I'm not blaming them for being poor, but if your poor and can't afford food, then you have no right to have a kid that will be forced into starvation. Alternatively, they also don't have a right to have kids and force the burden of them off to other people. That would be like me buying a car and making you pay for it.
Houshalter 9 months ago 2
@Houshalter ---
Most absurd comparison ever heard, who are you to decide who has the right to have children and not? Fucking idiot, they most probably dont have sexual education either, what do you expect, ofc they have a right to have children.
You can have a perfectly healthy population as long as you prioritate people over money, the problem is you are forcing people into it who don't consent.
underbjorn 9 months ago
@underbjorn I don't consent to pay your bills esspecially if you are paying for a dozen kids. You are trying to make child birth something sacred so that you can ignore any economic costs associated with it, then you admit it has economic costs and want to force it onto other people. Why can't I just buy 12 cars and make the state and my neighbors pay for them? How is there any difference?
Houshalter 9 months ago
@Houshalter ---
Because you don't NEED 12 cars. What a clown you are.
Unless you are going to provide free sexual education, put cameras into their bedrooms or forcibly sterilize them, how are you going to hinder them from having children?
...
Why should people be forced to pay for policing your property, forced to pay taxes for your wars, in your non-logic, society should be removed as a whole.
Humans are sacred according to me, money is to you.
underbjorn 9 months ago
@underbjorn You don't NEED ANY kids!!
Good point - I'm perfectly fine paying the cost of protecting my own property and I never suggested otherwise.
Oh, so when discussing economics you somehow automatically win by wrongly asserting the other person considers something other than your unrelated and vaguely defined premise as "sacred". Now you are really starting to sound like a creationist.
Houshalter 9 months ago
@Houshalter ---
Just because you are a completely absurd, "evil" (You Americans love that expression) extremist thinks property is sacred.
You don't NEED ANY PROPERTY. Go live on the street, nobody said property is sacred.
underbjorn 9 months ago
@underbjorn it's necessary to maximize economic utility in a society. If people do truly make decisions generally in their own best-interest, than letting them make those decisions for themselves and no one else is the optimal way to do it.
Houshalter 9 months ago
@Houshalter ---
Because the individual is irrational and economic utility does not take ecological and social sustainability into account, and demand shadow acreages in the third world being their waste bin and pool of underpriced resources, believing giving a few mega corporations the power of an elected government is not the optimal way to do it.
underbjorn 9 months ago
@underbjorn not as irrational as the state nor the aggregate irrationality of the majority plus their self interest. Even if a few people do make stupid decisions, which is going to happen under any system as long as human beings still do make decisions, I'd much rather have them as the responsible party than me or anyone else.
WTF the rest of your comment is about is beyond me. Go regurgitate propaganda somewhere else.
Houshalter 9 months ago
@Houshalter ---
"WTF the rest of your comment is about is beyond me. Go regurgitate propaganda somewhere else."
Just because you are uneducated doesn't mean it's "propaganda", but yes it is beyond you. In academics, in sociology, social anthropology ad international relations studies, sustainability is a core theme.
If you don't know what social sustainability or shadow acreages is, look it up instead of staying uneducated American.
The state is only irrational in a capitalist sense.
underbjorn 9 months ago
@underbjorn no, you just listed random shit I don't give a crap about, but if it's so relevant I adress it, fine. I'll start with the first one; "ecological sustainability". The government is the greatest polluter and on top of that it shifts the burden of responsibility of pollution away from the responsible parties, creating a tragedy of the commons that privatizes the advantages of polluting but collectivizes the losses.
"Social sustainability". Completely irrelevant to economics and the...
Houshalter 9 months ago
...government should not be involved in social issues anyways or regulate the culture, isn't that what liberals supposedly believe in anyways? Why don't we just adopt a state religion? Religion is a proven way to create "social sustainability" and can have a strong influence on almost every area of life. It can be completely made up, it doesn't matter...
Houshalter 9 months ago
...Relations with other countries has nothing to do with the optimal economic policy for a country. Besides, allowing voluntary trade with other countries is going to be more beneficial to them then cutting it off. In fact cutting of that trade is usually used as a punishment for countries we don't like.
Houshalter 9 months ago
@Houshalter ---
Good that you acknowledge that feeding people made-up bullshit creates social sustainability, because individuals are stupid they believe anything if they are not enough educated.
Government should be involved in social issues to preserve peace by f.e defusing ethnic and religious conflicts.
...
Trade with others should exist, America punishes countries to the left and right all the time, it's a known circus, that was never in question.
underbjorn 9 months ago
@Houshalter ---
The government in the U.S is the biggest polluter because there are certain politicians who refuse to withdraw from oil and coal which are produced by commercials, but I didn't think you'd know that. In the rest of the world, especially the third world, commercial corporations are the #1 illegal polluter, dumping waste straight into fresh water and nature etc to minimize costs.
But yes, the U.S has failed ecological laws, tho not California, quite admirable on that issue really
underbjorn 9 months ago
@underbjorn yes, it's called a violation of property rights. California is broken, not a good example at all.
Houshalter 9 months ago
@Houshalter ---
California has shown that not all Americans are plain-stupid zealots but can think constructively as well.
Bangladesh is an excellent example, as Nigeria and Congo-Kinshasa, of what happens with no effective government regulation of commercial waste-dumping, recklessly killing tens of thousands through disease and deadbornes.
underbjorn 9 months ago
@underbjorn WTF!? How is that an example of a free market? Sure, no magical regulations, but no property rights either.
So much for constructive, the cost of living is higher, they are in deep debt, and businesses are fleeing. Also it's not run by a world-wide central government, so clearly whatever they are doing is wrong and doesn't work.
Houshalter 9 months ago
@Houshalter ---
Are you saying there are no property rights in those places? Businesses are fleeing? That must be them ost absurd outright lies so far.
Businesses are thriving because of no regulations, they can do whatever they wish with no punishment for wrecking the local populace and nature.
The cost of living is higher in Congo than where? Sweden? Wtf?
There are most certainly property rights there, that's why it's so impoverished, commercials, nor the elected govt, owns valuables.
underbjorn 9 months ago
@underbjorn yes, if companies are dumping waste and it's affecting other people, that is a violation of property rights.
The cost of living is higher in CALIFORNIA, and it is a state by the way. Somehow that makes it evil according to liberals.
Houshalter 9 months ago
@Houshalter ---
"if companies are dumping waste and it's affecting other people, that is a violation of property rights."
How can it be a violation if we say, the corrupt government gave the ownership of nearby land to company X, like Shell in the Niger delta for example.
I don't know about the last one, liberals and evil, I am not an American so i don't use religious terms like evil and I am a social democrat, not liberal.
underbjorn 9 months ago
@underbjorn because I am not you nor the governments property, and if you do something to poison me, then it would be no different than if you did something to burn my house down. Property rights are not subjective to what some corrupt government decides.
Houshalter 9 months ago
@Houshalter ---
So you say property rights are above the subject of law, like God? Now might I ask you where you got that from, myself i say that the right to own property is a human right, for in fact, it is mentioned in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It still is subject to the sovereignity of nations.
Do realize that the acting party of most environmental pollution since the demise of the Eastern bloc are multinationals, not individual states.
underbjorn 9 months ago
@underbjorn yes, just like murder is above the subject of law. Your right to own your body is just a form of property rights in itself.
Houshalter 9 months ago
@Houshalter ---
Damn that's taking it beoynd the extremest of extremes. So what about the air, as it passes through my body, does it become my property then? Can I charge others for breathing it?
Murder is above the subject of law, haha, why have laws then if they are useless. So if I kill you, I don't break the law, I only violate your divine "property rights". Guess God alone can punish me then.
underbjorn 9 months ago
@underbjorn claiming I own my body is extreme?!? Fuck, you are further gone than I thought. Than again, you think everyone and everything is property of some self-appointed ruling class, so what did I expect?
I never said the word "divine" once, nor have I ever invoked a religous deity to defend any of my claims. Your tearing down a straw man.
Houshalter 9 months ago
@Houshalter ---
Saying the murder is above the law is extreme. Everything in your word is one big collection of property rights.
That is extreme. Seeing murder as nothing but a violation of property rights is extreme.
The self-appointed ruling class is your word, I support democracy where the people elect their representatives.
underbjorn 9 months ago
@underbjorn almost everyone accepts that murder, let alone the broader subject of morality, is "above" the law. Clearly there are many examples in history where governments have done things that are wrong, and made things illegal that weren't. If you think government is magically the ultimate source of morality, how is that different from how the religous view their gods?
No government is established with the consent of all it's subjects, the founders are always self-appointed.
Houshalter 9 months ago
@Houshalter ---
Uh-uh, now you are just ranting. Everything is defined by law, national law is up to the sovereignity of the government, the sovereignity and not to mention legitmiacy of the government according to the philosphy I follow very much be questioned in a wide range of cases.
When you talk of right and wrong, that is a question of faith and moral, not of law. I have never said government is the ultimate source of anything.
Murder is taking a life without justification.
underbjorn 9 months ago
...you're hungry, how is that justifiable?
Houshalter 10 months ago
@Houshalter ---
What?
underbjorn 10 months ago
@nek0s (Sigh)... yeah, I know :-(
upsilon054 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Classical liberals stood for freeing the individual and the economy...?
And modern liberals stand for... freeing everyone from personal choice, motivation, hard work, and rewards...?
I'll be over here ---> with the libertarians. XD
Unbyjp 10 months ago
I think it's time to emigrate the fuck out.
MonsieurJackAss 10 months ago
Cenk - Please get it right
"Koch brothers buy politicians"
this is wrong
"Koch brothers BRIBE politicians"
is correct
Sarge714 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Rather than get mad at the Koch brothers, why don't you get mad at the people responsible for putting those politicians in office... the American people.
lilnicky492 10 months ago
@lilnicky492, Good point, but read some of "Jpav0923" comments, it might be easier said then done.
TheDalinkwent 10 months ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
typical ..left wing hypocrisy...no mention of soros and his money !!!! lefties???...nooooo..and god knows..the unions never buy politicians..lol cenk you shill....truth is their all crooks..left/ right...term limits my friends, and a flat tax with no exemptions,so simple!
Keys2Eden 10 months ago
it seems like the koch's are on coke
apex61 10 months ago
Say now to the Koch (k). I hate Kochheads, they tend tend to smell. I agree to SAADUK92, they should move their fat white asses to Somalia to see how far they get.
wanker89 10 months ago 2
That man in the background has locks of real gold, it seems.
hitheresunshine 10 months ago
With the amount of money flowing around Washing from lobby's and government unions that buy and influence politicians for political favors and subsidy money, even the title is a joke.
mickeysears 10 months ago
@Fitzcard I agree but Cenk is unloading on Koch brothers as if the bankers didnt exist.
jaba987 10 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Tired of seeing Tyt SPAM videos? Flag them as SPAM and lets get rid of this total loser.
SharkDude1 10 months ago
perhaps ( no offense i really love the show u are brilliant truly) u should consider bringing in some people for debate that you dont already agree with :) you are so intelligent, why not use it taking down republicans and the big bad coorporations...
TheEmiljoergensen 10 months ago
Fuck Pinochet AND Castro.
juanp2k3 10 months ago
America (and here in Canada also) loves to brag how free & brave they are, but when their freedom is threatened....most seem to have given into the fact that they have no power to change things. Well, until the majority of Americans wake up & DEMAND change COLLECTIVELY, things will only get worse. These politicians have average folks on the Left & Right fighting each other, rather then the real threat. Its sad to see.
caper1976 10 months ago
Koch produced the Tea Party... and now they have them working for them. Surprise, surprise.
donnyforte2 10 months ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
@donnyforte2 : ah, so many idiots on TYT videos (as usual).
Nope, the tp mvt was started by Ron Paul supporters during last prez election cycle. Much of what you libtards now hear from the mainstream now are largely sanitized / manipulated version by lib/demo operatives.
tooltalk 10 months ago
@tooltalk Ah, so many libertarian goofballs spamming the TYT videos (as usual).
Americans for Prosperity made the movement mobile. And that's where billionaire libertarian David Koch came in handy. He has money all over the place.
donnyforte2 10 months ago
@donnyforte2 Andjust how much money did the Public union spend on promoting the liberal judge in Wisconsin so that they could try and overturn a law that was legally passed limiting colective bargaining. Just how much money are they going to put in to try and recall 19 legally elected officials? And how much money are they going to force the state and ultimately, it's citizens taxpayers, to cough up to defend themselves? Yea, it's all about the children and only The Koch Brothers are doing this.
mickeysears 10 months ago
@mickeysears hell yeah mickey, i cant believe those liberal thugs threatening the LEGALLY ELECTED scott walker the greatest man to ever live. fuck the evil unions
chafenhimer 10 months ago
@mickeysears Irony. Walker's putting the burden on working families and not taxing corporations or the wealthy. Short term, there wasn't a budget problem until he gave tax breaks to corporations. It was also nice of him to give no bid contracts to the Koch brothers. Unions agreed to Walker's cuts, but not future bargaining rights. This will hurt both private and public sectors and the state. There isn't even an estate tax in Wisconsin anymore. The super rich get richer-- the majority get poorer.
donnyforte2 10 months ago 2
@donnyforte2 No this won't hurt both public and private sectors and the state. It will hurt the unions leadership. It will take away some of the power they wield over state politicians clamoring for campaign contributions. If you can't see that it's immoral that politicians decide the contracts of pubic union workers with tax payer money. And those same politicains then recieve contributions from those unions. And you think that doesn't hurt the state and the rest (85%) of it's citizens?
mickeysears 10 months ago
@mickeysears "some of the power they wield over state politicians clamoring for campaign contributions"
You realize 7 out of the top 10 campaign donors are right ring, yes? There's a reason why they want to target public unions- it's their only small competition. Money won here.
"And you think that doesn't hurt the state and the rest (85%) of it's citizens?"
Again, they agreed to Walker's cuts. They're taking a hit... when are the super wealthy and corporations gonna take a hit, hm?
donnyforte2 10 months ago 3
@donnyforte2 And when the rich and corporations "take their hit" as you say, and when they move out of the state because they don't really have to take a hit, just where is the employment going to come from? The Small business owner wouldn't be able to afford the tax burden after you gotten rid of the rich. Just look at New York. Didn't governor Patterson admit that very thing because of the millionairs tax. And didn't governor Cuomo get rid of that tax because the rich were moving?
mickeysears 10 months ago
@mickeysears "just where is the employment going to come from?"
Most of these corporations are outsourcing. You'd support the ones bringing jobs at home. And small businesses don't make that kind of dough.
donnyforte2 10 months ago 2
@donnyforte2 And the final sad fact you fail to consider is that a higher tax rate doesn't mean more revenue. It just pushes the money under ground. Small business owners start to do more cash business. Corproations get more tax subsidy to not move from the state and have layers of lawyers to show no income to pay no tax. The poor have no tax burden so again the only people you hurt are the people working and receive a regular paycheck. Your beloved middle class. thay end up with the burden.
mickeysears 10 months ago
@mickeysears "a higher tax rate doesn't mean more revenue"
Uhm, what? Yes it does. The estate tax hasn't been at 0% in Wisconsin long. In 2008 it was well above 70%.
"Small business owners"
I'm not talking about small business owners....
donnyforte2 10 months ago 3
@donnyforte2 By the way, If you try to tax the rich more than other states the corporations and rich will just move. What your don't see is that when that happens, the state will eventually have to make up that difference on the backs of the people that couldn't afford to move because they now have more expensive contracts. And since it would be immoral to tax the poor, it will fall on the middle class. The same poeple you say not taxing the rich hurts. Do you even see your folly?
mickeysears 10 months ago
@mickeysears "If you try to tax the rich more than other states the corporations and rich will just move"
Let the ones who want to move, move. They've already set themselves up with offshore bank accounts anyway. They're not paying shit.
"the state will eventually have to make up that difference"
I'd rather start all over than live in a country that supports socialism for the wealthy elite.
donnyforte2 10 months ago 3
@donnyforte2 : first you claim that "Koch produced the Tea Party" - now they are made mobile?
You just convinced me that you are just retards who take marching orders from MSNBC.
tooltalk 10 months ago
@tooltalk Making a movement mobile is the point is it not? It's not like Paulsy had a chance at it anyway.
"you are just retards who take marching orders from MSNBC."
Don't own a TV, bub. Sorry to bust your bubble.
donnyforte2 10 months ago
@donnyforte2 : it's just amazing how ignorant you libtard lemmings are.
Honey, unlike most libtards' monolithic mvt created by their power elite, then often dressed up as grassroot, the tp mvt is a true local, decentralized, grassroot mvt - all without elite leadership with high-ideal or grand vision. Likewise, Paul himself never tried to claim credit for starting the mvt, much less take control of the mvt - emphasizing that the mvt belongs to the folks at the bottom, not at the top.
tooltalk 10 months ago
@tooltalk "it's just amazing how ignorant you libtard lemmings are"
It's amazing you think I give a shit about how the Tea Party started and not what it is and what it promotes today. It's not like the alternative was any better.
donnyforte2 10 months ago
@donnyforte2 : And unlike your bullshit thesis, the point of the mvt has little to do with mobile, okie, libtard?
tooltalk 10 months ago
@tooltalk A movement in stagnation isn't much of a movement.
donnyforte2 10 months ago
@donnyforte2 : exactly. That's what modern liberalism is and has steadily declined since its peak in the sixties and won't survve the impending economi crisis this decade. Many have abandoned the ship and tried to appear as conservative (neoconservatives) or pro free market (neolIberals) to stay relevant, but their time is also running out.
shm224 10 months ago
@shm224 "and won't survve the impending economi crisis"
IT'S ARMAGEDDON! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! Boring.
"Many have abandoned the ship"
Many have abandoned your side as well. Big whoop.
donnyforte2 10 months ago
@donnyforte2 : Even Chomsky, of all people, has come out against the libtards' swindlers/propagandists effort to defame the mvt, born out of their tribal instinct for their political survival.
tooltalk 10 months ago